Whether you’ve watched Cops, or whether you’ve been pulled over for a routine traffic stop, it seems as though a mere instant can transform a routine traffic stop into an investigation based on another crime. However, there is a very important Supreme Court case that addresses this very issue. In Rodriguez v. United States, Rodriguez was pulled over by a K-9 officer for a routine traffic stop. During the stop, the officer asked Rodriguez if he could walk his dog around the vehicle. Rodriguez refused, and the officer detained Rodriguez until another officer arrived. The dog alerted the officers to methamphetamine in the car, and Rodriguez was subsequently indicted on federal drug charges.

When Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence found against him as an unreasonable delay of a routine traffic stop, the District Court did not agree. The Eighth Circuit appellate court agreed, echoing the District Court’s reasoning that the delay was only a “de minimis” intrusion. In other words, the courts did not believe that the delay was significant enough to impede upon Rodriguez’s rights. When the question reached the Supreme Court, it held that absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.

So what does this mean for the rest of us? It means that police must have reasonable suspicion of a crime to delay a routine traffic stop. A good defense attorney will argue that the evidence against the defendant should not be admitted, because it was obtained in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rodriguez. When the case gets to court, the prosecutor will likely argue that the officer did have reasonable suspicion to justify detaining the defendant beyond the time necessary to complete the traffic infraction investigation that initiated the stop. While this may seem cut and dry, nothing in the law really is.

While the U.S. Constitution protects unreasonable searches and seizures, a search is only unreasonable if it violates the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The “reasonable expectation of privacy standard” has been somewhat defined by the Supreme Court as of today. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that police may search your car as long as there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. This means the police may search any part of your car that may conceal the object of the search. For example, if the police have probable cause to believe that evidence is contained in a container on the floor of the backseat, they may search that container without a warrant. It is crucial that defendants understand that we all have a much lesser expectation of privacy when it comes to our cars than our homes. This is because most of the car is in plain view, and because a car’s mobility makes it more likely that evidence may be moved. Thus, a person naturally has less expectation of privacy in their car than they do their home by virtue of the car’s mobility and exposure to the public.

A closely related, very recent Supreme Court decision from June 2016 ruled that police may seize evidence from an unconstitutional search if they first discover the suspect has an outstanding arrest warrant. This decision gained a lot of attention, because it means that even those with warrants for simple traffic violations now have fewer rights when it comes to their personal property being subject to a search. The decision resulted in some scathing dissents from the more liberal justices, who say that an unpaid parking ticket should not forgive an officer’s violation of Fourth Amendment rights. While the case is highly controversial, it is now the law, and all defendants should be aware of this major change in Supreme Court precedent.

It is critical to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The earlier the attorney makes contact with the district attorney, the more likely it is that the case will result in a favorable outcome for the defendant. A good criminal defense attorney will present mitigating circumstances, including the lack of the defendant’s criminal history, as well as highlighting weak points in the prosecution’s case.

DEFENSES  | AVOID JAIL TIME | THEFT CRIMES  | COMMONLY USED TERMS

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED WITH A CRIME, CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS LONCAR NOW FOR A FREE CONSULTATION WITH A LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER.
213-375-3775

LA SUPERIOR COURT  |  LAPD  |  LA DISTRICT ATTORNEY  |  LA PUBLIC DEFENDER  |  LA LAW LIBRARY