Home / Badge Abuse / Supreme Court: Cops Can’t Violate 4th Amendment by Prolonging Traffic Stops to Wait for Drug Dogs

Supreme Court: Cops Can’t Violate 4th Amendment by Prolonging Traffic Stops to Wait for Drug Dogs

Cops-Can't-Stall-During-Traffic-Stops-to-Wait-for-Drug-Dogs

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police are not allowed to extend a citizen’s detention, during a normal traffic stop, while officers probe for evidence of crimes unrelated to the offense that prompted the initial stop.

In the case before the court, Rodriguez v. U.S., Dennys Rodriguez was given a warning for driving on the shoulder of the highway then forced to wait for almost 10 minutes as police awaited the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog.

After arriving at the scene, the dog alerted, and a subsequent search of the vehicle found methamphetamine.

The issue before the court was whether it was reasonable to extend Rodriguez’s detention on the side of the road for longer than needed to deal with the initial offense, absent reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer.

The court voted 6-3 in favor of Rodriguez, with the majority holding that the stop went beyond what was reasonable under the law and setting precedent for the entire country.

Prior to the decision, the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, following precedent, held that “extension of the stop… for the dog sniff was only a de minimus intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was, therefore, permissible.”

Penning the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, rebuked that contention, holding that detention of a person for any longer than it takes to deal with initial offense, even if only a few minutes, was improper.

“A traffic stop becomes unlawful if prolonged beyond the time in fact needed to complete all traffic-based inquiries,” Ginsburg said.

Police are typically allowed to inspect a driver’s license, ask for registration and proof of insurance and check for any outstanding warrants as all of those actions are geared towards ensuring that vehicles are safely operated, according to Ginsburg.

While “an officer…may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” Ginsburg held, “a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.”

“A dog sniff, unlike those stock inquiries, lacks the same tie to roadway safety,” said Ginsburg.

The decision doesn’t mean that Rodriguez will necessarily be in the clear though. His case will now be remanded back to the lower courts to consider whether police had a reasonable basis, outside of the traffic stop, to suspect Rodriguez of being engaged in drug activity.

The dissenting opinions in the 6-3 decision came from Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Hopefully the tide is beginning to turn, as potentially indicated by Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s skeptical comment’s regarding the sacrificing of the Fourth Amendment at the alter of law enforcement; made during oral arguments for this case back in January.

“We can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor stated. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.”

Although there seems to be a continual erosion of our constitutional rights, this time it appears that the Supreme Court has taken an approach that protects citizens from the arbitrary overreach of government.

Be sure to share this important information with everyone you know!!


Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.

  • They can’t violate the 4th Amendment and that is making the police state worse? Have you guys lost your minds today?

  • They can’t violate the 4th Amendment and that is making the police state worse? Have you guys lost your minds today?

  • Wow. So… 3 Supreme Court judges voted in favor of keeping people detained, to wait on drug sniffing dogs. I’d like to see one of them go through something like that and see how it feels.

    • The main thrust of the dissent was that the facts articulated PC for a search regardless of a K9 hit, rendering the question presented merely hypothetical and therefore moot

  • Wow. So… 3 Supreme Court judges voted in favor of keeping people detained, to wait on drug sniffing dogs. I’d like to see one of them go through something like that and see how it feels.

    • The main thrust of the dissent was that the facts articulated PC for a search regardless of a K9 hit, rendering the question presented merely hypothetical and therefore moot

  • They are no longer allowed to “call in a dog”. They must have it there on hand. In their pig like greed at the trough of society, expect more dogs to die in squad cars.

    • They can still call in a K9 they just need PC to do it

  • They are no longer allowed to “call in a dog”. They must have it there on hand. In their pig like greed at the trough of society, expect more dogs to die in squad cars.

    • They can still call in a K9 they just need PC to do it

  • Unconstitutional stop, illegal detainment and unlawful search. Where in the hell are the attorneys? oh ya no $$$ in it for them.

  • Unconstitutional stop, illegal detainment and unlawful search. Where in the hell are the attorneys? oh ya no $$$ in it for them.

  • i think someone needs to edit the post, this sounds like a good thing to me

    • Exactly. I glimpsed through the article and aren’t they saying that the cops are not allowed to keep someone around….

    • It goes deeper than that. Never mind the curtain.

