Speak Outs
Speak Out
Can police prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search?

April 1, 2015

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

If you’re in a car that has been pulled over by the police, when does your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure come into play? How long should a traffic stop take before it become a violation of your rights? That is the question being reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rodriquez v. United States.

The Nebraska case started on March 27, 2012, when a car driven by Dennys Rodriguez drifted onto the shoulder, causing Officer Morgan Struble to pull him over to determine if Rodriguez was fit to drive.

Officer Struble was suspicious because he said that the car reeked of air freshener and that the driver and passenger seemed nervous and agitated. After a background check on Rodriguez turned up nothing, the officer returned to collect identification from Rodriguez’s passenger, Scott Pollman.

While running the background check on Pollman, the officer called for backup. Struble returned all documents to the car’s occupants, then asked if his drug-sniffing dog could walk around the car.

Rodriguez refused the request, and Struble, now with backup, asked the two men to get out of the car. The police dog alerted the officers to the presence of drugs, a large bag of methamphetamines, about eight minutes after Struble had given Rodriguez the written warning.

During his trial, Rodriguez’s attorneys moved to have the evidence suppressed, arguing that the search happened after the conclusion of the traffic stop, a violation of his Fourth Amendment right.

The court denied Rodriguez’s request, so his attorneys appealed to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court also ruled that the search was constitutional.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in late January 2015.

The justices seemed to be primarily interested in the timing of the search. Questioning Shannon P. O’Connor, Rodriguez’s attorney, the justices asked if a traffic stop ended when the officer handed over the warning or ticket. O’Connor agreed. Finding this troubling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “Well, then the police can just say, ‘I’m going to defer that a few minutes until the dog sniff occurs.’ It just seems that you’re not going to accomplish any protection for individuals if that’s your position, that it was just a question of when you do it.”

Other justices questioned whether it would become routine to conduct a dog sniff during any traffic stop, meaning that the police would not hand over the ticket until the search was concluded, which could be any amount of time.

Justice Antonin Scalia said: “The stopping officer says, ‘I’m done. I got my ticket here. It’s all written out. However, before I give it to you, I want to have a dog sniff, I’m going to call headquarters. They’re going to send out a dog. It’s going to take maybe 45 minutes. You just sit there because the traffic stop is not terminated until I give you your ticket.’”

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the court follow its previous rulings and say that a traffic stop “cannot last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop” and that it can’t be “unnecessarily prolonged.”

The Justice Department attorney, Ginger Anders, said the police should have some leeway on traffic stops, including prolonging them for reasons that included officer safety. Anders said dog sniffs should require probable cause. But she argued that a dog search isn’t unreasonable because it prolongs a traffic stop for an “incremental amount of time.”

Update, April 21, 2015: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the officers did need a warrant when they conducted the search with the drug-sniffing dog after a traffic stop. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority: "Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures." 

What do you think?

Should police be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search? Was Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment right violated? When does a traffic stop end? When the officer hands over the warning or ticket or when the officer gives the driver permission to leave? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
10/9/2018
murrieta ca
azim smith
mr.jabro/mca
officers should not be able to have a dog search your personal things depending on the situations

5/3/2018
Magnolia/Texas
Cameron
Metzger/Magnolia West High
I believe that this traffic stop in particular was a good seizure. My opinion is solely based on the story line, I believe the officers were truly trying their best to do their job. Whether it was completely constitutional, I'm not sure of. Where this becomes a problem is when officers abuse the power given to them, and if given the power to do so, most will. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. These officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause, but if not monitored carefully, officers can make up reasons to search innocent citizens and then it becomes unconstitutional. The 4th amendment must be fully protected and reserved to the citizens of America.

5/3/2018
leslie
leslie
jabro/mca
the cops should search only if it is a reasonable suspicion and bring the sniff dog out to make sure. this is not a case of them abusing power

4/12/2018
Murrieta/CA
Megan
Jabro/MCA
The dog search should be allowed if the officer thinks it is reasonable. For example, this officer felt the need to bring a dog based tthe situation, and her suspicion turned out to be valid. Therefore, she was able to keep those methamphetamines off the streets. In other words, I don't think we need to force our officers to give solid reasoning for a search. Clearly they are more able to analyze these situations than us.

3/13/2018
Murrieta
Jonathan
Jabro
Yes if they have reason to use the dog they have the right to do so because that is their job to make sure everyone is safe and it may be an annoyance but they are just people doing their job just like how even if it’s annoying to do something at work you have to because that is your job same goes for cops.

11/27/2017
murrieta
Parker Belle
MCA Jabro
Yes even though its anoying and waste our time they should be able to and it would most likly lead to less poeple drininking and driving or having other band stubtaces in there cars

10/23/2017
Murrieta CA
austin
JABRO MCA
The cops should not be able to search unless you are very suspcisious. Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment right was viloated because you don't have to answer anything you don't want to. The traffic stop ends when the officer hands over the warning or ticket and gives the driver permission to leave. end of story.

10/20/2017
Murrieta Ca
Justin
Jabro/MCA
Police should not hold people longer than they have to, especially after already issuing a ticket. Its unconstitutional as well because amendment 4 protects you from unreasonable searches .

10/20/2017
Murrieta/CA
Kiara
Jabro/MCA
Police should not be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search because its unnecessary and prone to abuse and discrimination. Rodriguez's 4th Amendment was violated. A traffic stop ends when they hand you the ticket.

10/18/2017
murrieta ca
kendall
jabro
i think they shouldnt be able to stop traffic to wait for a dog if they think its something that big they should pull them to the side and deal with it there but they also shouldnt make anyone wait for a ridiculous time.

10/18/2017
murrieta ca
jaydee
jabro/mca
no they shouldn't because that is a violation of their rights and just because of a ticket they shouldnt be able to search your car. Yes his rights were violated. A traffic stop ends once he hands you the ticket cause obviously he's done at that point.

10/18/2017
Murrieta/CA
Dalen
Jabro/MCA
I think that police should have the right to conduct a dog search if the person allows them to. I also believe they should be allowed if they have a good reason of suspicion because in the long run it may stop a cime. However i do not think they should conduct one at a traffic stop. They should move off to the side of the road.

10/16/2017
murrieta
porsha
mr.jabro/mca
i dont think officers should be able to have a dog search your personal things depending on the situations

10/16/2017
murrieta
soph
jabro
I think that police officers should not have the right to conduct a dog search because it holds up traffic in places that are busy.

10/13/2017
Murrieta
Allyssa
Jabro/MCA
I don't believe that a police officer should be able to do a K-9 search after giving a ticket. There should only be a K-9 search if there are problems or they run into an issue. But in this case, I think it was okay to get a K-9 to his car.

