Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

want  to  do  that  without  another  officer  present.  When 
occupants  of  a  vehicle  who  know  that  their  vehicle  con-
tains  a  large  amount  of  illegal  drugs  see  that  a  drug-
sniffing dog has alerted for the presence of drugs, they will 
almost certainly realize that the police will then proceed to
search  the  vehicle,  discover  the  drugs,  and  make  arrests.
Thus, it is reasonable for an officer to believe that an alert 
will increase the risk that the occupants of the vehicle will 
attempt  to  flee  or  perhaps  even  attack  the  officer.    See, 
e.g.,  United  States  v.  Dawdy,  46  F. 3d  1427,  1429  (CA8 
1995)  (recounting  scuffle  between  officer  and  defendant 
after drugs were discovered). 

In this case, Officer Struble was concerned that he was 
outnumbered  at  the  scene,  and  he  therefore  called  for 
backup and waited for the arrival of another officer before 
conducting  the  sniff.    As  a  result,  the  sniff  was  not  com-
pleted until seven or eight minutes after he delivered the
warning.  But  Officer  Struble  could  have  proceeded  with
the  dog  sniff  while  he  was  waiting  for  the  results  of  the
records  check  on  Pollman  and  before  the  arrival  of  the 
second  officer.  The  drug-sniffing  dog  was  present  in  Of-
ficer Struble’s car.  If he had chosen that riskier sequence 
of events, the dog sniff would have been completed before 
the point in time when, according to the Court’s analysis,
the authority to detain for the traffic stop ended.  Thus, an 
action  that  would  have  been  lawful  had  the  officer  made 
the  unreasonable  decision  to  risk  his  life  became  un-
lawful when the officer made the reasonable decision to wait 
a  few  minutes  for  backup.  Officer  Struble’s  error— 
apparently—was  following  prudent  procedures  motivated 
by legitimate safety concerns.  The Court’s holding there-
fore makes no practical sense.  And nothing in the Fourth
Amendment, which speaks of reasonableness, compels this 
arbitrary line.

The rule that the Court adopts  will do little good going