  • i think someone needs to edit the post, this sounds like a good thing to me

    • Exactly. I glimpsed through the article and aren’t they saying that the cops are not allowed to keep someone around….

    • It goes deeper than that. Never mind the curtain.

  • What Constitution?

  • What Constitution?

  • “Although there seems to be a continual erosion of our constitutional rights, this time it appears that the Supreme Court has taken an approach that protects citizens from the arbitrary overreach of government.”

    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-supreme-court-rules/#mYgdAjviMJFlRYrD.99

    • I think it’s me but, Look at this title, every word in that sentence is wrong. Is there anyone else out there that see’s this?

    • The title is intentionally wrong, I think.

    • The erroneous title gets people to comment and in return helps to tilt the Facebook algorithm so more people see the post.

  • “Although there seems to be a continual erosion of our constitutional rights, this time it appears that the Supreme Court has taken an approach that protects citizens from the arbitrary overreach of government.”

    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-supreme-court-rules/#mYgdAjviMJFlRYrD.99

    • I think it’s me but, Look at this title, every word in that sentence is wrong. Is there anyone else out there that see’s this?

    • The title is intentionally wrong, I think.

    • The erroneous title gets people to comment and in return helps to tilt the Facebook algorithm so more people see the post.

  • This post makes me want to unsubscribe from freethought. The title is literally the opposite of what the court held. You just lost credibility in my eyes. You went from being a neutral reporter of issues concerning freedom and constitutional rights to Alex Jones in one post.

    • Maybe they goofed. Nobody’s perfect. You should maybe ask them if you think they did. This page does a lot of good for a lot of people.

    • Josh Kirkman If you’re profession is essentially journalism, you’re held to a hire standard of accuracy and truth. Oooops. Can you imagine if that was our standard of accountability in the world? Ooops, I goofed. Don’t worry. You only said the OPPOSITE of what you meant to. Get her next time. I don’t need to ask them, hey did you goof up, goofballs? lol. I and half of the people on here told them they screwed up.

    • The erroneous title gets people to comment and in return helps to tilt the Facebook algorithm so more people see the post. I believe the title is wrong intentionally for that reason.

    • Click bait. Nothing new for Facebook – or this page for that matter

    • It’s actually correct. Please read my comment above.

    • No, it’s not correct. The headline clearly implies this decision somehow made law enforcement “worse” when it in fact made it better. I’ve read your trite argument that just because they didn’t make a broad reversal of Caballes, it’s not worth anything. We can debate the merits of that (Caballes is one of the worst scotus decisions of modern times, imho), but you simply cannot argue that THIS decision, specifically, made anything “worse” for private citizens

    • This is the first time I’ve seen them make an error like this, I think this is simply just an error.

    • “Hate to break it to you guys, but the title is correct. If you read the actual written decision (I know, it’s tough), and apply a little critical thinking (I know, even tougher), you should be able to see that this was actually not a “win” for the fourth amendment, at least not in the way most people are thinking it is… Calm down, calm down, I’ll explain: SCOTUS did not find the arbitrary use of drug sniffing dogs, or any other method, to be in violation of the fourth amendment. They found that prolonging a traffic stop longer than necessary, whatever that means, is a violation. They stopped WAY short of finding the use of drug-sniffing dogs as being a fourth amendment violation, which, in essence, says that they’re okay.

      Picture this, you get pulled over (we’ve all been there) and while you sit there waiting for the officer to finish running your tags and collecting your complete life history (you know how long you sit there sometimes) his “partner” jumps out of the passenger’s side and commences to walk his dog around your car while doing the standard routine of getting the dog to false-hit. Meantime, his partner (the one who technically stopped you) is taking his sweet-ass time making his way to your window.

      Truth is, no K-9 “hit” should be admissable in court. That’s a violation of the sixth amendment (“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). “You’re honor I would like to ask Fido a couple of questions about why he chose that particular spot next to my car to sit down.” Nevermind the fact that the whole drug war is unconstitutional to begin with.” -James Damian Stewart

    • Deciding the constitutionality of K9 searches wasn’t presented to the court. The court can only make determinations on questions before it. You may not like the game, but you still have to play by the rules

