# Did Rodriguez v. United States change anything (police detaining a driver until drug dogs arrive) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2016, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056 "2016-05-18T01:21:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/21 "2016-06-21T09:53:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you need reasonable suspicion before you call in the dog? > > That is, I pull you over for a traffic stop. I just happen to have the dog in the seat next to me. Can I have the dog sniff the car for drugs because I pulled you over for a minor traffic violation, or do I need to be able to say “The driver acted high” or whatever? No RS or PC is needed. It is not a 4th amendment search for a dog to sniff the exterior of a vehicle. That’s been ruled on several times. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/22 "2016-06-21T11:13:02Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It changed everything if you the time and money to fight illegal searches and seizures up to the high courts. For everyone else it makes no difference. It’s just stop and frisk for cars, it’s been going on for a long time, and rulings on the validity of the practice may be useful after the fact at trial but have no impact on the practice itself. This is basically the reality for most people. A police officer can technically violate the law and it’s up to you to fight it in court, which is the only legal means of redress a citizen has. Most people don’t have the time and money to fight, and they won’t unless their reputation has been irreparably damaged or they’ve sustained emotional and physical trauma that motivates them to sue. The courts are typically biased in favor of law enforcement in most cases. I’m not at all anti-officer – I’ve got some good friends who are or have been officers, and a high school classmate of mine died while on duty. Just pointing out that for most of us, for most situations, the smart play is to cooperate with officers, even if you technically don’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/23 "2016-06-21T12:05:56Z")
And yesterday, Uncle Clarence wrote [one](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html?_r=0) for the stop and frisk fans. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/24 "2016-06-21T12:12:37Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > And yesterday, Uncle Clarence wrote [one](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html?_r=0) for the stop and frisk fans. In her dissent Justice Sotomayor wrote: > [@](#): > > "The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong. > > If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay,” she continued, “courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/25 "2016-06-21T12:52:44Z")
I love Thomas’ opinion : > [@](#): > > there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell’s illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct “Sure I mean what he did was illegal, but it’s not like he broke the law or anythin’ !” ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/26 "2016-06-21T13:19:30Z")
Never worry. Thomas believes official misuse to be “unlikely.” This white, middle class suburbanite wonders what the fuck world that fool is living in? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/27 "2016-06-21T15:37:02Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Never worry. Thomas believes official misuse to be “unlikely.” > > This white, middle class suburbanite wonders what the fuck world that fool is living in? Odd that Thomas was able to impose a precedential opinion by himself. You’d think that with the other justices unanimously arrayed against his view, he would be writing the lone dissent. This opinion breaks no new ground. 1974’s _Brown v. Illinois_ lays out the factors that steered this case. The guy was pulled over and detained without reasonable suspicion. During the detention, a warrant for his arrest was discovered. He was arrested pursuant to the warrant, and a search incident to that arrest discovered contraband. So the question to ask is: does the exclusionary rule in such circumstances apply? The long-standing practice has been to examine several factors to weigh how closely the initial illegal stop was tied to the evidence used against the accused. Here, there was very little connection: it was the pre-existing warrant that led to the arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/28 "2016-06-21T15:49:41Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I love Thomas’ opinion : > > > [@](#): > > > > there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell’s illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct > > “Sure I mean what he did was illegal, but it’s not like he broke the law or anythin’ !” The stop was illegal, but not flagrantly so. “Flagrant,” means notorious, scandalous, or outrageous. Following a tip to the police that drugs were being sold from a particular Salt Lake City residence, police began surveillance and observed many arrivals whose visits were extremely short, matching the expected behavior for a drug sales operation. After a week’s surveillance, Edward Strieff was the visitor that police decided to stop and question. The officer stopped Strieff in a parking lot of a nearby convenience store immediately following his exit from the house, detained him, and asked him for ID and what he had been doing at the residence. The ID check revealed an existing warrant. Strieff was arrested pursuant to that warrant, and a search of his person following that arrest led to the discovery of a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Can you explain why you believe the police conduct here was “flagrantly” illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/29 "2016-06-21T15:54:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Odd that Thomas was able to impose a precedential opinion by himself. You’d think that with the other justices unanimously arrayed against his view, he would be writing the lone dissent. What is the purpose of the sarcasm here? Did Thomas not say that? Is it not OK for **Dinsdale** to think that’s a stupid point because he wrote for the majority? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/30 "2016-06-21T16:19:28Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > What is the purpose of the sarcasm here? Did Thomas not say that? Is it not OK for **Dinsdale** to think that’s a stupid point because he wrote for the majority? Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which means two things: yes, he said it… and it was an opinion endorsed by the rest of the justices who joined the majority, including Breyer, lest this degenerate into a evil-conservatives-vs-virtuous-liberals discussion. Dinsdale’s comment imputes the sentiment solely to Thomas, hinting that only Thomas could be so incognizant of the real world, in which depraved law enforcement prowls the streets waiting for hapless victims. More broadly, the sarcasm is spawned by Dinsdale’s apparent unfamiliarity with Brown v. Illinois, which I find annoying. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/31 "2016-06-21T16:27:04Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > What is the purpose of the sarcasm here? The point is that while **Bricker** has a great deal of legal knowledge, he also has a predictable manner of posting. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/32 "2016-06-21T16:29:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The stop was illegal, but not flagrantly so. > > “Flagrant,” means notorious, scandalous, or outrageous. Following a tip to the police that drugs were being sold from a particular Salt Lake City residence, police began surveillance and observed many arrivals whose visits were extremely short, matching the expected behavior for a drug sales operation. After a week’s surveillance, Edward Strieff was the visitor that police decided to stop and question. The officer stopped Strieff in a parking lot of a nearby convenience store immediately following his exit from the house, detained him, and asked him for ID and what he had been doing at the residence. The ID check revealed an existing warrant. Strieff was arrested pursuant to that warrant, and a search of his person following that arrest led to the discovery of a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. > > Can you explain why you believe the police conduct here was “flagrantly” illegal? Cut the shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/33 "2016-06-21T16:41:57Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Cut the shit. That’s not remotely an answer. Your post seemed clear in its disdain for the opinion’s rejection of “flagrant” as an adjective to describe the police violation of law. I’m asking you what aspects of the police behavior here you find to be flagrantly illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/34 "2016-06-21T17:03:59Z")
Question related to warrants - how many people in the US have outstanding warrants? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/35 "2016-06-21T17:12:30Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Cut the shit. That’s not even remotely an attempt at debate and discussion. It’s rude, as well. No warning this time. More such in any thread in Great Debates or Elections will get you some, though. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/36 "2016-06-21T17:22:58Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > That’s not even remotely an attempt at debate and discussion. Wasn’t meant as such. It was meant as a jibe, a jest, a tomfoolery. Well the original post was. \*\*Bricker \*\*opted to take it dead serious, and do the \*\*Bricker \*\*thing. My \*second \*post was meant to let him save his 100 bucks an hour breath. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/37 "2016-06-21T17:26:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The stop was illegal, but not flagrantly so. Is it too much to ask that the police remain meticulously legal? ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/38 "2016-06-21T17:43:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The stop was illegal, but not flagrantly so. > > “Flagrant,” means notorious, scandalous, or outrageous. Following a tip to the police that drugs were being sold from a particular Salt Lake City residence, police began surveillance and observed many arrivals whose visits were extremely short, matching the expected behavior for a drug sales operation. After a week’s surveillance, Edward Strieff was the visitor that police decided to stop and question. The officer stopped Strieff in a parking lot of a nearby convenience store immediately following his exit from the house, detained him, and asked him for ID and what he had been doing at the residence. The ID check revealed an existing warrant. Strieff was arrested pursuant to that warrant, and a search of his person following that arrest led to the discovery of a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. > > Can you explain why you believe the police conduct here was “flagrantly” illegal? I’m confused. If the police had such evidence that the place was a drug den, and that Strieff was likely a drug purchaser, what made the stop illegal? Sounds like they had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. (Also sounds like getting a warrant would not have been terribly difficult). What should they have done to make the stop legal and why didn’t they do that instead? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/39 "2016-06-21T17:45:32Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Wasn’t meant as such. It was meant as a jibe, a jest, a tomfoolery. > Well the original post was. \*\*Bricker \*\*opted to take it dead serious, and do the \*\*Bricker \*\*thing. My \*second \*post was meant to let him save his 100 bucks an hour breath. I was only moderating the second post. Again, be civil. If you have to take issue with another poster’s style of writing and so forth, the Pit is a few short clicks away. I’m confident you can find your way. Meanwhile, leave posts like your second one alone. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056/40 "2016-06-21T19:53:33Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > I’m confused. If the police had such evidence that the place was a drug den, and that Strieff was likely a drug purchaser, what made the stop illegal? Sounds like they had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. (Also sounds like getting a warrant would not have been terribly difficult). > > What should they have done to make the stop legal and why didn’t they do that instead? If the police had evidence that the place was a drug den, why not get a warrant and walk in to the house? Also, if the warrant would not have been terribly difficult…get the damn thing. If the police aren’t lazy, this probably doesn’t even end up in a courtroom beyond arraignment, and we all save time and money in the long run. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-rodriguez-v-united-states-change-anything-police-detaining-a-driver-until-drug-dogs-arrive/755056.md?page=3)