10/5/2017
Montana
Peytan
North Star
I believe that police have the right to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search, especially if the driver and passengers are suspicious. I understand the Fourth Amendment and how people have the right against unreasonable search and seizure, but in this case it wasn't unreasonable. The police had a reason to search the vehicle and they were right to do so, because they found something. I don't think its right for police to pull you over and search you or your vehicle for o reason, but if there is a reckless driver, or a suspicion a police officer has for a certain person, I think it would be okay to stop and search.

5/17/2017
Magnolia, Texas
Hunter D'Arcy
Magnolia West High School
I do not believe that the dog search was constitutional, because it was after the officer had already given them their warning so I think that's when the traffic stop being conducted was finished and the driver should have been allowed to be on his way.

4/19/2017
murrieta
zoe maldonado
Jabro MCA
I think that they should not be able to hold you untill the dog gets there. They should be able to check the vehicle themselves but to have someone wait seems unfair. Especially if they stop the person just because he/she looks "suspicious". The only way they should be able to hold the person is if they think they saw him/her with the drug. Like if they have a file on the person then it would be okay.

3/16/2017
Murrieta/California
Lauryn
Mr.Jabro/Murrieta Canyon Academy
Of course you cant predict every situation and how its going to end up. This question has no direct answer if the cop doesn't notice something suspicious until after the ticket then does he let it go just because he already finished his initial search. Rodriguez did have his fourth amendment right violated simple because there was only suspicion no reason . The officer is not a doctor and could not actually determine whether the men were under any influence . A traffic stop ends when the officer has issued a ticket if any and when the driver is within legal standing to leave.

3/8/2017
Murrieta, California
Zachary
Mr. Jabro
Yes, I feel that even after a traffic stop has ended, if there is probable cause, that they should be detained, I feel there would be many abuses if the officer was only limited the the amount of time a traffic stop could take. No, I feel his fourth amendment right was properly observed, and that his arrest had probably cause, and was not unjustified. The traffic stop should only when when the officer safely disengages from the detainee, and specifically states that they can leave.

1/17/2017
Murrieta, Ca
Chandler
Mr. Jabro/ MCA
A traffic stop should not end until the officer that pulled the person over says its finished. If a person gives an officer the notion that there needs to be a search, then that person needs to be patient and wait. Police Officers are only doing their job and trying to protect those that abide by the law. I think Fourth Amendment should only go into effect if there is absolutely no reason for a search, but if an officer suspects something illegal, it's that officers right to call in a search dog.

11/29/2016
Murrieta / CA
Matthew
Mr.Jabro / MCA
No i do not think that an officer should have a K-9 search your vehicle after issuing a ticket. I believe that the officer should only conduct a K-9 search if there is probable cause to. In this case it was completely fine to get a K-9 unit to the car.

11/29/2016
Murrieta
Evans Samus
Mr. Jabro, MCA
No, I don't think police officers should be allowed to make a dog search while a traffic stop because its invasion of privacy. I think it should be appropriate only if they are looking for a certain person and the know for sure the person is there.

11/18/2016
Murrieta
Jabril
Mr.Jabro, MCA
No i do not believe officers should be able to conduct a K-9 search when in a traffic stop because unless they suspect there are narcotics involved that is an invasion of privacy.

11/17/2016
Murrieta
Omar Mata
Mr.Jabro
no i do not believe that police officers should conduct a search when pulling over some one in a traffic stop because that is a compete violation of the person privacy and there is no need to conduct a search

11/16/2016
Murrieta/CA
Bryson
Mr.Jabro/Canyon Acadmia
Yes, if it is of reasonable suspicion, it is justified besides it requires no warrant and its no harm done if there really was nothing wrong, other than tolled time.

11/15/2016
california
river
mr.jabro
the officer should have probable cause due to poor driving by dennys rodriguez, drifting off into the shoulder. also with the the car having a really strong odor, a dog sniff might be the best solution.

11/15/2016
Murrieta, California
Maurice
Mr. Jabro MCA
An officers way of doing his / her work would seem off to most people due to the current light shed on police brutality. Though not all cops abuse their power, this is not one of the cases. Since the officer had to wait for the dog to come it wasn't prolonged for no reason. Without the dog the meth would not have been found.

11/14/2016
california
Sonny Martinez
Mr.Jabro MCA
police are allowed to do this if they have probable cause or if they notice suspicious activity with a suspect if they strongly believe that a suspect may or may not have drugs, weapons or other harmful items a k-9 unit would be allowed to have a full positive check on the vehicle and suspect so yes police do have this right to bring out the k0-9 if they wish

9/25/2016
Elk Grove, CA
Rendan
Horizon Charter School
THE GUY HAD METH IN HIS CAR!!!!! Does that mean nothing to you? Besides, the cop did have reasonable cause, the people were acting very suspicious and the air was reeking of air freshener... Dennys Rodriquez is obviously not a good, upstanding citizen if he is selling meth. He should go to prison for having meth in his possession.

5/16/2016
Murrieta/CA
Nathaniel
Mr. Jabro/ Creekside High School
Policw should be able to detain someone if they feel that their driving or some other action theyre doing could be in harm to the public or to the people around them. His 4th right was not violated in my opinion. A traffic stop ends when the police officer gives you the permission to leave said traffic stop, after he is done with everything that he needed to ask you.

3/22/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Jullian
Mr.Hanna/SJHS
I believe that police should be able to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search. I believe this because the people may make you late to work because the police are doing a extra search but that search may save your life. That is why I believe this.

3/18/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Asia H.
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Giving a person a ticket is not a problem, but once you conduct an illegal drug search in the citizen's vehicle there is a problem. Once you place the ticket in the citizen's hand, the traffic stop should be over; for there is nothing else to do. Not only did the officer not have a warrant but he did not have any support evidence whatsoever to conduct the search. Thus, leaving me to state that Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment was in fact violated due to the fact that the fourth amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...". As I have stated before, a warrant was not issued, therefore the search should have not happened. The request for a background check was unneeded being that the ticket was already written. In conclusion, I do believe that Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment was violated, and I do agree with his lawyer when stating that evidence from the car should not be used since the search was illegal.

3/18/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Joe A
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg JHS
I think at most the traffic stop could be an hour. The police are doing their job if that cop would have let them go they probably would have sold the meth that day. The are just looking out for everyone's wellbeing.

