In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that there is no expectation of privacy when carrying drugs. Accordingly, the Court determined that the use of drug sniffing dogs during a traffic violation stop did not violate the unwarranted search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that there is no expectation of privacy when carrying drugs. Accordingly, the Court determined that the use of drug sniffing dogs during a traffic violation stop did not violate the unwarranted search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.
However, a recent Supreme Court decision in 2015, Rodriguez v. United States held that police could not hold a motorist indefinitely after a traffic stop in order to have drug sniffing dogs brought to the scene of the traffic stops. In other words, the Court ruled that extended detentions at traffic stops to have dogs brought to the scene of the offense are not permissible.
States have interpreted Rodriguez in varying ways. Some states held that dog sniffs are allowed if the detention is not extended past the time it takes to issue a traffic ticket. Other states focused on whether there were other grounds which showed that other criminal activity was afoot. In due time, each state will rule on cases which set precedents in that state, and set the tone for traffic violation stops.
We are a former judge and former prosecutors, and we have conducted more than 100,000 arraignments and criminal cases. If you or your loved one has been arrested, call the Suffolk County Criminal Defense Attorneys at McGuire and Pelaez at (631) 348-1702.
Send Us An Email