Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 27

2 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

States  v.  Carpenter,  462  F.  3d  981,  986–987  (CA8  2006)
(finding  reasonable  suspicion  for  a  dog  sniff  based  on 
implausible  travel  plans  and  nervous  conduct);  United 
States v. Ludwig, 641 F. 3d 1243, 1248–1250 (CA10 2011) 
(finding reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff where, among 
other  things,  the  officer  smelled  “strong  masking  odors,” 
the  defendant’s  “account  of  his  travel  was  suspect,”  and 
the  defendant  “was  exceptionally  nervous  throughout  his 
encounter”).

Not  only  does  the  Court  reach  out  to  decide  a  question 
not  really  presented  by  the  facts  in  this  case,  but  the 
Court’s  answer  to  that  question  is  arbitrary.   The  Court 
refuses  to  address  the  real  Fourth  Amendment  question: 
whether  the  stop  was  unreasonably  prolonged.    Instead, 
the  Court  latches  onto  the  fact  that  Officer  Struble  deliv-
ered the warning prior to the dog sniff and proclaims that
the authority to detain based on a traffic stop ends when a
citation  or  warning  is  handed  over  to  the  driver.    The 
Court  thus  holds  that  the  Fourth  Amendment  was  vio- 
lated, not because of the length of the stop, but simply be-
cause  of  the  sequence  in  which  Officer  Struble  chose  to 
perform his tasks.

This  holding  is  not  only  arbitrary;  it  is  perverse  since 
Officer  Struble  chose  that  sequence  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting his own safety and possibly the safety of others. 
See  App.  71–72.    Without  prolonging  the  stop,  Officer
Struble could have conducted the dog sniff while one of the 
tasks that the Court regards as properly part of the traffic
stop  was  still  in  progress,  but  that  sequence  would  have
entailed  unnecessary  risk.    At  approximately  12:19  a.m.,
after  collecting  Pollman’s  driver’s  license,  Officer  Struble 
did two things.  He called in the information needed to do 
a  records  check  on  Pollman  (a  step  that  the  Court  recog-
nizes  was  properly  part  of  the  traffic  stop),  and  he  re-
quested  that  another  officer  report  to  the  scene.    Officer 
Struble  had  decided  to  perform  a  dog  sniff  but  did  not