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 ...
It would be doubtful that a cop could ever obtain a court order under these circumstances as these conditions fall far short of "probable cause".
I am sure that some rubber stamp judges do would approve though, but that would be a perversion of what a reasonable person would consider probable cause
You can TRY. But if you think you can get elected without support of moneyed interests...
There's some very unmonied interests that managed to get elected to local city councils around here, and those are the people that set the Police department enforcement/dog sniffing rules in this particular case.
I'll guess that Congressman BB thinks it's possible to participate in American Government and directly affect the outcome of whetheror not we become a police state.
A better example. Some rookie cop pulls over a guy for a minor traffic violation. Based on a number of minor clues, he (incorrectly) thinks he's got probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs... but he's not quite sure whether it'd hold up in court.
Instead of just going with his gut and conducting what would ultimately be considered an unconstitutional search, the cop lets his partner bring the drug dog over while he's writing out the ticket. The dog smells nothing noteworthy and the rookie lets the guy go without a search.
I'm not agreeing that the number of unreasonable searches would actually decline by any significant amount... but it's possible.
That is a better example, but its still a "search". The officer basically just performed a preliminary search to determine if a further search would be necessary.
But it's not an "unreasonable search".
Also I'd like to add that by definition the number of unreasonable searches will decline due to this ruling because the standards of what is a "reasonable search" have been greatly lowered.
Its akin to solving the illegal immigrant problem by just giving everyone amnesty and reclassifying them as legal - the number of illegals would go way down.
Only because the definition of what an "unreasonable search" was changed.
And the other problem as well is that this acts as a teaching tool too. The more people are exposed to this sort of treatment, the more it becomes embedded in their psyche to submit to it. Bad enough in and of itself, but it also tends to make the unindoctrinated look guilty and like troublemakers by comparison, focusing more attention on them.
The question in this case is whether the better olfactory skills of the police dog are like, or unlike, the eyes and noses of the officers themselves. The dog is not "searching" anything. He/she is simply smelling what is available in public. So, this is not an extra-ordinary decision or result.
Congressman Billybob
I disagree. If what you say is true (that we are on a war footing equal to World War II) then where are the concentration camps holding all muslims who are a threat? Where is your draft notice? Where is your gas rationing card? Where is the Congressional declaration of war? Why havn't we dropped a nuke on Mecca?
Did it? If when the amendment was authored, the meaning of "unreasonable search" was understood to mean a search that harassed the suspect then since this dog sniff in no way harassed the suspect this decision confirmed, not changed, the definition.
I assume you would define "unreasonable search" differently?
1. Realistically, yes that's probably true for most officers. But where is the payoff for the rest of society to take that chance?
2. Should your ability to enjoy your Constitutionally acknowledged rights depend upon my good will and my schedule? No? Then why should my ability to do so depend upon your good will and schedule?
Of course ordinary traffic stops involve guns;every police officer I've ever seen making traffic stops has a holstered pistol on his person,but the pistol doesn't sniff your car! The pistol is there if the police officer needs to protect himself form a driver or passengers who are violent, otherwise the pistol is passive.
This seems pretty consistant with prior rullings involving sniffing dogs. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the odors you give off. After the dog is reacting on scents that reach the inside of its nose, not what's actually in your pocket. You druggies keep your weed sealed up tight and you should be okay.
Why should she show any respect for the Bobby, they only carry night sticks. Personally, I don't you should get away with blowing off a cop that is enforcing the law.
When you roll down your window at a traffic stop, if the cop smells "the odor of intoxicating beverages" that can form the basis of a probable cause search. The fact that a dog has a more sensitive shouldn't change the law.
Once the odor leaves your dwelling, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell.
I would gladly pay extra to have drug dogs routinely patrolling the halls of our public high schools.
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.