How about their holding that a routine traffic stop "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500.) And then there is their decision that a detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.) And, a further decision that states that the key is whether or not "the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly." (Sharpe (1985) 470 U.S. 675, 686-688.) They have further decided that questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080; and Johnson (2009) 555 U.S. 323, 325 re: the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.") And, from the 9th Circuit, if, before the original detention has been resolved, the officer has obtained the detainee's valid consent for a continuation of the detention, for instance, while you search his vehicle, or, the officer has developed reasonable suspicion about some other or different offense, then he is permitted to extend the detention. (Rojas-Millan (9th Cir. 2000) 234 F.3d 464, 469-470--license plate and possible stolen vehicle concerns escalated to possible drug transportation;
Then there is a host of California case law that I must adhere to that reinforces and even expands upon this limited detention concept.
So, if the USSC decides to revers and allow for detentions based on NO reasonable suspicion, then it sets a precedent that should set any civil libertarian afire as it opens the door for detentions without any cause. Indeed, the USSC would be saying that a detention absent even reasonable suspicion would be permissible. This is a scary road to travel down. I suspect they took the case only to reinforce that the detention is NOT unlimited and not remove the reasonable suspicion requirement.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm sure I can find an example of anything if I look for it. And with hundreds of thousands of contacts between law enforcement the citizenry every day, it would be highly improbable that none of them would be without some problem. But, of course, the fact that malfeasance occurs even with regularity in one place does NOT mean that it occurs anywhere else and certainly not everywhere.

