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.

Each one a fat neckbeard who's just taken a break from ranting about ethics in games journalism.

I never said the dog was an officer. Struble (the man) is a "K-9 officer." That is, an officer who has a dog.

That's pretty much completely correct. If the cops had a magic button that would reveal criminal activity and ONLY criminal activity, with 0.000000% chance of revealing anything else about you, there would be no constitutional problems with pushing the button and arresting the people who light up. There is no constitutional right to commit crimes and not be found out "unless the police work for it in some imagined, chivalrous manner." The reason we have protections against unreasonable search and seizure is not to protect criminals, but to protect the innocent. You're protected from unreasonable search because of all the non-criminal things about you that will be revealed to the police during the search. But if you have a search that CAN ONLY reveals criminal activity...pffft you're fucked.

In actuality, when it turns out cops can and do trigger dogs to alert, well, that's a problem with crooked cops, not the efficacy of dogs' noses.

Not the case at all. Struble (the officer in this case) was a K-9 officer, and the dog was sitting in his car. He waited for backup, out of safety. And I know it's easy to say "well, you can SAY safety, but you can say that about anything!" but I don't know what else the motivation could be here. He already had the dog.

So he had a good stop, had a good hunch (which was correct...the guy was running meth), he just wanted backup before running the dog, and it was only 8-9 minutes. Doesn't seem that awful to me.

No, that's absolutely nothing like the ruling or what went on in this case.

There is essentially no need to state a reason to use a dog in public (walking down the street, traffic stop, airport, whatever. Around the outside of your home is different...constitutes a "search" and requires probable cause). He doesn't even need "reasonable suspicion," which is little better than a guess or a hunch, to use the dog. The reason being that, presumably, the dog is trained only to trigger for drugs, so your privacy isn't violated if you don't have drugs. In actuality the dog can be signaled by the officer to trigger, so it's all very fishy. But the general topic of the usefulness of dogs is irrelevant to this case. You could replace "walk dog around sniffing" with "walk around himself looking" and it would not change any of the legal reasoning of this case.

And in this case, the dog was already on the scene. Struble was a K-9 officer, and his dog was in his car. He had a valid stop: Rodriguez swerved off the road. He got a hunch they might be up to no good. Couple of guys, traveling alone at night, swerving off the road. He asked one of the guys where they were coming from and he said they were looking at a car for sale, which seems a little strange given that it was midnight. Who goes and looks at a car at midnight? So he asked about having his dog sniff the car and Rodriguez says "no." Which is 1) understandable, you should always tells the cops 'no, you can't search' but 2) irrelevant because dog sniffs don't count as "searches" but you can't expect somebody to know that. So Struble has already stated that he wants to run the dog around. But, he's got a bad feeling, is scared, and wants backup. So he waits for that. He was NOT waiting for a dog. He was waiting for backup so he could safely use his dog that was already there. And it was only 8-9 minutes.

It just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. He had a valid stop. He could run the dog (which was already there) with no justification required. He had a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing because dudes swerving across the road in the middle of the night say they're "looking at a car," which is weird at that hour. He could have had the dog sniff immediately, but waited only for safety (and I know you can say "that's bullshit! They can say that about anything!" But there's no other reason to wait. He already had the dog. What's the ulterior motive here?) And he was right. The guy was running meth. Good instincts, good hunch, good police work. If you don't want it to be illegal to sell meth (I don't. I think all drugs should be legal.) that's fine, change the law. But in the meantime, officer Struble's job is to look out for people running meth, and he did a great job.

All that'll happen now is backup will be called for immediately when a stop happens.

Dog was already there. Struble (the cop) was a K-9 officer, and his dog was sitting in his car. He was nervous about being outnumbered by the occupants of the car and chose to wait for backup before conducting the dog sniff.

But yeah it just means "call for backup sooner."