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.

[antiRepublicrat]

NSA's TEMPEST. You'd be shocked and amazed what you can tell about what's going on inside a person's home just from the patterns of electromagnetic interference generated.

Even better, some people recently figured out how to tell what you're typing by the sound the keyboard makes. They only need to know who manufactured your keyboard and point a sound-detecting laser at your window.

[Rebelbase]

The restraint of UK LEOs amazes me. I saw on tv English police chase a motorcyle driving like a bat out of hell. The guy nearly killed himself several times as well as other people.

When he finally stopped the cops ran up to him and gave him "a talking to" and then a ticket. Here in America he would have been maced, beaten with club, cuffed then maced again.

[Jay777]

Is a grateful dead sticker reason to search? What about a sticker that says "Legalize It!" ?? What if they look like a punk kid? Or maybe they dress like a hippy? Would the smell of sandlewood be reason to search? Perhaps they are covering it up. This is definitely a breach of our right to privacy. I have nothing to hide, so why would I mind a dog sniffing my car? It is a waste of my time. Probable cause would be you seeing someone smoke, you smell it, or you see it. Smoking pot isn't against the law, only possessing it. So being stoned isn't even reason to search, they could have gotten stoned at home.

[antiRepublicrat]

This just "shows to go ya" that if you have drugs in your car, don't give the cops any excuse to pull you over! Don't speed, make sure you drive perfectly, & avoid accidents.

That doesn't work. The profile for a drug transport is doing everything you said, so they'll pull you over anyway.

Yep, suspected of transporting drugs just becase you obey the law.

[mugs99]

Give it up, you are totally out of your league. I'm done with this thread.

ROFL!!!
Run and hide behind your nannie, Johnny

[m1-lightning]

"Sorry, sir. In this jurisdiction the detection of any alcohol in the vehicle constitutes a violation of open container laws. You'll have to prove to the court that your deodorant has alcohol in it. Zero tolerance, sir. It's for everybody's good."

No, you have it backwards. The officer has to prove to the court that there was an open container. Innocent until proven guilty still reigns.

[rottweiller_inc]

one from a few days ago: Former Lansford cop pleads guilty to conspiracy?

[blueknight]

No
No
No
No
No

[antiRepublicrat]

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

I can't believe I forgot about CFR. Duh!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;: Healthy. I can't think of any clear examples...

McMania's CFR that W signed cuts only political speech by individuals.

Other than that, good.

[Dan from Michigan]

I rarely agree with Souter and Ginsberg.

I still never agree with Stevens.

[NJ_gent]

"if Caballes hadn't posessed any marijuana the cops would not have invaded his privacy."

Which translates to: People who do bad things don't deserve and do not have rights.

Unfortunately for the SCOTUS - the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and their own precedent (Miranda v Arizona), all say exactly the opposite.

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

Which basically goes to say that if you're detained for any lawful reason, the police have a right to run a train on you to dig up any possible reason they can to arrest or detain you further. Considering the ridiculously low standards for stopping people and detaining them (Terry stops come to mind), this is essentially an open door to police having every right to stop anyone they please on the street to interrogate, probe, scan, sniff, and/or use other criminal activity detection techniques in an effort to jail the citizen. Now I understand that the vast majority of police officers have no intention or reason to use any of that power, but power does indeed corrupt. I'm sure every cop who's spent more than a month on the force has run into a person they could just swear is up to no good, but who's untouchable because there's no obvious sign of wrongdoing. Rulings like this give the police the opportunity to put someone through Hell on a hunch. Though their intentions may be as pure as snow, the result is the same.

""The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondant's hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his car. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to posess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.""

Which can be used as an argument against the 5th Amendment as well. So long as your confession is the only thing beaten out of you, as opposed to your grocery list, any interrogation is a-ok. The criminal does have the right to privacy, even when that privacy may end up concealing his criminal activities. That's not a popular position to take with the law enforcement folks because it makes their job harder. Oh well - want an easier job? Apply for work in China or North Korea where citizens' rights are a locker room joke.

"When transporting massive quantities of an illegal substance, obey the traffic laws."

Always amusing to watch Cops and see these idiots roll through a stop sign while carrying a gram of meth and a couple illegal weapons.

[m1-lightning]

Depends on who you are and where you live.

So what makes you more mad in NYC - Having your car searched for illegal guns or having your illegal guns seized?

If you change the law to make guns legal, then there is nothing to search for.

[blueknight]

They were probably afraid of you.

[antiRepublicrat]

The restraint of UK LEOs amazes me. I saw on tv English police chase a motorcyle driving like a bat out of hell. The guy nearly killed himself several times as well as other people.

I like the one with the spanish police giving in to a bank robber's demands. They gave him a fast motorcycle for his getaway, and he took off fast -- until they had a cop car shoot out of a side street right in front of him.

Newtonian physics can be extremely painful.

[antiRepublicrat]

Would the smell of sandlewood be reason to search?

Uh-oh, my wife loves all kinds of incense, including sandalwood. We're in trouble.

[m1-lightning]

Straw man. If you're growing pot in plain view, the police can quite easily get a warrant to search your house. If I'm driving along and violating no law and the cops set up checkpoints in order to have dogs sniff my car, the situation is quite different.

Wow. You just went from private property to public property. So it's OKAY for a cop to catch you breaking the law on private property but not on public property? It's that backwards from the 4th amendment?

[ellery]

It's understandable -- there are so many legislator violations that it's impossible for one body to keep track of them all.

Great list.

[t_skoz]

a guy who gets his handle from the names of a famous drug-addicted socialist and an infamous murderous socialist.

... and yet he's so "done with this".

See ya, screwball!

[Awestruck]

So as long as you get what you want, to hell with the bill of rights? You go ahead and sell your soul for a few creature comforts, as for me and mine we'll continue to stand up for freedom.