High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs

Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

[Gilbo_3]

: They were probably afraid of you.

Then WHY would they bother him???

[Nataku X]

Rochester cops are great. They care about REAL crimes.

The cops do a great job; that's why every time I look at a Democrat & Chronicle there's some horrible story of a local murder or stabbing.

Not that it doesn't nullify your (accurate) point that cops are revenue generators for the most part.

[Gilbo_3]

Since when are roadblocks considered a guilty sentence?

Drive around it or back out/U turn and see if you arent presumed guilty...

[Randy Papadoo]

Oh, that explains a lot. You're a Canadian.

Isn't your comment that "my argument sucks" just your opinion? And does my argument sound like it could have come from a cop? I don't think that would matter to you, my "sixth sense" tells me.

And you lock your car every time you're asked to step out.
Well, just how many times a week does that happen to you, that it has become such an ingrained habit? Do you ever get stopped and the officer doesn't ask you to step out?

I think you're making all this up (my opinion, ok?). I don't think you've been asked to step out of your car by a cop very often, maybe not ever.

You're probably paranoid about cops, read in some lib magazine about locking your doors, and you thought that was a terrific idea, because the cops could never have any legitimate interest in you anyway, right?

Do all Canadians lock their cars like you claim you do? If not, think some about why you do and they don't.

[Randy Papadoo]

Not too bad, TKD, except for the reason cops concentrate on drugs.

Forfeiture is an incentive, of course. But the real reason cops work so hard at drug enforcement is because they believe the country, to quote some experts, is "awash in drugs".

Cops don't like to be losing that (or any) battle. Enforcement is their sworn duty! Change the law and see if cops care anymore. But since that isn't happening, they are constantly trying new techniques and approaches to become more effective in the drug war, and that's why I think there's a concentration on drug enforcement by law enforcement. They have to keep trying harder.

[pageonetoo]

Who has reason to dislike this new ruling besides people who handle or use illegal drugs?

Your "sixth sense" must be out of whack! If you think that the only folk affected are users, go ahead and drink the Kool-aid... Oh, that explains a lot. You're a Canadian.

You don't have any idea what you are saying, but you can still say it... First Amdt.

You sound like the Dims raking Dr/ Rice... FYI, I live in WV, and if you read my other posts, you would know that my oldest son is a cop. I've been around here a lot longer than you... I simply posted a pic to make a visual point.

As for calling me a liar, bite me! Don't post to me, until you have something to add!

[Randy Papadoo]

Don't get mad.

And I certainly never called you a liar, so I don't understand why you said I did. Read it again. As I recall, I believe I qualified all that by stating it was my opinion. Relate some particulars about all the traffic stops, and I'll change my opinion. Might even consider biting you, as a token of my humiliation. 8-) I'm not worried about that, because I think it's really bizarre behaviour for an mature adult (you have a son who is a cop) to even think about locking his doors during the circumstances you described.

It's simple, really. You hate cops. So be it. It is, however, a minority position.

If I missed on the Canadian part, I apologize. It's just a personal thing with me about Canadians who criticize the US in areas where they have no standing.

Even out of context, my quote in your post still makes sense to me. The inference needs no explanation, and it was directed primarily at those who profess opposition to the ruling for specific reasons that have nothing to do with 4th Amendment issues.

You're arguing legal philosophy, and I'm not. We'll never agree with anything coming from those divergent directions. Not a new thing, is it?

I posted that very same pic two days ago in another thread about Kerry. It was a progression of funny pics, and that one fit right into the progression. Didn't take. I'm still learning.

To close out, if I assume, based on our correspondence, that you also are opposed to the Patriot Act (for civil rights infringement issues), I support it 110%, because of the results it has obtained which kept our country safe from terrorist attack. (It has, you know.)

If my assumption is correct, there couldn't be a better example to demonstrate our differences on these issues.

No hard feelings on my part. Hope the same is true for you.

[pageonetoo]

Even out of context, my quote in your post still makes sense to me. The inference needs no explanation, and it was directed primarily at those who profess opposition to the ruling for specific reasons that have nothing to do with 4th Amendment issues...

No hard feelings, but your insistence that you opined "truth" doesn't wash... you are trying to split a hair, when the head is falling off...

There are parts of the "Patriot" Act with which I agree. However, I do not see reasons to suspend the BOR for any reason... It opens the door to further abuse!

But, the central issue is about this search. IMO, they are saying that anyone can be searched when a cop "feels" something... Bull Hockey! They are also stating there was no search. I don't understand their ruling... but then, I also don;t understand Roe!

