High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs

Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

[Lazamataz]

The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday during traffic stops, ruling that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be carrying narcotics.

In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous.

Caballes argued the Fourth Amendment protects motorists from searches such as dog sniffing, but Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed, reasoning that the privacy intrusion was minimal.

"The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement," Stevens wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned what she called the broadening of police search powers, saying the use of drug dogs will make routine traffic stops more "adversarial." She was joined in her dissent in part by Justice David H. Souter.

[The Westerner]

I agree with you. That is why I voted for Kerry. I knew that his Supreme Court nominees couldn't be any good. At this point, Ginsburg is looking good to me. Disgusting choice, isn't it?

[cdrw]

My understanding of the ruling on sensing equipment is that it IS allowed but it IS NOT admissible as evidence. There is a big difference there. I don't believe the ruling barred the police from using the equipment specifically. There are laws against phone tapping ... I don't think there are laws preventing anyone using any kind of technology to look around a neighborhood. Just my recollection - could be wrong.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, I'll do perspective if they found a joint in the backseat or something.

I won't, however, with 282 pounds in the trunk.

[ampat]

Maybe we will get there someday. None the less, your friend is wrong. This country isn't like East Germany.

[BohDaThone]

The fundamental point is that the sniff is simply not a search [you have let the drug particles out into the general PUBLIC air]. Lots of earlier cases have said that a dog sniff from the PUBLIC areas of a self-storage facility (can't go INTO the unit); from the aisle of a pullman car (Can't go INTO the compartment); or from OUTSIDE a parked car are simply not searches. This just confirms the same principle. Doesn't mean that the dog (or cop) can go inside the car, unless other tests are met (safety -- visible weapons, incident to an arrest, etc).

You may or may not like the line of cases, but this is really no change -- not even an extension -- from past cases.

As was noted a few posts up, the Supreme Court DID make a big change a few years back when they said you could NOT use outside heat detectors (thermal imaging), which had been common practice for a while

[cdrw]

DOD has been working one this for several years. They have olfactory sensors now available that are designed to smell human beings. These things are intended for use in secure remote areas, monitoring the wilderness ...

[ellery]

Hey, combine this ruling with this story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327287/posts

Maybe on the way home from driving across town from one store to another, after buying the third box of cold medicine my family needs (since you can only buy two boxes at one time now), I will be stopped at a catch-all road block, sniffed and arrested as a suspected meth dealer! After all, those three boxes of cold medicine are now illegal. Then my name will be in the paper for a drug dealing arrest. Minor inconvenience? No.

People need to remember that laws are cumulative, and that's when they start sweeping up innocent citizens and ruining lives.

[JeffAtlanta]

You shouldn't carry it loaded. It's against the law.

Tell that to women who have to travel through rough neighborhoods to work or have to drive long distances.

Reguardless, the point still stands - tell a cop you have a gun in your car and see how he reacts.

[Lazamataz]

Hey Laz. You got 10 minutes to post an apology.

Bite me.

Your performance fart is there for all to see.

[NJ_gent]

"Drugs are illegal. Guns are not."

Tell that to residents of Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New Jersey - among other places.

[E Rocc]

Ending the war on drugs is really the only way to stop the assault on our liberties.

True. Effectively fighting the "War on(some)Drugs" will require even more infringements on our rights than we see even now...indeed stuff that unquestionably violates the Bill of Rights will be neccesary.

Status quo means that this lucrative trade is dominated by the most violent and unscrupulous people possible. It inevitably makes them rich and powerful, and enables them to corrupt our institutions.

The best solution is obvious, especially since we've been through this once before. Unfortunately, now we have the "forfeiture" laws. If we had had these laws during Prohibition, we'd probably still have Prohibition.

-Eric

[agitator]

It's much worse than everybody thinks

http://taor.agitator.dynip.com/on_law.htm

[m1-lightning]

I have. What's your point? It's still not illegal.

[westmichman]

I guess until they can get a dog to swear to a warrant and testify in court they should not be used?

[palmer]

I won't, however, with 282 pounds in the trunk.

I doubt the ruling was made based on the quantity of drugs. Next ruling when someone has "just a joint" in the backseat will use this one as precedent. You will undoubtedly applaud that as well.

[PilloryHillary]

What is going on with the Surpreme Court????? If a guy gets stopped for speeding and "seems nervous", it gives the police a right to call out the dogs to smell search him? Say goodbye to privacy.

[Dead Corpse]

If I thought for a second you were worth arguing with, I would. Instead...

[Maigrey]

placemark