Rodriguez v. United States (13-9972)

argument 13-9972

Rodriguez v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal question presented in Rodriguez v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next this morning in case thirteen ninety nine seventy two Rodriguez versus the United States. Mr O'Connor? Mr.

Unknown 0:09

Chief Justice, it may it please the court.

Elena Kagan 0:11

Thanks, sir.

Unknown 0:12

The big issue that starts in this case. is whether after completing the tasks related to a traffic stop Whether an officer without individualized suspicion Can hold the driver. For a dog sniff. specific question in this case is whether Officer Strubbel was entitled to piggyback an already uh completed um uh traffic offence with probable cause On to that piggy bet onto that traffical fence for An investigation Of Mr Rodriguez involving nothing more than a hunch. That is the question of the case. But that remains that w that wasn't um reached by the Court of Appeals. The district the district court, as you pointed out, uh rejected the argument that there was probable cause. saying it's nothing more than a hunch.

Unknown 1:16

But that was not reviewed by the Court of Appeal, so that would still be open. The uh the uh decision of the Court of Appeals, Your Honor, absolutely. That was a de minimis uh ruling. They did not uh reach the question as whether there was um reasonable suspicion uh and um left it uh just based on their ruling of of whether in fact this was a de minimis action.

John G. Roberts 1:43

Council, do you um Uh concede that this would be all right if the dog sniff took place during the traffic stop. In other words, let's say there were, you know, two two policemen there already. One says, I'm gonna go write you a ticket, and while that's taking place, the other policeman walks around with the dog. No problem with that. There'd be no

Unknown 2:03

problem uh um m Mr Chief Justice if if in fact all of that was done before the traffic uh ticket was written. If in fact the dog was written uh uh taken around the car prior to the completion of the traffic stop and the ticket, then of course it would be Mr O'Connor Mr O'Connor, uh it's i it's frequent that A policeman when he stops somebody for broken taillight or whatever. We'll conduct some other inquiries, you know, where where are you going? Uh Um ask a lot of questions. He will he will check whether the person is uh uh is driving a stolen car. Whether whether the person is uh properly licensed All of that has nothing to do with the broken taillight. And yet that's permitted, right? Yes, uh, would it be permitted if he did it after he wrote the ticket?

Unknown 3:04

It at that point in time no, he he he would have Is that right? He he he he can only do that before he writes the ticket. If assuming that What if he's not giving a ticket? He's just gonna give him a warning. When he says to them, you know, you shouldn't have done that and uh You went a little bit over the line. Be careful next time. Uh by the way, um uh let me let me see your driver's license. Uh that would be bad. Yes, sir, that would be that would be it would be. It would be because that would be part of the stop. So all all all of those questions would be once the stop is finished then he should be allowed to go no matter what the question was.

How do the parties define the scope of a traffic stop and when it ends?

Samuel A. Alito 3:44

Is it your is it your argument that you that as soon as All of the steps that must be taken in connection with the traffic stop are completed. then the the the stop must uh end. Uh or is it that uh not that the s that nothing more can be done after the ticket is issued? In other words, is it the length of time or is it the formal uh Act of giving the ticket or the warning that that cuts things off.

Unknown 4:17

It is the formal act. Once the uh act and the traffic stop is done, which would be the reason, which would be the purpose for the stop, once that is done, uh that is the uh the Yeah but that is done is is is is not clear. Two questions. Inj Injustice Khali is hypothetical. The officer said, I'm not going to give you a ticket. But I I just want to ask you a few questions. Uh it seems to me that under your argument Those questions are impermissible because he's made his decision he's not going to give a ticket. And on the other hand uh f as uh uh Justice Alito indicates, suppose that he said, Now I finished your ticket, but before I give it to you, I'm gonna go back to the police car and check to see if there are warrants.