As for giving you proof of stops, please excuse me if I tell you to shove it. Your "opinion" calls me a liar! I don't have anything to prove to you!

Yeah, I do think you are a cop, or maybe just a wannabe! I don't "hate" cops. I just despise the ones that fit my "profile" of JBT! Keep your "sixth sense".

I support my local Sheriff, politically, and financially... and he knows me a whole lot better than you! He also has a short leash on some guys he "inherited" from the previous SS type!

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

You are right. Legislatures keep passing tougher laws, and drug enforcement keeps receiving more money. What other results can you expect? It's a formula for violating our rights, especially considering the advent of wall-piercing imaging and remote listening devices.

Sadly, the WoD still trumps most rational arguments, even when fundamental Constitutional Rights are at stake.

My position on drugs: If the drug is fairly innocuous, leave it alone, not a problem. If it's a killer drug, like meth or heroin, let the junkies choose their own destruction. When opium and cocaine were available at the local pharmacy, we had a dramatically lower addiction rate. Tougher and tougher laws against crack cocaine, yet the area I live in is awash in the stuff. Black tar heroin is being sold to teenyboppers in many cities for $10 a hit. The WoD is wildly counterproductive, but this truth is also counterintuitive to so many 'right thinking' Americans.

[TexasAg1996]

The state court in this case examined all the evidence to make sure that the officer writing the ticket was not purposefully delaying everything to wait for the dog to arrive. I think the whole indicent lasted less than 10 minutes from when they pulled the driver over. Not too bad considering they had to run his plates, get his license and insurance info, write the ticket, etc.

[Paint Rider]

Hey folks...there is no right to privacy in the air. Not in the air you breath, not in the air that passes through your car. The dog simply picks up the air around the car. If it (the air)has dope or explosives or what ever the dog has been trained for, then they have probable cause for a search. It really is as simple as that. This is one of the best tools Law Enforcement has and is unintrusive and benificial for honest Law abiding citizens.

[Conservative til I die]

So ho wmany times did the drug warriors on this thread say something like "If you've got nothing to hide, why would you be afraid to be searched?"

[Conservative til I die]

...and the defenders of this crap will only scream bloody murder when it's THEY who are inconvenienced.

Actually, with their mindset, I can see them ranting about how the government is just trying to help us while they're being led to the gas chamber.

[green iguana]

Contrary to the Associated Press and Justice Ginsburg, this decision "broadens" nothing.

But what about Justice Souter's dissent? Does the fallibility of the dog make the search unconstitutional? Seems to me the defense didn't push this aspect hard enough...

[Randy Papadoo]

Right on with 99% of your post, ARFAR. Again, you're coming at it again from a slightly different direction than I am, so I do have a comment or two.

With my mindset, I have no problem, so far, with the "civil rights violations" you talk about, because I agree with the legislators' thoughts of protecting the general populace. I also disagree with calling these law changes "civil rights violations". Just a quibble with your choice of the word. "Infringement" works better for me, because it does apply to a narrowing of behavior without suggesting unlawfulness.

Don't worry about it. I know what you mean.

The WoD has created some absolute arcanities in the law, most particularly with respect to the 4th amendment. But as long as folks support the idea that drugs need to be suppressed via law enforcement efforts, and I don't think that's going to change much any time soon (it could!), new law will be continue to be created.

But, hey, take the bad with the good. Plenty of those decisions go against the cops. It's not a one-way street.

At one point, my adult son expressed the same position on drugs as you described....NM MJ, let the heavy drug users die in the alleys. He was messing with psychedelics then, and hated the (justified)paranoid feelings he had over perhaps being arrested for doing something he felt was nobody's business but his. He talked of going to live in Europe to avoid that feeling. He never did come close to getting arrested or even becoming the subject of an investigation, AFAIK. We didn't talk much more about it, as you can imagine.

Awash is indeed the word. Please respect the attitudes of those of us who agree with the law and LE efforts to enforce drug laws. We're not misguided, and we can certainly respect your position without agreeing with it at all. Sure doesn't mean we can't argue our heads off though, does it? 8-)

[Lazamataz]

I had a hunch he was a troll.

Turns out he was.

[green iguana]

Why were all of his posts removed? Is that SOP for a troll?

[Lazamataz]

Why were all of his posts removed? Is that SOP for a troll?

Yes.

[Congressman Billybob]

The "fallibility" of the dog is no more an issue than the "fallibility" of the nose of the police officer, when he says "I smelled marijuana when I approached the car." In short, it's a non-issue.

Billybob