    • Ordinarily, I wouldn’t split hairs however, since you were condescending, I have to point out that you are indeed wrong again. While I agree with your premise, your analysis is flawed. First, I did read it. Second, the issue presented to the court was not whether a drug sniffing dog is constitutional. That was held constitutional years ago. The issue presented is whether an officer needs independent suspicion mutually exclusive from the purpose of the traffic stop – assuming the stop was for a traffic violation and not something that would give rise to suspicion that drugs were in the car (like if smoke were billowing out of the vehicle). Granted, I agree with your analysis that drug dogs are unconstitutional. But, as you know, the court finds reasons to hold what it wants. Drug dogs would be crucial in the war on drugs. Anytime you have the fourth amendment being protected and not dismanted, you gain ground. This sets a precedent of protection. If you recall, US v. Place said that a dog sniff wasn’t even a search. Jardines said a sniff around the home did constitute a search. Before, a cop could say, I don’t need any suspicion to have the dog search. By the way, you can’t refuse. In effect, the court required reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal contraband before police can conduct a dog sniff on a vehicle pulled over for an unrelated traffic citation. It’s trifling to focus on the title. Thus, I agree with your analysis that drug sniffing dogs are unconstitutional.

  • This post makes me want to unsubscribe from freethought. The title is literally the opposite of what the court held. You just lost credibility in my eyes. You went from being a neutral reporter of issues concerning freedom and constitutional rights to Alex Jones in one post.

    • Maybe they goofed. Nobody’s perfect. You should maybe ask them if you think they did. This page does a lot of good for a lot of people.

    • Josh Kirkman If you’re profession is essentially journalism, you’re held to a hire standard of accuracy and truth. Oooops. Can you imagine if that was our standard of accountability in the world? Ooops, I goofed. Don’t worry. You only said the OPPOSITE of what you meant to. Get her next time. I don’t need to ask them, hey did you goof up, goofballs? lol. I and half of the people on here told them they screwed up.

    • The erroneous title gets people to comment and in return helps to tilt the Facebook algorithm so more people see the post. I believe the title is wrong intentionally for that reason.

    • Click bait. Nothing new for Facebook – or this page for that matter

    • It’s actually correct. Please read my comment above.

    • No, it’s not correct. The headline clearly implies this decision somehow made law enforcement “worse” when it in fact made it better. I’ve read your trite argument that just because they didn’t make a broad reversal of Caballes, it’s not worth anything. We can debate the merits of that (Caballes is one of the worst scotus decisions of modern times, imho), but you simply cannot argue that THIS decision, specifically, made anything “worse” for private citizens

    • This is the first time I’ve seen them make an error like this, I think this is simply just an error.

    • “Hate to break it to you guys, but the title is correct. If you read the actual written decision (I know, it’s tough), and apply a little critical thinking (I know, even tougher), you should be able to see that this was actually not a “win” for the fourth amendment, at least not in the way most people are thinking it is… Calm down, calm down, I’ll explain: SCOTUS did not find the arbitrary use of drug sniffing dogs, or any other method, to be in violation of the fourth amendment. They found that prolonging a traffic stop longer than necessary, whatever that means, is a violation. They stopped WAY short of finding the use of drug-sniffing dogs as being a fourth amendment violation, which, in essence, says that they’re okay.

      Picture this, you get pulled over (we’ve all been there) and while you sit there waiting for the officer to finish running your tags and collecting your complete life history (you know how long you sit there sometimes) his “partner” jumps out of the passenger’s side and commences to walk his dog around your car while doing the standard routine of getting the dog to false-hit. Meantime, his partner (the one who technically stopped you) is taking his sweet-ass time making his way to your window.

      Truth is, no K-9 “hit” should be admissable in court. That’s a violation of the sixth amendment (“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). “You’re honor I would like to ask Fido a couple of questions about why he chose that particular spot next to my car to sit down.” Nevermind the fact that the whole drug war is unconstitutional to begin with.” -James Damian Stewart

    • Deciding the constitutionality of K9 searches wasn’t presented to the court. The court can only make determinations on questions before it. You may not like the game, but you still have to play by the rules

