Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–9972 
_________________ 

DENNYS RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER v.

 UNITED STATES
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[April 21, 2015] 

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting. 
This  is  an  unnecessary,1  impractical,  and  arbitrary 
It  addresses  a  purely  hypothetical  question:
decision. 
whether  the  traffic  stop  in  this  case  would  be  unreason-
able if the police officer, prior to leading a drug-sniffing dog 
around  the  exterior  of  petitioner’s  car,  did  not  already
have  reasonable  suspicion  that  the  car  contained  drugs.
In  fact,  however,  the  police  officer  did  have  reasonable 
suspicion,  and,  as  a  result,  the  officer  was  justified  in
detaining the occupants for the short period of time (seven 
or eight minutes) that is at issue.

The  relevant  facts  are  not  in  dispute.  Officer  Struble, 
who  made  the  stop,  was  the  only  witness  at  the  suppres-
sion hearing, and his testimony about what happened was
not  challenged.  Defense  counsel  argued  that  the  facts
recounted by Officer Struble were insufficient to establish
reasonable  suspicion,  but  defense  counsel  did  not  dispute
those facts or attack the officer’s credibility.  Similarly, the
Magistrate  Judge  who  conducted  the  hearing  did  not 
question  the  officer’s  credibility. 
And  as  JUSTICE 
THOMAS’s  opinion  shows,  the  facts  recounted  by  Officer 
Struble  “easily  meet  our  standard  for  reasonable  suspi-
cion.”  Ante, at 11 (dissenting opinion); see also, e.g., United 

—————— 

1 See Brief in Opposition 11–14.