Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 22

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

The  majority  casually  tosses  this  distinction  aside.    It 
asserts that the traffic stop in this case, which was undis-
putedly  initiated  on  the  basis  of  probable  cause,  can  last
no  longer  than  is  in  fact  necessary  to  effectuate  the  mis-
sion  of  the  stop.    Ante,  at  8.  And,  it  assumes  that  the 
mission  of  the  stop  was  merely  to  write  a  traffic  ticket,
rather  than  to  consider  making  a  custodial  arrest.    Ante, 
at  5.  In  support  of  that  durational  requirement,  it  relies 
primarily on cases involving Terry stops.  See ante, at 5–7 
(citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323 (2009) (analyzing 
“stop  and  frisk”  of  passenger  in  a  vehicle  temporarily 
seized for a traffic violation); United States v. Sharpe, 470 
U. S. 675 (1985) (analyzing seizure of individuals based on 
suspicion  of  marijuana  trafficking);  Florida  v.  Royer,  460 
U. S.  491  (1983)  (plurality  opinion)  (analyzing  seizure  of
man  walking  through  airport  on  suspicion  of  narcotics
activity)). 

The only case involving a traffic stop based on probable
cause that the majority cites for its rule is Caballes.  But, 
that decision provides no support for today’s restructuring
of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.  In Caballes, the 
Court  made  clear  that,  in  the  context  of  a  traffic  stop
supported by probable cause, “a dog sniff would not change
the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception
and  otherwise  executed  in  a  reasonable  manner.”    543 
U. S.,  at  408.    To  be  sure,  the  dissent  in  Caballes  would 
have  “appl[ied]  Terry’s  reasonable-relation  test  . . .  to 
determine  whether  the  canine  sniff  impermissibly  ex-
panded the scope of the initially valid seizure of Caballes.” 
Id., at 420 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting).  But even it conceded 
that  the  Caballes  majority  had  “implicitly  [rejected]  the 
application  of  Terry  to  a  traffic  stop  converted,  by  calling 
in a dog, to a drug search.”  Id., at 421. 

By strictly limiting the tasks that define the durational 
scope  of  the  traffic  stop,  the  majority  accomplishes  today
what  the  Caballes  dissent  could  not:  strictly  limiting  the