Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–9972 
_________________ 

DENNYS RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER v.

 UNITED STATES
 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 

[April 21, 2015] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  ALITO  joins,  and
with whom JUSTICE  KENNEDY joins as to all but Part III, 
dissenting. 

Ten years ago, we explained that “conducting a dog sniff
[does]  not  change  the  character  of  a  traffic  stop  that  is
lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reason-
able  manner.”    Illinois  v.  Caballes,  543  U. S.  405,  408 
(2005).  The  only  question  here  is  whether  an  officer  exe-
cuted  a  stop  in  a  reasonable  manner  when  he  waited  to
conduct  a  dog  sniff  until  after  he  had  given  the  driver  a
written  warning  and  a  backup  unit  had  arrived,  bringing 
the  overall  duration  of  the  stop  to  29  minutes.    Because 
the stop was reasonably executed, no Fourth  Amendment 
violation  occurred.    The  Court’s  holding  to  the  contrary
cannot  be  reconciled  with  our  decision  in  Caballes  or  a 
number of common police practices.  It was  also unneces-
sary,  as  the  officer  possessed  reasonable  suspicion  to 
continue  to  hold  the  driver  to  conduct  the  dog  sniff.  I 
respectfully dissent. 

I 
The  Fourth  Amendment  protects  “[t]he  right  of  the
people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and
effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures.”
U. S.  Const.,  Amdt.  4.    As  the  text  indicates,  and  as  we