Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

The  District  Court  adopted  the  Magistrate  Judge’s
factual  findings  and  legal  conclusions  and  denied  Rodri­
guez’s  motion  to  suppress.  The  court  noted  that,  in  the 
Eighth  Circuit,  “dog  sniffs  that  occur  within  a  short  time
following the completion of a traffic stop are not constitu­
tionally  prohibited  if  they  constitute  only  de  minimis
intrusions.”  App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander, 
448 F. 3d 1014, 1016 (CA8 2006)).  The court thus agreed 
with  the  Magistrate  Judge  that  the  “7  to  10  minutes”
added  to  the  stop  by  the  dog  sniff  “was  not  of  constitu­
tional significance.”  App. 114.  Impelled by that decision, 
Rodriguez  entered  a  conditional  guilty  plea  and  was  sen­
tenced to five years in prison.

The  Eighth  Circuit  affirmed.    The  “seven-  or  eight-
minute  delay”  in  this  case,  the  opinion  noted,  resembled
delays  that  the  court  had  previously  ranked  as  permissi­
ble.  741 F. 3d 905, 907 (2014).  The Court of Appeals thus
ruled  that  the  delay  here  constituted  an  acceptable  “de 
minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty.”  Id., at 
908.  Given  that  ruling,  the  court  declined  to  reach  the 
question  whether  Struble  had  reasonable  suspicion  to
continue  Rodriguez’s  detention  after  issuing  the  written 
warning.

We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower 

courts  on  the  question  whether  police  routinely  may  ex­
tend  an  otherwise-completed  traffic  stop,  absent  reason­
able suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff.  573 U. S. ___ 
(2014).  Compare, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 270 F. 3d 
625,  632  (CA8  2001)  (postcompletion  delay  of  “well  under 
ten minutes” permissible), with, e.g., State v.  Baker, 2010 
UT  18,  ¶13,  229  P. 3d  650,  658  (2010)  (“[W]ithout  addi­
tional  reasonable  suspicion,  the  officer  must  allow  the 
seized  person  to  depart  once  the  purpose  of  the  stop  has 
concluded.”).