The Supreme Court of the United States just took a huge step toward curbing racial profiling when it issued a decision holding that police cannot extend a routine traffic stop to search a vehicle, absent reasonable suspicion. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015). Illegal searches have traditionally had a disproportionate impact on non-white drivers. Although searches conducted without reasonable suspicion have always been illegal under the Fourth Amendment on paper, courts across the country have gradually whittled away the protection of the Fourth Amendment by creating a number of exceptions. One of the main exceptions courts have used to justify an illegal search is to determine that the search was a “de minimis” intrusion on the driver, or in other words, that the search was reasonable because it lasted only a few minutes.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Rodriguez held that a brief seven or eight minute detention is not a “de minimis” intrusion, providing a clear limit on what courts can rule is a “de minimis” intrusion. The Rodriguez decision may help to curb racial profiling because it will reduce the number of illegal searches, much less the convictions that result from the illegal searches–both of which are known to disproportionately impact non-white drivers.
In Rodriguez v. United States, an officer stopped Dennys Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder in violation of Nebraska traffic law. After the officer check Rodriguez’ driver’s license and issued him a warning, the officer asked Rodriguez for permission to search his vehicle. Rodriguez refused to consent to the search, so the officer detained Rodriguez until a second officer arrived. When the second officer arrived, the first officer retrieved his dog and conducted the search. The dog alerted the officer to methamphetamine and Rodriguez was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Only seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time the officer issued the written warning until the dog alerted the officer to the drugs.
Rodriguez was charged in federal court and sought to dismiss the case based on a Fourth Amendment violation of illegal search and seizure. Rodriguez’ motion to suppress the evidence was denied on the basis that a seven or eight minute intrusion was “de minimis” and not enough to constitute an illegal search. He pleaded guilty to federal drug charges and was sentenced to five years in prison. However, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the basis that being detained for seven or eight minutes so that officers could search his vehicle, without reasonable suspicion, was not a “de minimus” intrusion on his privacy.
The Court reasoned that the purpose of a routine traffic stop is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and the duration of the stop is limited to the steps necessary to address the traffic violation along with any attendant safety concerns. Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. Investigations beyond that connected with the traffic violation are allowed under the Fourth Amendment only if they do not go beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the traffic stop.
The Court determined that a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission and goes beyond what the Fourth Amendment would tolerate as a “de minimis” extension of time. The Court held:
A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ___, No. 12-9972 at 1 (2015) (internal citations omitted).
We should note that if Rodriguez had consented to the search during the stop, he would not have been able to suppress the evidence and his conviction would not have been overturned. In one of our previous posts, we recommended that you never, ever, consent to a search of your vehicle, regardless of what an officer tells you. The Rodriguez case here is a perfect example of why you should always refuse a search.
Read the full decision here Rodriguez v. United States.
43.038902
-87.906474