Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

oral  argument  that  a  dog  sniff,  unlike  the  routine
measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a
traffic  stop.    See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  33.    Lacking  the  same
close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquir­
ies,  a  dog  sniff  is  not  fairly  characterized  as  part  of  the
officer’s traffic mission. 

In  advancing  its  de  minimis  rule,  the  Eighth  Circuit 
relied  heavily  on  our  decision  in  Pennsylvania  v.  Mimms, 
434  U. S.  106  (1977)  (per  curiam).  See  United  States  v. 
$404,905.00  in  U. S.  Currency,  182  F. 3d  643,  649  (CA8 
1999). 
In  Mimms,  we  reasoned  that  the  government’s 
“legitimate  and  weighty”  interest  in  officer  safety  out­
weighs  the  “de  minimis”  additional  intrusion  of  requiring
a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle.  434 
U. S., at 110–111.  See also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 
408,  413–415  (1997)  (passengers  may  be  required  to  exit 
vehicle  stopped  for  traffic  violation).    The  Eighth  Circuit, 
echoed  in  JUSTICE  THOMAS’s  dissent,  believed  that  the 
imposition  here  similarly  could  be  offset  by  the  Govern­
ment’s  “strong  interest  in  interdicting  the  flow  of  illegal 
drugs  along  the  nation’s  highways.”    $404,905.00  in  U. S. 
Currency, 182 F. 3d, at 649; see post, at 9. 

Unlike  a  general  interest  in  criminal  enforcement, 
however,  the  government’s  officer  safety  interest  stems 
from the mission of the stop itself.  Traffic stops are “espe­
cially fraught with danger to police officers,” Johnson, 555 
U. S.,  at  330  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted),  so  an 
officer  may  need  to  take  certain  negligibly  burdensome 
precautions  in  order  to  complete  his  mission  safely.    Cf. 
United  States  v.  Holt,  264  F. 3d  1215,  1221–1222  (CA10
2001) (en banc) (recognizing officer safety justification for 
criminal  record  and  outstanding  warrant  checks),  abro­
gated  on  other  grounds  as  recognized  in  United  States  v. 
Stewart,  473  F. 3d  1265,  1269  (CA10  2007).  On-scene 
investigation  into  other  crimes,  however,  detours  from
that mission.  See supra, at 6–7.  So too do safety precau­