3/18/2016
Stroudsburg Pennsylvania
Nandee C
Mr. Hana Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that Rodrigez's fourth amendment right was violated, Pollman had no right to prolong the traffic stop even though it turned out he did have drugs in his car. After he was given the the license and registration he should have let Rodrigez go. When Pollman stayed to do another backround check it became harassment. Police should have to ha e a warrant to search someone's car just like they do when searching a house. I agree with Rodrigez's lawyers in saying that no evidence from the car should be used.

3/17/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Manny
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
The right to search someone's car after giving he/she a ticket is not fair to the driver. Giving the ticket is not the problem, it is just that if the policeman has already done what he had to do there is no reason to harassing the person who has already been ticketed. Which, is why Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment was violated as the policeman had already ticketed him for his violation and there was nothing more the policeman had to do. A traffic stop should end shortly after a ticket is issued, not 45 minutes after because the policeman is calling for a drug-search dog. Meaning that it would be after the officer hands the warning or ticket, not when the driver is given permission to leave.

3/17/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Basil
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that the police should not be able to detain someone and search them after presenting them with a ticket because he violated the property of the driver without having permission from his/hers superiors. Rodriguez's Forth Amendment was violated by the police officer just because Rodriguez seemed suspicious. A traffic stop should only last 15 minutes at most so the officer has time to check his system, give the ticket, and REPORT any suspicious activity not take action and end when the officer gives the ticket (People have lives).

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Luke B
Me Hannah/ SJHS
I believe cops have no right to search your car after they give you a ticket. They have already given you a ticket, why should you wait any longer for them to search your car. I think Rodriguez's 4th Amendment was violated. He was unreasonable searched which is a violation to the Amendment, and he was pulled over for too long. A traffic stop should be no more then five minutes and should be dismissed only when you have permission too leave.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg PA
Havanah
Mr.Hanna/stroudsburg
I Belive that cops have no right to have a dog search you unless you have criminal recoreds or are very suspicious. We have right to our privacy and they should have backup to why they need the dog to search us. They should not waste our time because we had done nothing wrong so they should leave us alone.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Michael
Mr. Hanna/ SJH
The police have no right to search for no reason. If nothing is wrong they should just let them go. But if they have criminal records and warrants, maybe it would be okay. Other wise, there's no right to.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, pa
Austin
Mr hanna/ Stroudsburg jhs
I feel like the police have no right in doing that if they did not doing anything wrong or anything on there record. I feel like the police need to focus on people doing wrong and not focus so much in trafic.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg/PA
Saige
Mr. Hanna/SJH
I believe that the police had NO right of calling back up and a police dog. If the person doesn't have any past criminal or anything illegal on their license they should be okay to go. The police officers were just holding people up for no reason. It's a waste of their time and there could of been other people out there doing illegal things but instead they searched a persons car which had nothing.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg/Pennsylvania
Gabriella L
Mr.Hanna/JHS
I believe that if an officer has a reason to conduct a dog search it should be allowed. I believe this because if they have a reason to search your car then they might be endangering the community or area in which they live. Nobody should be randomly pulled over, they should only be pulled over if there is something obviously suspicious

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Chase
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I feel that the police were doing the right thing in detaining them because if it is for the safety of other drivers and the people they were bringing the drugs to, then it is absolutely legitimate for arrest. I feel that Rodriguez Fourth Amendment right was violated because the cops made her wait and searched her entire car for drugs. I say a traffic stop should end when the police say they're done.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Russell
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
The police had no right to issue a search of the vehicle. There was no tangible evidence, nor did the police have authorization to check the vehicle. Although methamphetamines were present in vehicle, rights were violated during the situation.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Rory
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that this is completely violating the Fourth Amemenment. I understand the cops point of view that they had reason to believe that these people had drugs, but what if they dont? You stopped traffic and wasted a bunch of people's time and then you were wrong. This is the same thing as the police entering a house without a permit, because it smells like air freshener.

3/15/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Rory
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that this is completely violating the Fourth Amemenment. I understand the cops point of view that they had reason to believe that these people had drugs, but what if they dont? You stopped traffic and wasted a bunch of people's time and then you were wrong. This is the same thing as the police entering a house without a permit, because it smells like aor freshener.

3/14/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Ryan Lowe
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that police should not be able to issue a search of someone's vehicle after a traffic stops. The only way I see an officer doing this with out any harm to the person mentally is if they check the license number an see that this individual has past offenses with the law and was arrested for weapon or drug possession. At that point I would be ok with a search of the car.

3/4/2016
Murrieta/California
McKenzie
Jabro/Creekside High school
I believe that if a policeman has a reason to conduct a dog search that it would be appropriate to pull that one person over. Not everyone should be stopped in traffic because of someone who looks suspicious and looks like they have something on them. If theres a fersure chance of something illegal then go for it.

2/25/2016
Murrieta, CA
Kameo
Jabro/Creekside
It is not right. I believe that you either go on consent or have a warrant to search, with or without a dog. It violates you rights to privacy. I don't think that a police man can prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search. It's not right.

1/26/2016
murrieta, CA
casey h.
mr.Jabro
no thats not right at all, I mean unless you got pulled over during a traffic stop and they found or smelt drugs on you or if something is obviously wrong with you like under the influence or something but besides that, cops cant just look at you during a traffic stop and for some reason not like you so he conducts a dog search randomly, NO. I would not let that happen, it doesnt seem right.

12/11/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
UriahP.4
Wong/Lorbeer
In this case I believe the police didn't have the right to prolong a traffic stop to call in a dog search. The reason for this is because, Rodriguez's fourth amendment was violated, because the forth amendment states that police can't do searches and seizures without a warrant, therefore the police did violate Rodriguez's rights. Even though the police did tell something was going on, the police would still need a warrant to be able to search, because if not then it's considered illegal. When the officer gave the driver a ticket, that still wouldn't allow the police to be able to search the car.

12/10/2015
Pomona/California
Monica/ 5th
Wong/Lorbeer
There are many cases where the dog searches would be necessary but, during a traffic stop? It wouldn't be fair for all the people waiting to go to their destinations just to wait for backup for a "crime" that may not be serious. Furthermore, Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment right was violated because he refused for the officer to search his car but, the officer went ahead anyway. If the officer does call in backup, everyone in the cars behind them will also have to wait and many of those people have work or a home to return to.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
JosephP4
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that police do not have the right to prolong a traffic stop because Amendment 4 protects the citizens from unreasonable searches. Amendment 4 states that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." This means that the police cannot look through their papers, house, and through anything that belongs to them. Even though the police had suspicions about Dennys Rodriguez they still could not search him. When the police asked if they could have the dog sniff the car Dennys said no, but they still searched it. They should have had a warrant if they wanted to search the car. By doing that they violated the 4th Amendment.

