Posted on 01/24/2005 9:20:02 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Vibes
What and officer learns to rely on while on the street dealing with situations most citizens don't want to deal with. Cues that the officer picks up from those they deal with (mostly for their own safety). My picking up of "vibes" is probably why I am here today to post. The reality is that most honest people act in a certain way on the street and most dishonest people (people up to something) act in a certain way. Its not an exact science, but believe me, over and over I have seen the difference. Its not something that I can explain in a few words but it is real.
"I recall that the 9/11 hijackers weren't very nervous."
Roy Caballes, with with 282 pounds of marijuana in the trunk, certainly was.
That has already been disproved on this thread. In some states possessing more than two packages of cold medicine is a crime. Legal, over-the-counter, cold medicine.
Obey the law or lobby to have the law changed.
There is no law to change here. This was a ruling on the interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution by the Court. No law was made, no law to repeal.
Most cops are good guys. A few are bad. The same is true of alcohol and drug users. Only the bad get attention. It is bad law that is responsible for our problems, not bad cops or bad addicts.
The law to change would be the one everyone here is afraid that dogs would send them to jail for, be it drugs or guns.
Excellent point. Politicians passing these unenforceable laws should get the blame of undermining our Republic and its delicate balance of power.
If you're not stashing the crack, what's the big deal in allowing someone's dog sniff one's pocket?
The rest of your post is pure b.s. My two boys are cops, and when they've pulled someone over for DUI, that person has blown positive (or refused to blow) EVERY SINGLE TIME!!
That's what I want to continue, along with a mandatory five year jail sentence for a first time DUI.
Monday update: Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test
Others gave up cigarettes before ban began Jan. 1
Lansing State Journal
Advertisement
Clinton
Eaton
Ingham
Ionia
Shiawassee
All listings
Price range
No minimum$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000$100,000$125,000$150,000$175,000$200,000$225,000$250,000$275,000$300,000$325,000$350,000$400,000$450,000$500,000$550,000$600,000$650,000$700,000$750,000$800,000$850,000$900,000$950,000$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$3,500,000$4,000,000
to
No maximum$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000$100,000$125,000$150,000$175,000$200,000$225,000$250,000$275,000$300,000$325,000$350,000$400,000$450,000$500,000$550,000$600,000$650,000$700,000$750,000$800,000$850,000$900,000$950,000$1,000,000$1,500,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$3,500,000$4,000,000
Bedrooms
Any1+2+3+4+5+ Bathrooms
Any1+2+3+4+5+ Xxx
OKEMOS - Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke - even if done after business hours or at home.
Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.
"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place.
Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.
"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.
Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful.
Climes estimated that about 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003.
Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place.
Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.
"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.
Although respondant argues that error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument.
If false positives are a real problem, Caballes needs a new lawyer.
Besides... Cops can't be required to present undeniable proof before being allowed search a car. So even if a dog sometimes alerts officers to something other than contraband, as long as it's reasonable to assume contraband is probably present... the search should be legal.
Sure. And I'm sure the Illinois State Police see it all the time.
It's obvious his nervousness was noteworthy.
Or, the Illinois State troopers were lying. Is that what you're alluding to?
Monday update: Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test Others gave up cigarettes before ban began Jan. 1
OKEMOS - Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke - even if done after business hours or at home.
Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.
"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place.
Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.
"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.
Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful.
Climes estimated that about 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003.
Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place.
Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.
"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS01/501240323/1001/news
Inappropriate interpretation of the Constitution has nothing to do with good or bad law. It is a wrong unto itself.
DWV can be added to the classic, DWB, SWC, and DWooS.
I've never smelled marijuana on someone that didn't look stoned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.