I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome

to the latest of our We The People Constitutional Podcasts.

The National Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress

to disseminate information about the U.S. Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.

And today we discuss the most interesting Supreme Court decision of the week involving

drug sniffing dogs in the Fourth Amendment.

This week the Supreme Court decided a case involving the constitutional powers of police dogs for the third time in two years.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Officer Morgan's

trouble in Nebraska needed a search warrant to deploy a dog called K-

hyphen-9 officer.

These adorable names are one of the delightful staples of these cases.

A previous case involved a dog named Aldo.

This case was called Rodriguez versus United States.

And the question was, how long can an officer delay using a dog after the person in the stop has received a ticket.

In this case, the dog was brought in about seven or eight minutes after the ticket was written.

In an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice's

Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Justice Ginsburg

wrote, absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop.

In order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures.

There were dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Lido, joined by Justice Kennedy, and joining me to discuss these

fascinating cases and the question of dog searches and technological searches more broadly

are two of the leading experts in America on

...