12/10/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
LongP1
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that police have the right to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search as they should only be allowed to conduct the search under reasonable searches and seizures. Stated in Amendment 4, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," Such as in the Nebraskan case the police smelled a strong scent of air freshener as the drivers and passengers of the car began to act funny. This had given the police a reasonable right to search the car even though the driver had came up clean in their records. The police are just doing their job to protect and serve the people.

12/9/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
BrianP5
Wong/Lorbeer
It depends on how you were detained. You could either be waiting voluntarily or actually being forced to wait. But in Rodriguez and Pollman's case, they were forced to stay. Sure the officer had a suspicion of an illegal substance, but they must always have a warrant no matter what the situation is. Plus, Rodriguez refused to let the officer search the car when the officer asked but he still observed Rodriguez's car anyway. Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was indeed violated. A traffic stop ends when the officer gives you permission to go.

12/6/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
ZaydaP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that the police can delay someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search, because after all they are trying to do their job, which is to protect the people. Concerning the Nebraska case, involving Dennys Rodriguez and Scott Pollman, Officer Struble did his job by pulling them over. Also by having the drug-sniffing dog walk around the car they were able to find a bag of methamphetamines. In addition, Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment was not violated, because the search was reasonable. The reason being is because the car had a strong smell of air freshener and both Dennys and Scott seemed shaky and flustered.

12/4/2015
Watertown Massachusetts
Robert
Mr. Rimas/Watertown High School
No, police should not be able to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search. I understand the police officer had reasonable suspicion, but the officer had already dealt with everything regarding the traffic stop. He asked Rodriguez if the drug-sniffing dog could walk around the car, but Rodriguez refused the request. That should have been it. The officer had no warrant to search the car, but did so anyway, completely ignoring Rodriguez's refusal to do so. By doing so, the officer violated his 4th Amendment right.

12/4/2015
Murrieta/California
Khedar Chuck Jones
Jabro/Creekside high school
Police should NOT be able to conduct a search after issuing a ticket or to be able to do a search when they like. It does violate his 4th Amendment right because he doesn't have to say anything or answer to anything he doesn't want to, and after that first issue is resolved, he should be able to go/leave.

12/4/2015
Watertown/MA
Farid
Rimas
No, what if i am late for work? Are they going to pay me back my hours i missed? No they should not.

12/3/2015
Diamond Bar, CA
JoshP5
Wong/Lorbeer
I believe that the police can prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search because they are just doing their job - keeping people safe. In the Nebraska case, involving Dennys Rodriguez and Scott Pollman, the policeman was just doing his job by stopping their car to search them. In doing so, he found a large bag of methamphetamine. Even though some people might be late for work, the common safety of the people is the number one priority.

11/25/2015
Diamond Bar,CA
JustinP.1
Wong/Lorbeer
In some cases, dog searches can be used. However, if you are being pulled over for a random dog search, it would waste your time and delay getting to your destination. An agitated person would probably be either a drug user, or a person whos late for work. Officers should only be able to do a quick test to see if the driver is alert and able to drive.

11/5/2015
Murrieta,CA
Casey H.
Mr.Jabro
NO!! Police should NOT be able to conduct a search after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop. Police should only be able to do that kind of random search if the driver is wasted, has a weapon on him, or if their is drugs or weapons in site of the officer. His right was violated. A traffic stop should be fast and simple. now unless the driver is obviously drunk or on drugs then go for it. In my opinion, NO one should be violated of their rights. especially when it comes to the fourth amendment.

10/15/2015
Murrieta
Jacob S.
Mr.Jabro/Creekside Highschool
If the ticket was already written then the driver should have been given it and was off but if the officer did suspect thst anything is off then he can search the car with a dog. but before the dog search can get there he should have redirect traffic so it can be safer for the officer and the dog

9/30/2015
Murrieta CA
McKenzie Milligan
Jabro, Creekside High School
I believe that cops should be able to do a search when they like if someone is going to be in danger by a citizen. Rodriguez's fourth amendment right was not violated. A traffic stop ends after they give you a ticket. A person should be able to leave when a cop says its okay to leave under the right circumstances.

9/25/2015
Sidney MT
Rian
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe that if a police officer has probable cause to conduct a dog search that they should have the right to do so. In this case, there was probable cause to conduct a dog search and the people were found to be guilty. However, the traffic stop is concluded when an officer returns information and issues a ticket. The officer should have waited to issue the ticket until after the dog search was conducted. A question that I am curious about, was a warrant received? Since Rodriguez denied a dog search, a search warrant must have be granted to conduct the search in accordance with the fourth amendment. In the end the police did the correct thing and Rodriguez was charged and convicted as should have been.

9/25/2015
Sidney, MT
Devon
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
A traffic stop is not over until the officer says it is over. It is not standard procedure for an office to issue a search after issuing a ticket. However, an officer may do so if he or she wishes to do so. They can prolong a stop if they have a reason to do so, such as suspicious behavior. The officer had reason to search the vehicle due to the passenger’s actions. Mr. Rodriguez’s right to privacy may or may not have been violated. I’m not sure if the officer received a telephonic warrant. If the officer did receive such a warrant, then Mr. Rodriguez’s rights would not have been violated. If the officer did not receive a warrant, then he should have impounded the vehicle until a warrant was issued.

9/24/2015
sidney, MT
Larren
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney high school
No, police cannot prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search. My reasoning’s are because for example, the police officers returned everything back to the two gentlemen and then asked if he could use a police dog to sniff. If the police officer would’ve asked before returning there information to use the dogs, then that would’ve been fine, if the police officers don’t take an unreasonable amount of time with the information or waiting for the dog. Also, being stopped by police officers can make someone nervous so that shouldn’t count as reasonable suspicion. And Rodriguez told the officer that he didn’t want them to search his car with the dogs. If the police wanted to still do so afterwards, they should have gotten a warrant.

9/24/2015
Sidney, MT
Kasey
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe police have the right to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search under appropriate circumstances. The negative believes that it is a violation of the 4th amendment but that would only be so to unreasonably search any citizen. Police already have criteria to fill in order to search at all and if they fill that criteria, I believe they can search to the fullest extent. I think in Mr. Ramirez situation the police lacked evidence to search in the first place and their findings could potentially be thrown out. Actual incriminating or viable reason to search could include consent, plain view, search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, automobile exception, or hot pursuit. Suspicion of dangerous and illegal materials should be followed through regardless of the time it takes. If a dog search is what best instills the safety of citizens and that citizen themselves, it should be enacted under reasonable causes.

