Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

smelled  an  “overwhelming  odor  of  air  freshener  coming 
from  the  vehicle,”  which  is,  in  his  experience,  “a  common 
attempt to conceal an odor that [people] don’t want . . . to 
be smelled by the police.”  App. 20–21.  He also observed, 
upon approaching the front window on the passenger side 
of  the  vehicle,  that  Rodriguez’s  passenger,  Scott  Pollman,
appeared  nervous.    Pollman  pulled  his  hat  down  low,
puffed  nervously  on  a  cigarette,  and  refused  to  make  eye 
contact with him.  The officer thought he was “more nerv-
ous  than  your  typical  passenger”  who  “do[esn’t]  have
anything  to  worry  about  because  [t]hey  didn’t  commit  a
[traffic] violation.”  Id., at 34. 

Officer  Struble’s  interactions  with  the  vehicle’s  occu-
pants only increased his suspicions.  When he asked Rod- 
riguez  why  he  had  driven  onto  the  shoulder,  Rodriguez 
claimed that he swerved to avoid a pothole.  But that story
could not be squared with Officer Struble’s observation of 
the vehicle slowly driving off the road before being jerked 
back  onto  it.  And  when  Officer  Struble  asked  Pollman 
where they were coming from and where they were going, 
Pollman  told  him  they  were  traveling  from  Omaha,  Ne-
braska,  back  to  Norfolk,  Nebraska,  after  looking  at  a
vehicle  they  were  considering  purchasing.    Pollman  told 
the officer that he had neither seen pictures of the vehicle
nor  confirmed  title  before  the  trip.    As  Officer  Struble 
explained,  it  “seemed  suspicious”  to  him  “to  drive  . . .
approximately two hours . . . late at night to see a vehicle 
sight unseen to possibly buy it,” id., at 26, and to go from
Norfolk  to  Omaha  to  look  at  it  because  “[u]sually  people
leave Omaha to go get vehicles, not the other way around” 
due to higher Omaha taxes, id., at 65. 

These facts, taken together, easily meet our standard for 
reasonable  suspicion.    “[N]ervous,  evasive  behavior  is  a
pertinent  factor  in  determining  reasonable  suspicion,” 
Illinois  v.  Wardlow,  528  U. S.  119,  124  (2000),  and  both
vehicle  occupants  were  engaged  in  such  conduct.    The