Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 19

6 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

decision in Caballes.  Caballes expressly anticipated that a 
traffic  stop  could  be  reasonably  prolonged  for  officers  to 
engage  in  a  dog  sniff.  We  explained  that  no  Fourth
Amendment violation had occurred in Caballes, where the 
“duration  of  the  stop  . . .  was  entirely  justified  by  the
traffic  offense  and  the ordinary  inquiries  incident  to  such
a  stop,”  but  suggested  a  different  result  might  attend  a 
case “involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unrea-
sonably  prolonged  traffic  stop.”    543  U. S.,  at  407–408 
(emphasis  added).    The  dividing  line  was  whether  the
overall duration of the stop exceeded “the time reasonably 
required to complete th[e] mission,” id., at 407, not, as the 
majority  suggests,  whether  the  duration  of  the  stop  “in 
fact”  exceeded  the  time  necessary  to  complete  the  traffic-
related inquiries, ante, at 8. 

The majority’s approach draws an artificial line between 
dog  sniffs  and  other  common  police  practices.    The  lower 
courts have routinely confirmed that warrant checks are a 
constitutionally permissible part of a traffic stop, see, e.g., 
United  States  v.  Simmons,  172  F. 3d  775,  778  (CA11 
1999);  United  States  v.  Mendez,  118  F. 3d  1426,  1429 
(CA10 1997); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F. 2d 431, 437 
(CA5  1993),  and  the  majority  confirms  that  it  finds  no
fault  in  these  measures,  ante,  at  6.  Yet  its  reasoning 
suggests the opposite.  Such warrant checks look more like 
they are directed to “detecting evidence of ordinary crimi-
nal  wrongdoing”  than  to  “ensuring  that  vehicles  on  the 
road  are  operated  safely  and  responsibly.”  Ante,  at  6 
(internal  quotation  marks  and  alteration  omitted).    Per-
haps one could argue that the existence of an outstanding 
warrant  might  make  a  driver  less  likely  to  operate  his 
vehicle  safely  and  responsibly  on  the  road,  but  the  same 
could  be  said  about  a  driver  in  possession  of  contraband.
A driver confronted by the police  in either case might try 
to flee or become violent toward the officer.  But under the 
majority’s analysis, a dog sniff, which is directed at uncov-