9/23/2015
Sidney, MT
Tess
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe a police officer does not have the right to prolong a traffic stop for a dog search unless it is the intended purpose for the stop. For example, if someone was breaking the law by speeding, they will be pulled over for violating the speed limit nothing extra. Once the officer hands them the ticket or warning, they are free to go. Rodriquez’s Fourth Amendment right was violated because the police officer did not issue a warrant to search the vehicle. The negative side could use that fact that not everyone who is pulled over and acts agitated is a drug user. Some people don’t handle the process of being pulled over very well. An earlier blog stated that if someone was search for drugs and there were none found, their Fourth Amendment right would be violated also which I agree with. The affirmative side could argue that it would be a protection of an individual and of other drivers on the road. Another point could be made that if someone is pulled over and using illegal drugs, this would take one less drug user or distributer off of the street. This being said it would still go against the Amendment and the person’s right. In an article on "scotusblog.com", Rory Little stated that dog sniffing doesn’t could as a dog search and would necessarily need a warrant. But, this would also falls under an unreasonable search.

9/23/2015
Sidney, MT
Danny
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that at the location of a traffic stop, police have the ability to conduct a dog search. When Dennys Rodriguez was pulled over and he refused a drug dog search he was at that point acting suspicious. On one side of the issue it could be in violate of the fourth amendment and that the police were overstepping their boundaries when conducting this search. On the other hand, this situation should allow the police the ability to conduct the search. If any drugs or narcotics were discovered then the police have the ability to take further action. A previous blog post stated that the driver had done nothing wrong and it would then be a violation of his or her fourth amendment right. However, the driver was doing something wrong. Rodriguez was acting suspicious and in possession of the drugs and it is was the responsibility of the officer to investigate. Police can prolong a traffic stop to conduct a search because it is the duty of the officer to uphold the law and when there is a person in possession of narcotics he or she should be allowed to further investigate.

9/23/2015
Sidney/MT
Chris G
Mr Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think that police officers should be able to conduct a dog search on a routine traffic stop, on suspicion of illegal drugs being inside of the vehicle. However, it is horribly inconvenient for motorists that may be stopped and found not to be in possession of drugs, and there needs to be another method to detecting drugs without the use of a dog search team in the future. I think that in case a motorist is stopped and searched wrongfully, there needs to be compensation paid for the motorist's wasted time.

9/23/2015
Sidney, MT
Kasey
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe police should have the right to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search under the right circumstances. It is already illegal for the police to search you without reasonable suspicion so I think if they have that and a warrant they have the means to search for evidence to the fullest extent. Some believe that this is a violation of the 4th amendment. This would be true if it applied to any citizen but it is only a valid search method when the citizen has incriminating actions and the police have very reasonable suspicion. These incriminating actions may include consent, plain view, search inncident to arrest, exigent circumstances, or hot pursuit. Police should be able to search someone to the fullest extent if they have the means.

9/16/2015
Murrieta, Ca
Kevin Rodriguez
Mr. Jabro
In my opinion, I don't think police men should be able to detain someone after the first issues is resolved with a ticket or warning citation. It does violate his 4th Amendment right because he doesn't have to say anything or answer to anything he doesn't want to, and after that first issue is resolved, he should be able to leave. The traffic stop ends when the officer gives him his ticket/citation and is done with the issue in which he was stopped.

9/14/2015
Murrieta, Ca
Jakob
Mr. Jabro Creekside High School
Well first off no Rodriguez's 4th amendment was not violated one because for one the police officer probable cause and two that one he gave him a ticket and then because if the dog alerts on the car he can search. yes they can detain someone after a ticket if probably cause and if its warrentted and the traffic stop is over when the officers gives them permission to leave.

9/3/2015
Sidney, MT
Kade Jacobson
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe that officers have the right to hold a person for any amount of time needed to do a drug search. If that person is found guilty of posing illegal drugs or are under influence of drugs than the amount of time taken away should not matter. The only problem though is that if someone is searched thoroughly and come up clean and have had no reason other than suspicion to be searched, that person should be compensated in some way for taking the time for the officer to do his/her job.

9/2/2015
Murrieta/CA
Robert Coates
Mr. Jabro/ Creekside
I believe that the prolonging of a traffic stop creates other issues in the matter. But most importantly, it takes away the fourth amendment. This right is needed an actual cause of criminality, not just any suspect-able cause. An officer could potentially make up any old cause, possibly the smell of marijuana, nervousness etc. This without a doubt takes away anything someone could say to the officer. Legally you do not even have to talk to an officer if you know you are not in the wrong, and could simply tell him too go away, or even ask for the same information that he is requesting of you, name,what you are doing etc, the whole cop sh-bang. With officers relaying on you not understanding your rights, it may discredit your amendment rights too full use and power.

9/2/2015
Sidney, MT
Clay Fox
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney Highschool
This is a relatively easy discussion. The police obviously pull people over because of very distinct reasons depending on the stop. Also if a person is stopped and the officer conducting the stop finds probable cause to search the vehicle he/she has every right to take the time and search. People get upset over this because they will be late to whatever they are on their way to. This also is unnecessary simply because if that person knows they have something illegal in the vehicle the officers will find it and they are guilty anyway. On the other hand if it turns out that the person stopped was searched along with their car and ended up innocent then their should be some sort of compensation for the delay.

9/2/2015
Sidney, Montana
Trent
Mr. Faulhaber
I think the police should not be able to have a dog search the car unless the person they pulled over is acting suspicious. If the traffic ticket is handed out and then the search is conducted serveral minutes after, I think that violates our 4th Admendment. I believe that Mr. Rodriguez had his rights violated.

9/1/2015
Sidney, Montana
Austin Watterson
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I have a yes and no thought on a police officer being able to detain someone after they have already issued a ticket. It is not always fair for an officer to hold someone after they have already issued a warning or ticket. But sometimes an officer just has an eerie feeling and has to make sure. So in a case that an officer has a weird feeling, I believe that they can possibly hold the person for a little longer to check them. Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment was slightly violated because of them checking his vehicle after he was pulled over for just drifting onto the shoulder. This is where my argument comes in for the prolonged search though. The officer only held off on him because he had the weird suspicion that there was something more then just what Rodriguez had done and the officer was right. I believe that the officer should have to give permission for a person to leave because they might not be completely done with the person or might have more information. Police are just trying to keep the world safe.

9/1/2015
Sidney, MT
Cyrus
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
Yes I do think that police should be allowed to detain any one that they are suspicious of and conduct a search, and i think a traffic stop ends when the police are convinced that you are not doing any thing to break the law.

