Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

2 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

have repeatedly confirmed, “the ultimate touchstone of the 
Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’ ”  Brigham City v. 
Stuart,  547  U. S.  398,  403  (2006).    We  have  defined  rea-
sonableness  “in  objective  terms  by  examining  the  totality 
of  the  circumstances,”  Ohio  v.  Robinette,  519  U. S.  33,  39 
(1996),  and  by  considering  “the  traditional  protections
against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  afforded  by 
the  common  law  at  the  time  of  the  framing,”  Atwater  v. 
Lago  Vista,  532  U. S.  318,  326  (2001)  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted).  When  traditional  protections  have  not
provided  a  definitive  answer,  our  precedents  have  “ana-
lyzed  a  search  or  seizure  in  light  of  traditional  standards
of  reasonableness  by  assessing,  on  the  one  hand,  the  de-
gree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and,
on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the pro-
motion  of  legitimate  governmental  interests.”    Virginia  v. 
Moore,  553  U. S.  164,  171  (2008)  (internal  quotation
marks omitted). 

Although  a  traffic  stop  “constitutes  a  ‘seizure’  of  ‘per-
sons’  within  the  meaning  of  [the  Fourth  Amendment],”
such  a  seizure  is  constitutionally  “reasonable  where  the
police  have  probable  cause  to  believe  that  a  traffic  viola-
tion has occurred.”  Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 
809–810 (1996).  But “a seizure that is lawful at its incep-
tion  can  violate  the  Fourth  Amendment  if  its  manner  of 
execution  unreasonably  infringes  interests  protected  by
the Constitution.”  Caballes, supra, at 407. 

Because Rodriguez does not dispute that Officer Struble
had  probable  cause  to  stop  him,  the  only  question  is 
whether  the  stop  was  otherwise  executed  in  a  reasonable 
manner.  See  Brief  for  Appellant  in  No.  13–1176  (CA8), 
p. 4, n. 2.  I easily conclude that it was.  Approximately 29
minutes  passed  from  the  time  Officer  Struble  stopped
Rodriguez  until  his  narcotics-detection  dog  alerted  to  the 
presence  of  drugs.    That  amount  of  time  is  hardly  out  of 
the ordinary for a traffic stop by a single officer of a vehi-