In Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 35, 41 (1996) Justice Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion, discussed the need to evaluate both the reason for an initial detention after a traffic stop by law enforcement as well as the scope of the detention to ensure that police officers are not using traffic stops as a means to conduct "fishing expeditions."

The question presented is:

Does the Fourth Amendment protect against a "fishing expedition" to develop 'reasonable suspicion' to exceed the scope of an initial stop in order to conduct a vehicle search?

In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 419 (1981), this Court held that reliance on special training is insufficient to establish "reasonable suspicion" to search absent objective factual support.

The question presented is:

Under the Fourth Amendment did objectively articulable suspicion exist for the drug interdiction officer to exceed the scope of the initial stop of Petitioner, and to request permission to search absent objectively articulable suspicion?

The question presented is:

Should police possess reasonable articulable suspicion of further criminal activity before pressing a request to search a vehicle?

Does the Fourth Amendment protect against a 'fishing expedition' to develop 'reasonable suspicion' to exceed the scope of an initial stop in order to conduct a vehicle search?