9/1/2015
Sidney, Montana
Alexis Fasching
Brad Faulhaber
Say you get pulled over for a speeding violation... do they have any probable cause to conduct a search? If the police pulled you over for speeding, they are detaining you for that until they hand over the ticket and tell you to have a good night. They are not detaining you for a search. Do they even have a search warrant? Traffic stops don't have to take that long. You give the police the information he asks for and cooperate. However, if you put up a fight for even a simple thing, they will have lots of suspicion and push for a search. Again, do they have a warrant or even probably cause?

9/1/2015
Sidney High School
Braxten Larson
Brad Faulhaber
Yes i do think the police should be allowed to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search, but only if they have the K-9 with them. Abusers of drugs and felons if pulled over should be searched within reason. If the person has been pulled over for reckless driving or a misdemeanor then i believe it is fair.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Katie
Mr. Hanna/SJHS
I think that police should only be allowed to pull over cars if a traffic violation occurs. If the driver has done nothing wrong, then I believe that it is against the Fourth Amendment right. In this specific case, I do think that Rodriguez's right was violated because the police had no reason to search the vehicle other than the fact that Rodriguez happened to drift onto the shoulder of the road.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg PA
Harry
Mr. Hanna
I think that if police have suspicion or a anonymous tip that this person has drugs or bombs in their car then it would be ok but to stop everyone and check their cars with dogs seems un meaningful and a huge waste of time and money.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Jordan
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Yes I do think that police should be allowed to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search but only for legitimate reasons. I think that if the suspect has given any reason to the police officer that they are committing some kind of crime like position of drugs or a misdemeanor like reckless driving then I think it is fair for the officer to prolong a traffic stop.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Jeremy
Mr.Hanna SJHS
I think they should not be able to do this unless there's traffic and they already have the K-9 dog with them. I think this because what if someone has to get to work and they do this that person is going to be late for work and more likely fired because that persons boss would hear that they were involved in this investigation with the police then that isn't good.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Karissa
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Police should not be able to detain a person after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop because there will most likely be no reason for it. The person already got a ticket they don't need a dog to search there car to just because a police officer doesn't trust them. Police should only prolong traffic if they are doing a drug search and only is they know or think they have drugs. Other than that police should not be able to prolong traffic.

6/5/2015
Strousburg/pa
Emily Schwartz
Mr. Hanna/Strousburg js high
No, police cannot conduct a search because thy have to have a warrant to do that. Rodriguez's right was violated because he was taken advantage of by the officer. When the green light comes on, the traffic stop ends. When the officer hands over the ticket you can leave because you don't have to stay.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Branden
Mr. Hanna
I think that they should not be able to hold you untill the dog gets there. They should be able to check the vehicle themselves but to have someone wait seems unfair. Especially if they stop the person just because he/she looks "suspicious". The only way they should be able to hold the person is if they think they saw him/her with the drug. Like if they have a file on the person then it would be okay.

6/5/2015
Stroudsburg
Jonathan
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg JHS
I believe that they should be able to prolong traffic because it will keep people safer on the road if the other people have any dangerous things in there car. Also it will help police find more criminals that are on the run.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Sherwin
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
Yes police can because they do not know if their is a criminal in traffic or maybe someone is drunk driving. Also, they can make easy arrest from sniffing someones car for possession of illegal drugs. Police can also pick out any suspicious suspect from the way they are acting or they drive away not wanting to get caught or arrested.

6/4/2015
Pennsylvania Stroudsburg
Alefiyah
Mr. Hanna SJHS
The police should only pull over a person for a traffic stop if the person has committed a traffic violation. However, if police are pulling over somebody for a traffic violation they have witnessed, and not for any other violations the person has committed, the police should have no right to conduct a dog search. Storing something illegal in a car has nothing to do with violating traffic violation. However, if during the traffic stop, the police are suspecting that you are holding illegal items, they have a right to conduct a dog search. Tickets are only for traffic violation, and if the police has seen a person commit traffic violation, the police should give the driver a ticket. It does not make a difference whether police give the ticket before or after the traffic stop, as long as it is given to the driver.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
McKenna
Mr. Hanna Stroudsburg JHS
I think they should be able to stop a car and do a dog search. I think they should be able to do this because if the person has and illegal drug in their car and they don't catch them it could turn into a bad situation. The person would not be violated if they had drugs in the car. I do also think they should ask and if the person says no then they should know there is something going on.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/PA
Adam
Mr.Hanna/sjhs
This is a ridiculous thing. I would see if there is a terrorist threat. If it is a random test, then there is some thing they shouldn't do.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/ PA
Emilio
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Yes, I think the police SHOULD be allowed to search you. The person who was pulled over might've had an illegal substance and let's say he wasn't. Then he broke the law and got away with it. And hey, if they were acting suspicious, as if they were drunk, then the police have a right to search you.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/ PA
Emilio
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
Yes, I think the police SHOULD be allowed to search you. The person who was pulled over might've had an illegal substance and let's say he wasn't. Then he broke the law and got away with it. And hey, if they were acting suspicious, as if they were drunk, then the police have a right to search you.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/PA
Bartek
Mr.Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I think that police should not be able to prolong a traffic stop just to conduct a dog search. I think that police should pull up on the side of the road to do anything like that and let the traffic go. If there isn't any place to pull up, they can find a small spot that 2 cars can stop and then they can do a dog search. Otherwise all the cars have to stop and they might be in a emergency like they have to go to the hospital and they have to stop and wait.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg/Pennslyvania
Luke
Mr. Hanna/SJHS
A prolonged traffic stop and drug dealers in jail or a normal traffic stop and drug dealers on the loose...I chose the first choose. I dont care if I am waiting in the car for an extra 8 minutes if the cops are arresting someone. I'd rather have that then leave earlier and have a drug dealer free. Even if it does "disobey" the constitution. I dont want any drug maniacs not the loose!

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg PA
Dylan
Mr. Hanna/ stroudsburg jhs
I think that dog should be allowed before they are charge . They have already got the tickiet and should not be able to add more charges to the person

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Devin Garlick
Mr. Hanna/ Stroudsburg JHS
I think police officers should not be allowed to prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog search. If the police officer sees drugs then they can do a dog search but doing a dog search after they give the person a ticket then they should not be allowed. I think that whenever the oficcer gives the person they pulled over a ticket or a warning then the traffic stop is over and the person should be allowed to leave.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, pa
Nataliya
Mr.hana sjhs
No I think it's a waste of every bodies time. If you want to use a police dog to search a car after you pull them over bring the police dog with you instead of waiting.

