Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

the business.”  App. 70.

Nevertheless,  Struble  did  not  consider  Rodriguez  “free
to  leave.”  Id.,  at  69–70.  Although  justification  for  the 
traffic stop was “out of the way,” id., at 70, Struble asked 
for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle. 
Rodriguez  said  no.    Struble  then  instructed  Rodriguez  to
turn off the ignition, exit the vehicle, and stand in front of 
the  patrol  car  to  wait  for  the  second  officer.    Rodriguez 
complied.  At 12:33 a.m., a deputy sheriff arrived.  Struble 
retrieved  his  dog  and  led  him  twice  around  the  Moun­
taineer.  The dog alerted to the presence of drugs halfway
through  Struble’s  second  pass.  All  told,  seven  or  eight
minutes  had  elapsed  from  the  time  Struble  issued  the 
written  warning  until  the  dog  indicated  the  presence  of 
drugs.  A  search  of  the  vehicle  revealed  a  large  bag  of
methamphetamine.

Rodriguez  was  indicted  in  the  United  States  District 

Court for the District of Nebraska on one count of posses­
sion  with  intent  to  distribute  50  grams  or  more  of  meth­
amphetamine,  in  violation  of  21  U. S. C.  §§841(a)(1)  and 
(b)(1).  He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his 
car  on  the  ground,  among  others,  that  Struble  had  pro­
longed  the  traffic  stop  without  reasonable  suspicion  in 
order to conduct the dog sniff. 

After  receiving  evidence,  a  Magistrate  Judge  recom­
mended that the motion be denied.  The Magistrate Judge
found no probable cause to search the vehicle independent 
of the dog alert.  App. 100 (apart from “information given
by  the  dog,”  “Officer  Struble  had  [no]thing  other  than  a
rather large hunch”).  He further found that no reasonable 
suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the
written  warning.    He  concluded,  however,  that  under 
Eighth  Circuit  precedent,  extension  of  the  stop  by  “seven
to  eight  minutes”  for  the  dog  sniff  was  only  a  de  minimis 
intrusion  on  Rodriguez’s  Fourth  Amendment  rights  and
was therefore permissible.