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 ...
IIRC, "drug" dogs train exclusiively for drugs, but I could be wrong.
Dogs can be trained to sniff for drugs, explosives, firearms, live disaster victims, dead corpses (not the respected FReeper of the same name), and even diseases like cancer. The possibilities are only limited by the dogs ability to learn.
Regardless, this particular segment and associated judicial ruling is bad for the citizens of this country.
~ Blue Jays ~
If the bills were packed in with the stuff, then maybe, or if a bill was used to sniff cocaine. But LSD, marijuana, E, and so forth are not usually associated with bills.Coke is the big one, its rolled to sniff, then the bills are stacked with others in wallets, cash registers, etc...
-Eric
BUMP
Humans can detect smoked marijuana on clothing, hair, etc. Dogs can detect unsmoked marijuana inside containers. My meaning wasn't that humans would deliberately take on the role of drug-sniffing canines, just that if an officer smells marijuana from the clothing of a person, would that be probable cause to search a car? I'm curious as to how much common sense, along with observing constitutional rights, is involved in the process.
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong about this case. The dog wasn't searching the car was it? Both dog and cop were simply sniffing the air in close proximity to the speeder, correct?
A good question, but a large amount of bacon in his trunk would have probably had the same effect. The fulcrum here is probable cause, not dogs (and cops) sniffing air. When a guy is stopped on a warning charge, give him a a warning. If there is probable cause, nail him. If there isn't, don't call in the doggies. Meat on the seat will cause an illegal search.
Now they can pull you over for "swerving in your lane" (aka, not driving in a perfect straight line) and search you for "acting suspicious".When I read this post, I immediately thought of the lyrics to one of my favorite songs, "99 Problems" by Jay-Z. People who don't know better might think it sounds paranoid:Basically, they can pull you over and send in the dogs for a search with no cause whatsoever.
So i...pull over to the side of the road
I heard "Son do you know why i'm stoppin' you for?"
Cause i'm young and i'm black and my hats real low
Do i look like a mind reader sir, i don't know
Am i under arrest or should i guess some mo'?
"Well you was doin fifty-five in a fifty-four"
"License and registration and step out of the car"
"Are you carryin' a weapon on you i know alot of you are"
I ain't steppin out of [clinton] all my papers legit
"Well, do you mind if i look round the car a little bit?"
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk and the back
And i know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
"Aren't you sharp as a tack, you some type of lawyer or something'?"
"Or somebody important or somethin'?"
Nah i ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my [clinton]
"We'll see how smart you are when the K-9 come"
I got 99 problems but a [hillary] ain't one
-Eric
There is nothing legally wrong, if I protect my privacy with some rather harsh spices found in every home kitchen.Betchya that becomes "probable cause", if this goes on....
-Eric
"...There is nothing legally wrong, if I protect my privacy with some rather harsh spices found in every home kitchen..."
You mean the oh-so-deliciously-fragrant potpourri of flower petals, garlic, cinnamon, coffee, gun powder, patchouli oil, Hoppe's #9 Solvent, dog treats, horseradish, anise, cayenne pepper, carb cleaner, vanilla extract, ammonia, laundry detergent, peanut butter, and a dash of grandpa's Old Spice cologne?
Drop a rag soaked in this concoction into a perforated coffee can in your trunk and let the fun begin! ;-)
~ Blue Jays ~
what type of search would you consider unreasonable?
not being sarcastic, but it is hard to argue that this ruling actually increases protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
she was lucky the traffic nannys weren't around. they are the real danger with parking violations.
No, but my wife is from a communist country.
obviously the solution would be increased scrutiny of people from target countries, regardless of smells or dogs.
Not profiling is PC suicide.
I think the concern here some posters have is of the phenomenom of incrementalism.
The general idea is that once goverment gets a new power/ability/legally admissible tool, it builds on it. It usually starts with something no one disagrees with (child abusers, drunk drivers, 'the children'), expands some to something fairly easy to get legal cover for (drugs), but then at some opportunity in the future, under a future administration (can you imagine an HRC admin, or a kerry admin putting 3 justices on the court, etc.), something many defenders of this ruling here would never support today suddenly gets slipped in.
Forfeiture laws are another good example...now that they are apparently 'constitutional' for some crimes, it is just a matter of interpretation under the right court to expand them. I think it is pretty clear that if they are OK for some crimes, there is no clear legal reason for them not to be OK for any felony if congress wants to go that route.
Intuition. A vital skill in many areas, including law enforcement.
Do we know if their drug dog would have picked up explosives Do dogs key off both types of items or are the different dogs for different categories?
"Call me immune to the loss of freedom, I expect it to get worse not better in the future"
I look at the growth of government as a force, or a wave, and something that can only be somewhat re-directed, but not stopped. The election of bush instead of gore did stop it on SOME fronts, but not others. The 9/11/01 attacks had a huge influence on it, and so it goes.
The bright side is that the war on guns was on life support after the 94 AWB, and apparently is now dead-awaiting-recussitation under a hypothetical future democrat administration. On many other fronts, the growth of big brother goes on.
I guess to really stop this in its tracks, you would need an extraordinary social stressor, like widespread hunger, failure of the banking system, etc., and even then it might not be enough, or we might end up with something far more oppressive.
Can't say for sure, though. I suppose it's possible that a dog could be trained for both.
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.