6/4/2015
Stroudsburg, PA
Josh
Mr. Hanna
Police should be allowed because if someone does have and illegal substance hen hey should be searched. His right was not violated because he had an illegal substance and was searched based off the way he and his friend were acting. A traffic stop ends when a person is arrested or let go. The stop should really end when the officer gives the driver permission to leave.

6/4/2015
pa stroudsburg junior high school
CJ
Mr. Hanna
I say no to this. The reason I say this is because when you loose a dog it is normal to panic a little. Dogs are loyal pets and loosing them is hard to deal with. But causing a huge camotion about it and trying to get police to close a freeway is a little to much.

6/3/2015
Stroudsburg PA
Anthony Cabrera
Mr.Hanna Stroudsburg
no because it is time consuming and unconstitutional. And it depends on what they think you have

5/21/2015
murrieta / ca
omaree
mr.jabro / creekside high school
only if they have reasonable reason to stop you and you are warrant of a k-9 search

5/21/2015
Washington/New Jersey
Mark
Rokosny/Warren Hills
I believe that dog searches should be able to prolong traffic stops. According to the 4th Amendment, police officers are not allowed to search an individual, vehicle, or home without probable cause. If these dogs were able to pick up a scent on something illegal, it would give the officers probable cause.

5/19/2015
Murrieta/CA
Julianna
Jabro/Creekside
The cops should not be able to search unless you are very suspcisious. Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment right was viloated because you don't have to answer anything you don't want to. The traffic stop ends when the officer hands over the warning or ticket and gives the driver permission to leave.

5/8/2015
Hoover, AL
Avery and AC
Mr. Parker
After reading this article, I think that cops should have the right to search your car if they have the indication that they should. Such as if you were pulled over late at night at 1 in the morning the cop may suspect that he would conduct a search due to a reason that I You were pulled over. The officer should just take a quick look inside if he wasn't originally pulling you over for a search. The traffic stop ends when he gives you permission to go.

5/3/2015
murrieta / ca
omaree
mr.jabro / creekside high school
I believe that you should wait until you get your I/D and paper work back because at that point the cop should have told you why he/she pulled you over any longer than that in my opinion is to long and a violation of my 4th amendment

4/29/2015
Irving/Tx
Sophia
Bradley/Nimitz
An officer of the law is sworn to protect us citizens, and they shouldn't be punished for doing their job. The officer in this case after conducting a background check was suspicious because of the nervous state of the driver, and the strong air freshener, therefore proceeded in additional searching after giving a warning ticket. I don't believe that he was violating the 4th amendment, because while he didn't have a warrant, I would like to have a police force that can do their job without fear of prosecution. Acting on a hunch has kept people safe countless times and it's required of the police.There is no law prohibiting an officer from detaining someone during a traffic violation. If an officer suspected a dead person in the trunk after pulling someone over it would be his duty to check it out, and he should not be limited if he already gave a ticket for a separate reason.

4/27/2015
Arlington, Texas
Mk
Mr.White/Sam Houston
I fully expect the court to rule in a manner that further allows LEO's to violate a persons rights. In Texas, it is not commonly known that the moment you are pulled over, you are under arrest, you are being detained and the moment you begin to answer the officers questions of any kind, that you have just relinquished your rights under the fourth and fifth amendments and of course anything you say can and will be used against you. So if you communicate with the LEO, this then allows him to dig deeper, and to do that he can prevent you from continuing on your journey. You are not required to have a license to drive if you are not operating a commercial vehicle. You are not required to have State issued ID but good luck asserting those truths to any LEO's. The main problem with all law enforcement officers and agencies is that none of them have even read the statutes and codes they are enforcing. This lack of knowing what the law actually says and their reliance instead upon what senior officials have told them the law says is the problem. It is further exascerbated by the courts ruling that ignorance of the law is ok for the authorities imposing it. Yet the targets or victims of those authority figures are expected to know all contents of those codes and statutes and to defend their positions when facing authorities imposing those codes and statutes who have not even read the codes and statutes they are enforcing. Yet another asinine court ruling and completely unfair one that the people are forced to endure daily in this country. This unfairness is coming from the gov't created solely to protect individuals from these same type tyrannical impositions by the State. The gov't has subverted the rule of law and the proper representation of the people. The State now holds itself upon a pedestal of greater status than the people who created it, which is a bastardization of the rule of law and of the constitution of this republic. The people should rise against the State.

4/22/2015
Suwanee/GA
zack
Burgess/ NGMS
The police shouldn't be able to detain someone when their first intention has ended. The officer cleared Rodriquez and despite him being eligible to drive, the officer continued and prolonged a traffic stop for a dog search. His 4th Amendment right was absolutely violated because the police had no evidence to search him. The citizens are given the right to be against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the officer had violated that right by not having a complete reason to search his car.

4/21/2015
Irving/Texas
Abraham
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe the police should not be able to detain someone after they issued their 1st ticket to conduct a search afterwards. If the person stopped refuses to let step out of the vehicle then, they have their right to refuse the police’s request. Rodriguez’s 4th amendment was violated, since he refused to step out of the car, but was still taken out of his own car and the police was able to prolong the traffic stop for a drug search. The traffic stop should end right when the officer hands over the warning ticket, which the process should take less than fifteen minutes. I believe there should be another procedure which avoids violating the rights of the people, because it is true that some people have drugs hidden with them, but will also waste a person’s time if they do not have any illegal products with them.

4/17/2015
Irving,TX
Hans
Bradley/Nimitz
Police shouldn't be allowed to detain someone after their initial business with them has ended. Rodriquez was cleared by the officer and regardless of whether he had a hunch that their may be drugs in the vehicle, that is a completely different issue, it shouldn't be tacked onto the previous one. His Fourth Amendment right was definitely violated as the Police had no actual evidence to go n on and searched him because he had a hunch. A traffic stop ends once the initial issue is cleared. He gave him his ticket, the issue is over.

4/17/2015
Irving/Texas
Maggie
Bradley/Nimitz
Police shouldn't have the right to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop in order to conduct a search;the person was pulled over and given a ticket for a specific violation and once they are informed of their offense by receiving a ticket they should be released. Rodriguez's fourth amendment rights was violated because the officers only reasoning behind searching the car was because he felt the driver and passenger were acting nervous and that is not enough reasoning.Once the traffic stop ends because the person committing the crime has been punished and knows their consequences meaning that the participating officer can not add more offensives to the traffic stop.

