DECIDED: April 29, 2025 · No. 24-10837. Affirmed summary judgment for the troopers on qualified immunity.
WHY IT MATTERS: A traffic stop cannot be extended to wait for a drug dog without reasonable suspicion, but a cluster of ordinary factors can add up to that suspicion, and when it does the extension holds.
A traffic stop is supposed to last only as long as the traffic errand takes. The Supreme Court said so in Rodriguez. But the same rule that protects a driver also fixes the line the police must clear to hold him longer, and in Thompson v. Richter the Fifth Circuit found they cleared it.
The rule
Under Rodriguez v. United States, a stop may last no longer than the time needed to handle the matter that justified it. Checking a license, running a warrant check, writing the ticket, those are the mission. A dog sniff is not, and if it adds time to a stop that is otherwise finished, it needs its own justification: reasonable suspicion of separate criminal activity. So the question in these cases is always the same. Was the extension backed by reasonable suspicion, or was it a hunch looking for a reason?
The facts
A trooper stopped a car for speeding. The people inside gave inconsistent accounts of where they were going. The navigation screen showed a destination different from the one they named. They were driving a known trafficking corridor, the car wore temporary tags, and the driver was evasive. The trooper called for a drug dog. It arrived about twenty-six minutes later and alerted, and a search turned up a loaded handgun. One occupant, a convicted felon, was arrested.
The holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the troopers and held them protected by qualified immunity. It treated the twenty-six minute extension as adequately supported. Taken together, the trooper’s observations added up to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the speeding, so holding the car for the dog did not violate the driver’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.
Why it matters
For anyone who litigates a stop, the case is a map of how reasonable suspicion is built and how it is attacked. No single fact decides it. The government stacks the factors, the defense pulls them apart, and the court weighs the pile. If you represent the person who was detained, you do not argue that a dog sniff is always unlawful, because it is not. You take the factors one at a time and ask whether, stripped of hindsight, each really pointed at a crime or only at the ordinary untidiness of travel.
Thompson v. Richter, No. 24-10837 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025), applying Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond the time needed to complete its mission without reasonable suspicion). Analyzed here for the lawyering, not the politics. This is general information, not legal advice.
