Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

III 
The  Magistrate  Judge  found  that  detention  for  the  dog 
sniff  in  this  case  was  not  independently  supported  by
individualized  suspicion,  see  App.  100,  and  the  District 
Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings, see id., at 
112–113.  The  Court  of  Appeals,  however,  did  not  review 
that determination.  But see post, at 1, 10–12 (THOMAS, J., 
dissenting) (resolving the issue, nevermind that the Court 
of  Appeals  left  it  unaddressed);  post,  at  1–2  (ALITO,  J., 
dissenting)  (upbraiding  the  Court  for  addressing  the  sole 
issue  decided  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  characterizing 
the  Court’s  answer  as  “unnecessary”  because  the  Court, 
instead, should have decided an issue the Court of Appeals 
did  not  decide).  The  question  whether  reasonable  suspi­
cion  of  criminal  activity  justified  detaining  Rodriguez 
beyond  completion  of  the  traffic  infraction  investigation, 
therefore,  remains  open  for  Eighth  Circuit  consideration 
on remand. 

* 

* 

* 

For  the  reasons  stated,  the  judgment  of  the  United 
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated,
and  the  case  is  remanded  for  further  proceedings  con­
sistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.