4/17/2015
Irving/Texas
Kamille
Bradley/Nimitz
It is apparent that the law has abused their legal authority in the past, but when exactly does the just use of power stop and the ill use of authority begin. The detaining of a person who was just issued a ticket is immoral, and quite frankly a means to boastfully show off power. The fourth amendment clearly states that it gives the citizens “the right to be against unreasonable searches and seizures,” so why would the law break its own laws? The system is supposed to stop the “bad” guys from breaking the rules, but what about the bad guys working in the system? How can you say our legal system is completely just when there is a corrupt and wrongful use of power. This is the system that is supposed to hold its citizens at a high level, care for their rights and feelings, though you would not think so with the way the system carry outs its duties. A warrant is needed to search a person’s belongings; intruding on personal property without this is breaking the fourth amendment. I am continuously appalled at the the things that happen in the world and the governments that abuse their power, but I’d never thought that it would come from my own country’s legal system.

4/17/2015
Irving/Texas
Rebecca
Bradley/Nimitz
It seems like the more important issue here--more pressing than the prolonging of traffic stops--is the fact that Rodriguez did not consent to having his vehicle searched, and since the traffic stop had ended, this seems unconstitutional on the basis of unlawful search. But on the subject of prolonging traffic stops, the justification of the time required by the actions of police to include dog searches in more traffic stops are flimsy at best; after all, the best the Justice Department Attorney could do was to say "an incremental amount of time," which, depending on who is counting and whose idea of "incremental" we are using, could mean anything. I believe it would be a broad impediment to justice to establish precedent for keeping officers tied up in drug stops for such potentially long periods of time while they could be busy preventing dangerous crimes from occurring. Preventing them from fulfilling this most basic function on the basis of a technicality of when the traffic stop ends just to let an intoxicated driver off the hook in this one case is reckless and should not be done. In general, police have to be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket to conduct a search because the end of a search does not mean the immediate suspension of law and order.

4/16/2015
Murrieta/California
Derek C
Jabro/Creekside
I think that as long as they have a reason to do a dog search, such as they suspect there may be some form of illegal drug in the car, then there should be no problem. A police officer has to be able to do his job in order to protect the common people of the united states. If he is not allowed to conduct a dog search of your car because of suspected drugs or other things then pretty soon people will be saying that police officers cannot arrest minors for theft or petty crimes.

4/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Ali
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
A police officer should have the legal right to do his job and what is necessary. The officer in this case after conducting a background check was suspicious because of the nervous state of the driver, and the strong air freshener, therefore proceeded in additional searching after giving a warning ticket. Weather this violated the 4th amendment is questionable, because the officer did not receive a warrant to search after the driver refused, however the search was not “unreasonable”; the officer used the clues he observed to detect an additional crime and he was correct. There is no law prohibiting an officer from detaining someone during a traffic violation. If an officer suspected a dead person in the trunk after pulling someone over it would be his duty to check it out, and he should not be limited if he already gave a ticket for a separate reason.

4/14/2015
Irving, Tx
Jennipher
Bradley/Nimitz
Police should not have the right to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop in order to conduct a search; the person was pulled over and given a ticket for a specific violation and once they are informed of their offense by receiving a ticket they should be released. Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment Right was violated because the officers only reasoning behind searching the car was because he felt as if the driver and the passenger were acting nervous and that is not enough reasoning. Once the ticket is issued the traffic stop ends because the person committing the crime has been “punished” and knows their consequences meaning that the participating officer can not add more offenses to the traffic stop.

4/12/2015
Irving/TX
Rabab
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion police should not be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during traffic stop, it does violate Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment right because the officer already issued the ticket and also checked the background of Rodriguez which was clean, so in opinion it is unreasonable search and seizure which leads to the violation of Fourth Amendment. I believe that a traffic stop ends when the officer hands over the warning or ticket.

4/10/2015
Irving/Texas
Jamon
Bradley/Nimitz
Police should not have the right or be able to detain someone even after issuing said ticket to an individual. Rodriguez's attorneys states that was a violation of the Fourth amendment which states that "The right to be against unreasonable searches and seizures'', so yeah they did violate Rodriguez's rights of the Fourth Amendment.

4/9/2015
Irving/Texas
Jayden
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not believe that an offer has the right to detain someone after issuing a ticket to an individual. The Fourth Amendment states that it gives citizens "the right to be against unreasonable searches & seizures," & in my eyes, unnecessarily long waiting periods after being pulled over seems like an unreasonably search/seizure.

4/8/2015
Irving/TX
Sajni
Bradley/Nimitz
The police should not be able to detain some longer then necessary after giving the ticket, the only way they could be able to conduct a search without a warrant. I also agree with the fact that Rodriguez' Fourth Amendment right was violated as they do not have the ability to intrude on his personal property, even if he was in possession of drugs.

4/7/2015
Irving/TX
Cynthia
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, police officers should not be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search. In this situation, the reason a person is stopped is because the attention of a police officer was caught due to a traffic violation, not because of other suspicions. Dennys Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment right was violated because the police dog searched Rodriguez’s car just because he saw that they were nervous and because he smelled air freshener in the car, after all, Rodriguez specifically refused the police officer’s request; the police officer went against Rodriguez’s will. A traffic stop should end after the police has given the warning or ticket, however, the driver should wait until the police has dismissed the driver.

4/6/2015
Irving/Texas
Brittany
Bradley/Nimitz
No, police should not be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search, as the ticket appropriately deals with the situation. Yes, Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment right was violated because the police officer didn't have the right or a reason to search his car. A traffic stop should end once a ticket is issued as this concludes the ordeal, but to make sure there is no confusion the person should wait until they are dismissed.

4/6/2015
Irving/Texas
David
Bradley/Nimitz
Police shouldn't be able to detain someone after issuing a ticket during a traffic stop to conduct a search; the individual was stopped to deal with a specific traffic violation, and once that ticket is issued, that should be the end of it. Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment right was violated because the police officer had no cause to search his car other than that he was acting nervous, and if anything, was acting on bias or prejudice. Either way, Rodriguez had a clean record and I’m sure anyone would be nervous if they were stopped by a police officer. A traffic stop should end once the ticket is issued since it states the violation and the punishment/fine; if anything else is out of line, the police should get a warrant before violating one’s rights.

4/6/2015
Itving/TX
Carol
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that a police officer does not have the right to detain someone after issuing them a ticket merely for the simple fact that the violation has already been dealt with. His fourth ammendment right was violated because he specifically stated that he did not want the drug dogs sniffing his car. The only "reasonable" reason the officer had to search his car was that Rodriguez looked nervous and the car smelled like air freshener; Rodriguez no prior convictions on his record at the time as well. A traffic stop ends when a ticket or warning has been administered. After that point everything else becomes unnecessary.

Related News
Related Resources
Share