So it's not like this was a case of the police not having reasonable suspicion(or merely going on a fishing expedition), because they did find something.....the courts just decided it was inappropriate regardless(which is a win for the 4th amendment in the end)
The fact that they ultimately found something does not mean that they had reasonable suspicion. What is found in a search does not retroactively justify the search. The High Court held that there was no reasonable suspicion following the conclusion of the traffic stop. In the Court's own words:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-09972qp.pdfQuestion presented:
This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are "de minimis" intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification. [Emphasis mine]
From the Court's opinion
Read the whole thing here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdfAfter receiving evidence, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge found no probable cause to search the vehicle [note: probable cause is a different, higher standard than reasonable suspicion] independent of the dog alert. App. 100 (apart from “information given by the dog,” “Officer Struble had [no]thing other than a rather large hunch”). He further found that no reasonable suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the written warning.
...
We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff. 573 U. S. ___ (2014). Compare, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 270 F. 3d 625, 632 (CA8 2001) (postcompletion delay of “well under ten minutes” permissible), with, e.g., State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶13, 229 P. 3d 650, 658 (2010) (“[W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.”). [Emphasis added]