WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court told the police Tuesday they may not turn routine traffic stops into drug searches using trained dogs.
The 6-3 decision ends the increasingly common practice whereby officers stop a car for a traffic violation and then call for a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the vehicle.
The justices, both liberal and conservative, agreed that it was an unconstitutional "search and seizure" to hold a motorist in such cases.
"Police may not prolong detention of a car and driver beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the court.
The decision applies the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" and covers all the police — local, state and federal.
Ginsburg said police officers who stop a car for speeding or another traffic violation are justified in checking the motorist and his driver's license. But a traffic stop does not give officers the authority to conduct an "unrelated" investigation involving drugs, she said.
"The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's 'missions' — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns," she explained in Rodriquez v. United States. "Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — and reasonably should have been — completed."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined her opinion.
Tuesday's ruling marks one of the few times the high court has invoked the Fourth Amendment to limit police conducting traffic stops.
Two years ago, the justices ruled police may not use drug-sniffing dogs around the front door of a home without a search warrant, stressing the privacy expectations of a home. The justices now expand that to prevent traffic stops from becoming a pretext for drug searches.
