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.

[JeffAtlanta]

If false positives are a real problem, Caballes needs a new lawyer.

How would false positives be documented?

Regardless, shouldn't the rate of sucess need to be pretty high? I'm not saying it's not - I'm just saying that shouldn't be a crap shoot.

[cdrw]

absolutely NOT OKAY AT ALL.

My point was that even when the high court says "you need a warrant" or "that evidence isn't admissible" that will not stop the police from using the technique and there is very little in our present way of managing law enforcement that will allow us to stop them.

They will use any means at their disposal to gather evidence - they will only bring to court the stuff they think the judge would like to see.

[Modernman]

If you're not stashing the crack, what's the big deal in allowing someone's dog sniff one's pocket?

If you're not cheating on your taxes, what's the big deal in allowing me to look at your tax returns?

If you have no contraband in your house, what's the big deal in allowing me to rifle through your closet?

If you have nothing illegal in your medical history, what't the big deal in allowing me to look at your medical records?

[TexasAg1996]

The key word in the 4th Amendment is "unreasonable". You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in the air around your vehicle. Therefore, there is no violation if a dog sniffs the air around your vehicle while the cops are writing you a ticket.

The result might be different if the cops refuse to let you leave until a dog arrives. In that case, the cops would need some kind of probable cause or reasonable suspicion before they could hold you longer than a normal traffic stop.

[KarlInOhio]

We are talking a dog here, it's not like the dog says to himself, I don't like this guy, I think I will start barking so my buddy can search his car.

But with the proper tug on the leash he will.

I would put far more trust in an electronic sensor which gives a number or sounds a buzzer than a dog with a cop on the other end of the leash.

[NJ_gent]

"The problem is you make it sound like officers plant evidence WHENEVER someone gives them a hard time and that is false."

The few and far between cases where it does happen, and the mere potential for it to happen, are plenty to justify the additional safeguards in my opinion. If we're going to err (and we're human, so of course we are), I'd rather we err on the side caution when it comes to police action. I'm with the 'let 10 guilty men go before imprisoning 1 innocent man' crowd, and I think that's the case at every step along the way. The fact is that no matter how draconian we get with our laws, we will never become 100% crime-free. Even if we could, I doubt I'd want to live in a place so heavily restricted that it's impossible to commit a crime. Seems far too 1984-ish to me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If Caballes had been forced to wait while a dog was brought in he would have been detained illegally

I've had to wait as much as 4 hours just to have a driver's license check (there were hundreds of cars in front of me) at a routine roadblock. After the second time, I started listening to the radio stations that give traffic reports. To be fair, the usual stop was only about 2 hrs; 4 hours was during the rush hour.

[ClintonBeGone]

Exactly

[Doctor Stochastic]

Republicans have zero interest in liberty. They crave power and money, period.

They can be easily distinguished from Democrats if you have the team rosters handy, though.

[m1-lightning]

That's only if it's an inappropriate interpretation. Being that dogs don't actually climb into cars, but rather smell the odor emitting from the vehicle, it's not technically a search but rather probable cause in the same manner when a trooper smells alcohol on your breath when he pulls you over.

[John Lenin]

I give up, believe what you want. Drug threads are a waste of time, the thinking on them is hilarious.

[Lazamataz]

If you're not stashing the crack, what's the big deal in allowing someone's dog sniff one's pocket?

Very reasonable answer.

Say, while we are at it: If you aren't planning a crime, why are you sending mail in an envelope? Postcards would work just fine. If you aren't planning a terrorist act, what's the big deal with cops just coming over to your house and searching it without a warrant?

We're starting to get AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS of you Constitution-Loving Crazies.

[cardinal4]

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."

I never thought I would agree with this twit..

[ampat]

I think you misread my post.

[westmichman]

Yes, but it is usually some other mental dysfunction or alcohol.

[ellery]

Freedom of speech and the press are injured -- campaign finance reform, arrests of anti-gay protestors, etc.

[SheLion]

If you have any more complaints, FReep mail me.  Stop showing your ass in this thread.

[TigersEye]

If you're not stashing the crack, what's the big deal in allowing someone's dog sniff one's pocket?

They say that cocaine is so prolific that every paper bill in circulation has some on it. Have fun explaining that. You can tell them you heard it on the internet. ;^)