Jan 232015
 January 23, 2015  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance, U.S.

Damon Root writes:

The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in the Fourth Amendment case Rodriguez v. United States. At issue is whether an officer “unnecessarily prolonged” an otherwise legal traffic stop when he called for backup in order to safely walk a drug-sniffing dog around the stopped vehicle. According to a previous Supreme Court ruling, the use of drug dogs during routine traffic stops poses no constitutional problems so long as the traffic stop is not “prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.”

According to Justice Department lawyer Ginger Anders, who argued yesterday in defense of the police, law enforcement is entitled to wide leeway when it comes to determining the amount of time that’s “reasonably required” to conduct traffic stops.

But that argument met with strong resistance from several members of the Court, particularly Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Read more on Reason.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.