Rodriguez v. United States
Document Type
Oral Presentation
Campus where you would like to present
SURC 137A
Start Date
21-5-2015
End Date
21-5-2015
Keywords
Drug Detection, Dog Sniff, Consent
Abstract
Rodriguez v. United States explores the use of drug detection dogs by police officers while conducting routine stopDrug Detection, Dog Sniff, Consents. It examines the citizen's interest in privacy as opposed to the benefit to police of drug detection. Rodriguez argues that his traffic stop by police was complete but was unreasonably prolonged after he denied consent to a dog sniff of his car, and that the wait for a backup officer to arrive at the scene was beyond reasonable. The state argues that the delay was short and, therefore, the stop was reasonable. Since a drug detection dog is only trained to detect contraband, the invasion of privacy is minimal. This presentation examines both arguments that are before the Supreme Court of the United States and the implications for society.
Recommended Citation
Allison, Elizabeth, "Rodriguez v. United States" (2015). Symposium Of University Research and Creative Expression (SOURCE). 11.
https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/source/2015/oralpresentations/11
Department/Program
Law & Justice
Additional Mentoring Department
Law & Justice
Rodriguez v. United States
SURC 137A
Rodriguez v. United States explores the use of drug detection dogs by police officers while conducting routine stopDrug Detection, Dog Sniff, Consents. It examines the citizen's interest in privacy as opposed to the benefit to police of drug detection. Rodriguez argues that his traffic stop by police was complete but was unreasonably prolonged after he denied consent to a dog sniff of his car, and that the wait for a backup officer to arrive at the scene was beyond reasonable. The state argues that the delay was short and, therefore, the stop was reasonable. Since a drug detection dog is only trained to detect contraband, the invasion of privacy is minimal. This presentation examines both arguments that are before the Supreme Court of the United States and the implications for society.
Faculty Mentor(s)
Teresa Francis Divine