    • Ordinarily, I wouldn’t split hairs however, since you were condescending, I have to point out that you are indeed wrong again. While I agree with your premise, your analysis is flawed. First, I did read it. Second, the issue presented to the court was not whether a drug sniffing dog is constitutional. That was held constitutional years ago. The issue presented is whether an officer needs independent suspicion mutually exclusive from the purpose of the traffic stop – assuming the stop was for a traffic violation and not something that would give rise to suspicion that drugs were in the car (like if smoke were billowing out of the vehicle). Granted, I agree with your analysis that drug dogs are unconstitutional. But, as you know, the court finds reasons to hold what it wants. Drug dogs would be crucial in the war on drugs. Anytime you have the fourth amendment being protected and not dismanted, you gain ground. This sets a precedent of protection. If you recall, US v. Place said that a dog sniff wasn’t even a search. Jardines said a sniff around the home did constitute a search. Before, a cop could say, I don’t need any suspicion to have the dog search. By the way, you can’t refuse. In effect, the court required reasonable suspicion that a search would reveal contraband before police can conduct a dog sniff on a vehicle pulled over for an unrelated traffic citation. It’s trifling to focus on the title. Thus, I agree with your analysis that drug sniffing dogs are unconstitutional.

  • Blah blah blah

  • Blah blah blah

  • Confused here.

  • Confused here.

  • Since when do cops obey the law?

  • Since when do cops obey the law?

  • ,,l,,_(-_-)_,,l,,

  • ,,l,,_(-_-)_,,l,,

  • Follow the money

  • Follow the money

  • Some rare good news.

  • Some rare good news.

  • WONDERFUL !!

  • WONDERFUL !!

  • Yet another violation of our rights so law enforcement can rake that $$$ in…

  • Yet another violation of our rights so law enforcement can rake that $$$ in…

  • Lulwut. Did you literally just copypasta the article without reading it? This is by no means a pro-cop ruling. You guys are seriously trending towards becoming a laughing stock

  • Lulwut. Did you literally just copypasta the article without reading it? This is by no means a pro-cop ruling. You guys are seriously trending towards becoming a laughing stock

  • Can we please make sure the COPS KNOW THIS???

    • The decision was actually published in April. So they should by now

    • You could tattoo it on their foreheads in reverse so they see it every time they look in a mirror and they would still “forget” it when they pull you over!

  • Can we please make sure the COPS KNOW THIS???

    • The decision was actually published in April. So they should by now

    • You could tattoo it on their foreheads in reverse so they see it every time they look in a mirror and they would still “forget” it when they pull you over!

  • Wtf? It’s a bullshit post?

  • Wtf? It’s a bullshit post?

  • I read it the other way, that this ruling limits the police in keeping you longer than they should.

  • I read it the other way, that this ruling limits the police in keeping you longer than they should.

  • “Just when you thought the police state couldn’t get much worse”? I think that’s a slight improvement unless I read it wrong.

  • “Just when you thought the police state couldn’t get much worse”? I think that’s a slight improvement unless I read it wrong.

  • Drug sniffing dogs should be outlawed for obtaining the right to search as they are easily manipulated by their handlers to react positively, as when they do they are rewarded and praised. Every dog just wants to please it’s guardian, also I think it is inhumane for cops to use dogs to do their work!

    • Cops have a perfect catch-22 in that the dogs sniff aren’t considered a “search” under the 4th amendment and therefore can’t be challenged, yet their “hits” are sufficient to establish PC for a search. That’s the issue that really needs to be addressed

  • Drug sniffing dogs should be outlawed for obtaining the right to search as they are easily manipulated by their handlers to react positively, as when they do they are rewarded and praised. Every dog just wants to please it’s guardian, also I think it is inhumane for cops to use dogs to do their work!

    • Cops have a perfect catch-22 in that the dogs sniff aren’t considered a “search” under the 4th amendment and therefore can’t be challenged, yet their “hits” are sufficient to establish PC for a search. That’s the issue that really needs to be addressed

  • This is an old post I think someone accidentally attatched the wrong article

  • This is an old post I think someone accidentally attatched the wrong article

  • When did Scalia start making liberal decisions. He used to be a hardcore police statist.

    • It’s sad that “a cop can’t detain you any longer than he needs to” is a radical stance these days :/

  • When did Scalia start making liberal decisions. He used to be a hardcore police statist.

    • It’s sad that “a cop can’t detain you any longer than he needs to” is a radical stance these days :/

  • Yeah, if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. They can and will do whatever they think they can get away with, up to and including putting a bullet into you.

  • Yeah, if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. They can and will do whatever they think they can get away with, up to and including putting a bullet into you.

  • Unsubscribed…I think I know a good amout of how fucked up this world is, and Im choosing not to subject myself to it on a daily basis.

  • Unsubscribed…I think I know a good amout of how fucked up this world is, and Im choosing not to subject myself to it on a daily basis.

