Let's see, everybody says "young people don't vote" and "3rd parties just split votes and make the guy you like least win."

If we can just convince Millennials to buck BOTH of those MASSIVE issues in US politics, we'll fix government surveillance no problem!

Hence, "semi autonomous." The controller in Nevada flies the drones into position and says "blow up everything over there." After that it doesn't matter if he has control or not.

And yes, I know there's lots of talk about the ethics of killer robots. But do you think that's going to stop the US military?

You have to be a service member to get a MoH. Civilian contractors don't count.

Medal of Freedom, though.

Young people are fleeing FB in droves. Soon the only people on FB will be your grandma and your aunt locked in a never ending loop of right wing troll forwards. "RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: OBUMMER HATES AMERICAN PROOFS!!!!!!!!!"

Astute observations.

And yes, the battle will be between the tech industry + users vs the political establishment.

The "young people don't vote!" thing is a red herring. Especially this generation, I absolutely believe they would vote, if there were anybody to vote for. They got burned with Obama, and do you think either the R or D candidate in 2016 is going to have "end government surveillance" as part of their platform? Absolutely not.

Because when you're just detained, there's still hope you can get away without a search. "He's got no cause to search the car, if we just shut up and play it cool, we're good." Why on earth would you get violent then?

When the dog starts barking...that's it. The drugs now not just might be found, the drugs are detected, and the vehicle will be searched, and you are going to jail. Do you not think that could be the trigger that pushes someone over to violence?

Regardless, I don't think there was reasonable suspicion for a delay (for safety or drugs). "Reasonable suspicion" is a legal standard that allows for brief detainment and investigation. It requires articulatable facts about a specific person at a specific time that would arouse reasonable suspicion in a reasonable person. It's the same standard by which anybody gets pulled over. "I saw that car swerve, I have reasonable suspicion that guy is drunk." So you pull him over to see if he's drunk.

Now, a dog sniff does not (currently, I think this will be reviewed in coming years) count as a "search" because it (presumably) does not reveal non-criminal activity. So there's (currently) no 4th amendment problem running the dog. However, running the dog has nothing to do with the primary mission of traffic safety. The vehicle was pulled over for traffic violations, not upon suspicion of drug trafficking.

So while you can run the dog without RS of anything (the dog's nose essentially counts as "plain sight" for the officer's eyes), you can't delay "because drugs" without RS of drugs. And not even safety, because first there's no RS of danger, and even if there were, it could only apply to the situation for which RS exists (the traffic infraction).

So the only way the delay would be acceptable would be if the officer had RS of drugs, and I don't think that can be successfully argued. The only thing he had was a fishy story from the passenger about coming back from seeing a car to buy at midnight. Which is weird. But that does not generate RS of drugs. So the officer just had a hunch (which was totally correct! Dudes were running meth. Good instincts), but that's not the same as RS, and therefore not enough to delay.

And that's the question, that apparently has not been satisfactorily answered. Did the officer have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify the delay? And the 8th Circuit did not address that issue. The Supreme Court did not decide the case in favor of Rodriguez...they remanded it back to the 8th Circuit to address the question of RS. My guess is they'll say "no, RS didn't exist in this case," but we'll see.

Well, reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. Reasonable suspicion requires articulatable facts about a specific individual at a specific time.

It's the same standard by which a vehicle stop occurs, so you can definitely detain someone briefly with RS. "I saw that guy swerve. I have reasonable suspicion he's drunk."

SCOTUSblog has some analysis of the opinions. I hadn't fully read the opinions and analysis yet (I know, I know RTFA? Psssh! But hey at least I did better than /. and most other news agencies in getting the facts straight that the cop wasn't waiting on a dog, he was waiting on backup...) but it seems that my question, "what about reasonable suspicion?" is actually where it's going next:

So the case was not "decided in favor of Rodriguez." It was remanded back to the 8th circuit so they could decide if RS existed to extend the stop.

To be honest I don't think there was. The only thing he's got that he could articulate about the suspects being up to no good was nervousness and an odd story (coming back from "looking at a car to buy" at midnight). So all the officer had was a hunch. Good instincts! He was totally correct! Dudes were in fact running meth.

So while he could run the dog immediately without any constitutional problems (currently...I think dog sniffs are going to be coming under greater scrutiny in SC cases in the coming years), with no RS they were specifically running drugs, he can't delay for a sniff, and with no RS of danger, he can't delay for safety.

So this comes down to two options: A) go ahead and do the sniff and take your chances on violence or B) let them go.

We'll see what the 8th circuit says.

That's the issue. It breaks down in the middle there because once the dog checks and alerts to the drugs, the suspects know the game is up and they might turn violent. So, to add options to my other reply to you, here are the options:

1) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Call for backup. Dog sniffs and alerts while backup arrives. Hope bad guys don't start shooting. Back up arrives. Search and arrest.

2) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Call for backup. Wait 8-9 minutes for safety. Backup arrives. Dog sniffs and alerts. Search and arrest.

3) Stop. Call for backup. Interview. (perhaps call off backup if no suspicion develops. But maybe not, depending on the day). Backup arrives. Dog sniffs and alerts. Search and arrest.

4) Stop. Interview. Develop suspicion. Weigh 8-9 minutes vs. getting shot. Let bad guys go.

What do you think should happen?

To be honest I'm not sure.

First, any time you're stopped by the police you're going to be delayed and potentially be late to or miss something important. And we already allow reasonable amounts of time for the officer to run licenses and tags. There is no requirement to rush your ticket out as quickly as possible.

There is no expansion of powers here. The delay in this case was not for any additional evidence collection activity that he could not have done immediately. Like I said, he already had the dog, and there is no suspicion requirement needed to run a dog.

So I guess I'd have two questions:

1) is 8-9 minutes delay for safety only (not for any new collection powers) unreasonable?

2) is 8-9 minutes delay for safety only (not for any collection powers) reasonable if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

I would say the latter one is okay. Otherwise it could become standard practice to call in backup immediately, rather than wait until reasonable suspicion is raised.

Here's how it went down in this case:

1) Stop.

2) Interview.

3) Develop reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing based on suspects' story/behavior.

4) Call for backup (NOT for a dog. Dog already on hand).

5) 8-9 minutes later conduct dog sweep.

What'll happen now is:

1) Stop. Call for backup.

2) Interview while backup arrives.

3) Run dog.

So, I would say that 8-9 minutes for safety is not reasonable without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. With such suspicion, 8-9 minutes for safety is reasonable.

They'll also demand 8 weeks ?aternal leave every time they spawn a new process.

Doesn't necessarily have to be. Great novel about a non-sentient super intelligence: Blindsight by Peter Watts. And it's free online!

The good news is that the bad guy will always make his themed robots have a weakness against a particular weapon wielded by one of his other themed robots. So the trick is just knowing which order to kill them in.

Not necessarily. The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect.

I love you.

All I know is that I love Big Brother.