[circlecity]

Fortunately this has long been the law in Indiana.

[Westbrook]

Well, they can still plant evidence, right?

[rktman]

Yeah, right. Next time someone gets pulled over and refuses a search and the cops tell him/her to wait while the K-9 unit is dispatched they’ll just say “I don’t have to wait!” and then drive away. Let’s see how that turns out. :>}

[gdani]

Always surprising when SCOTUS rules in favor of what’s left of the Fourth Amendment.

[Regal]

Scalia and Roberts side with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Don’t see that every day.

[RedStateRocker]

I am disappointed with Thomas and Alito.

[Revelation 911]

easily circumvented when the cop takes his time writing the traffic ticket

[shadeaud]

So, what’s to prevent the cop from taking his time checking out the driver and registration of the car while asking for a canine unit to respond before the stop has been completed ( in this case the issuing of the warning).

[Haiku Guy]

On April 21, 2015, I agreed with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Red Badger]

There will now be cases where cops write tickets V E R Y S L O W L Y >.........................................

[factoryrat]

Doesn't matter. If you're pulled over, and the cop wants to nail you for something, they will. And if you complain, protest, question, cite your constitutional rights, or are perceived to be uncooperative, that will just escalate the situation, and more than likely get you a beating, shot, or thrown in jail where you will be beaten, tased, and/or have the book thrown at you by the the prosecutor.

The LEO’s really do not like anyone questioning their authority.

[Personal Responsibility]

Ginsburg believes this is unreasonable search and seizure but will undoubtedly have no problem with this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

[Buckeye McFrog]

They will just raise your taxes to equip every cruiser with a drug-sniffing dog.

[nickcarraway]

How can you pull over someone who is driving on the shoulder?

[beelzepug]

But...but...we HAVE to search it to find out if we have probable cause.

[P-Marlowe]

In this case, I would think that they had no probable cause to have a dog sniff the car even if the dog was already present at the scene. Unless the driver gave some clear indication that led the officers to reasonably believe that he had illegal drugs in his car, any search, including sniffing by a police dog would be an unreasonable violation of the 4th amendment.

They called in the dogs on a hunch. They need a lot more than that.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This goes against what the court has ruled in recent years, typically granting wide latitude to police in searches.

The argument is primarily about the ability of the police to detain without objective probable cause. This was using the very subjective “reasonable suspicion” basis.

I suspect that “reasonable suspicion” has become too much like “profiling” in practice. Especially in situations like traffic stops.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Hard to believe 6 members of the SCOTUS actually got it right.