  • Hate to break it to you guys, but the title is correct. If you read the actual written decision (I know, it’s tough), and apply a little critical thinking (I know, even tougher), you should be able to see that this was actually not a “win” for the fourth amendment, at least not in the way most people are thinking it is… Calm down, calm down, I’ll explain: SCOTUS did not find the arbitrary use of drug sniffing dogs, or any other method, to be in violation of the fourth amendment. They found that prolonging a traffic stop longer than necessary, whatever that means, is a violation. They stopped WAY short of finding the use of drug-sniffing dogs as being a fourth amendment violation, which, in essence, says that it’s okay.

    Picture this, you get pulled over (we’ve all been there) and while you sit there waiting for the officer to finish running your tags and collecting your complete life history (you know how long you sit there sometimes) his “partner” jumps out of the passenger’s side and commences to walk his dog around your car while doing the standard routine of getting the dog to false-hit. Meantime, his partner (the one who technically stopped you) is taking his sweet-ass time making his way to your window.

    Truth is, no K-9 “hit” should be admissable in court. That’s a violation of the sixth amendment (“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). “Your honor I would like to ask Fido a couple of questions about why he chose that particular spot next to my car to sit down.” Nevermind the fact that the whole drug war is unconstitutional to begin with.

    • Rodriguez never petitioned that, though. It was never on the table. His petition was limited to (and certiorari granted on) the specific question of whether the continued detention solely to allow a K9 to arrive was unconstitutional. In ruling that it was, scotus did make a clear anti-cop decision, just limited in scope by the question presented

    • Well said!!! Its just a matter of time and the people of constitutionality will win this war!!!

    • Johnny McGowan Agreed, and very limited in scope it was.

    • I read it properly

  • Hate to break it to you guys, but the title is correct. If you read the actual written decision (I know, it’s tough), and apply a little critical thinking (I know, even tougher), you should be able to see that this was actually not a “win” for the fourth amendment, at least not in the way most people are thinking it is… Calm down, calm down, I’ll explain: SCOTUS did not find the arbitrary use of drug sniffing dogs, or any other method, to be in violation of the fourth amendment. They found that prolonging a traffic stop longer than necessary, whatever that means, is a violation. They stopped WAY short of finding the use of drug-sniffing dogs as being a fourth amendment violation, which, in essence, says that it’s okay.

    Picture this, you get pulled over (we’ve all been there) and while you sit there waiting for the officer to finish running your tags and collecting your complete life history (you know how long you sit there sometimes) his “partner” jumps out of the passenger’s side and commences to walk his dog around your car while doing the standard routine of getting the dog to false-hit. Meantime, his partner (the one who technically stopped you) is taking his sweet-ass time making his way to your window.

    Truth is, no K-9 “hit” should be admissable in court. That’s a violation of the sixth amendment (“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him”). “Your honor I would like to ask Fido a couple of questions about why he chose that particular spot next to my car to sit down.” Nevermind the fact that the whole drug war is unconstitutional to begin with.

    • Rodriguez never petitioned that, though. It was never on the table. His petition was limited to (and certiorari granted on) the specific question of whether the continued detention solely to allow a K9 to arrive was unconstitutional. In ruling that it was, scotus did make a clear anti-cop decision, just limited in scope by the question presented

    • Well said!!! Its just a matter of time and the people of constitutionality will win this war!!!

    • Johnny McGowan Agreed, and very limited in scope it was.

    • I read it properly

  • I love the lie cops seem to state: My dog “keyed” which gives them the probable cause to hold one…when the dog didnt key on a dam thing.

  • I love the lie cops seem to state: My dog “keyed” which gives them the probable cause to hold one…when the dog didnt key on a dam thing.

  • What an awkwardly worded title

  • What an awkwardly worded title

  • Will Redd

  • Will Redd

  • Fuck the police state!

  • Fuck the police state!

  • Soon, they will be using trained lions to raid your homes! This is what other countries have done! Expect it!!!

  • Soon, they will be using trained lions to raid your homes! This is what other countries have done! Expect it!!!

  • The supreme court is not really supreme. Cops will think they aren’t violating your rights, but they still are, and you still have the right to defend yourself from violent behavior. It’s up to us to unite and let them know that they are wrong, and not accept such violent treatment from the state

  • The supreme court is not really supreme. Cops will think they aren’t violating your rights, but they still are, and you still have the right to defend yourself from violent behavior. It’s up to us to unite and let them know that they are wrong, and not accept such violent treatment from the state

  • This is a good thing….

  • This is a good thing….

  • Vanessa King, Corey Vadasz

    • Just when we thought it couldn’t get worse? I’m confused. I think the post is maybe a misprint.

    • I like the long comment a few spots down about asking fido in court why he chose a particular spot to sit down. Most 99.9% of those k9 guys do the false hit command anyways.

    • Yeah it’s worded weird but it’s good news. The Supreme Court ruled you can’t be detained on the side of the road forever waiting on a dog to show up.

  • Vanessa King, Corey Vadasz

    • Just when we thought it couldn’t get worse? I’m confused. I think the post is maybe a misprint.

    • I like the long comment a few spots down about asking fido in court why he chose a particular spot to sit down. Most 99.9% of those k9 guys do the false hit command anyways.

    • Yeah it’s worded weird but it’s good news. The Supreme Court ruled you can’t be detained on the side of the road forever waiting on a dog to show up.

  • Having a drug dog come and circle around your vehicle is a violation of your 4th Amendment right. They call it “A Free Air Sniff” but technically the dog is searching your vehicle for drugs without your consent.

    • I’m with you pal, unfortunately scotus isn’t with us

  • Having a drug dog come and circle around your vehicle is a violation of your 4th Amendment right. They call it “A Free Air Sniff” but technically the dog is searching your vehicle for drugs without your consent.

    • I’m with you pal, unfortunately scotus isn’t with us

  • Clay Sumlin

  • Clay Sumlin

  • Nice don’t let bs go to far

  • Nice don’t let bs go to far

  • But they will anyway they do what ever you want you can probly get out of it in then end but your still at their mercy and they still will arrest you and put you in jail until you pay for a lawyer to tell them WHT they did was illegal

  • But they will anyway they do what ever you want you can probly get out of it in then end but your still at their mercy and they still will arrest you and put you in jail until you pay for a lawyer to tell them WHT they did was illegal

  • The Supreme Court says that cops can prolong traffic stops to wait for drug dogs — and when cops do this they are not violating the 4th Amendment?

  • The Supreme Court says that cops can prolong traffic stops to wait for drug dogs — and when cops do this they are not violating the 4th Amendment?

  • Misleading caption.

  • Misleading caption.

  • How is this making the police state worse?? They ruled in favour of the civilian. Did you even read the article? This is a good ruling. It takes power away from the police. I don’t understand how you’re interpreting this.

  • How is this making the police state worse?? They ruled in favour of the civilian. Did you even read the article? This is a good ruling. It takes power away from the police. I don’t understand how you’re interpreting this.

  • yes.. the cops cant violate the 4th amendment and make you wait..

  • yes.. the cops cant violate the 4th amendment and make you wait..

  • That’s just great. Let the guy who is all jacked up on meth continue driving recklessly

    • No matter how dumb cops are I’m pretty sure they can identify that

  • That’s just great. Let the guy who is all jacked up on meth continue driving recklessly

    • No matter how dumb cops are I’m pretty sure they can identify that

  • “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 (Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)

  • “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 (Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)

  • Half the SCOTUS looks like this:

  • Half the SCOTUS looks like this:

  • Just when you think reading comprehension of the English language couldn’t get any worse . . .

  • Just when you think reading comprehension of the English language couldn’t get any worse . . .

  • There are many municipalities that use traffic stops on interstates driving through their jurisdiction to “search” the vehicle with a dog, which then leads to false arrests and the siezure of your property without cause or a warrant. Then when you pay up, they let you go, on foot. No charges.

  • There are many municipalities that use traffic stops on interstates driving through their jurisdiction to “search” the vehicle with a dog, which then leads to false arrests and the siezure of your property without cause or a warrant. Then when you pay up, they let you go, on foot. No charges.

  • Too bad piggys

  • Too bad piggys

  • So all my interview stops between 20-30 minutes are even more illegal? Great. Now to find a lawyer who wants traffic cases

  • So all my interview stops between 20-30 minutes are even more illegal? Great. Now to find a lawyer who wants traffic cases

  • While in high school a police dog “hit” on my vehicle, I was forced to unload thousands of dollars of band equipment in the rain in order for them to search my vehicle. I have never had any type of drugs in my vehicle.