Skip to comments.High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs
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 ...
honestly I don't usually mind this, as long as there are no police or dogs involved
I recall that the 9/11 hijackers weren't very nervous. I know how much you hate drugs but try to get a little perspective.
The USSC has already ruled on that. Can't do it without a valid search warrant.
Hehhe... good luck with that...
Actually, using this case as support, they could now go back and get a different ruling.
Bet on it.
Unless you're carrying a couple of kilos what difference does it make if a dog sniffs your car ? Loss of freedom is what the homos are doing to us by creating special laws against free speech. Bomb and drug sniffing dogs are good for society.
I'm not a fan of WOD, but the main two freedoms in this country are the freedom to complain about government and the freedom to engage in commerce. I am more concerned about the erosion of free commerce than I am the erosion of freedon to ingest drugs.
We have been through prohibition and survived. We can survive this.
Most of the women cops where I live are lesbians. It's not an exaggeration. A guy I worked with wife was trying to get on the force. She was told by a superior that if she wasn't a lesbian, she better act like one. I know that gets away from the original thread, but it's true.
Bet on this:
At the next "seat belt" or "sobriety" checkpoint, there stands Johnny Fascist with his barking dog, ready to be sure you are a "good" subject.
Me too...I'm surprised that Justice Thomas would be in the majority here.
Your friends are right! We keep saying we are free but saying it and being free are 2 different things. There are things going on that we used to laugh at the communists for doing. The 4th amendment no longer exists except on paper. Some JBT will always find a way around the former right to privacy.
The point is that drugs probably shouldn't be illegal in the current capacity in the first place. The only thing the current WOD has led to is an increase in the price of drugs, the resulting increases in crime, general lawlessness, and losses of the 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Meanwhile, our streets, schools, military and even maximum security prisons are filled with drugs. Crooked cops and politicians are lining their pockets and the pockets of their friends and we're being screwed out of our freedoms at every turn.
A free man does not need to give a reason for wanting to maintain his privacy. I personally have nothing to hide, but I still don't want the cops going through my car on a hunch.
Loss of freedom is what the homos are doing to us by creating special laws against free speech.
The decision was made because of the WOD... when are we going to learn that the WOD is hurting is far more than it was ever first thought.
When are we going to claim our freedom back and let the junkies take their own lives?
I used to be able to choose my own doctor. (Actually I still could were I as rich as members of the Ruling Classes.)
I think you need to drive by a crack house and think again. Drugs make you stupid and eventually they catch up to a person, I don't care who you are. I've seen it with my own eyes, people who handled drugs really well for a while that turned into psychos when they get high.
Loss of freedom is never a good thing. It is taken away by inches so we don't notice. I think the Constitution is meaningless now anyway. Maybe we should start all over and write a new one.
The cops have been salavating to set up "drug checkpoints" for years.
If I'm not mistaken, they were shot down by this same court.
Well, this ruling gives them the back door they've been wanting.
Mark this, at sobriety checks you will now see at least two or three dogs.
Papers!?! VHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS!?!
My God...I agree with Ginsburg and Breyer. Is this a sign of the apocolypse?
Yes. The innate right to not having a dog breathe next to your car.
Next is the innate right to not have police look at you.
The 4th amendment was rendered superfluous the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment authorized "reasonable" search and siezures.
This interpretation of the 4th amendment is a common error made by the citizenry and the courts.
The first part of the 4th amendment, similar to the 2nd amendment, is a "description" as to why there is a need for the amemdment and the second part of the 4th amendment describes the "ONLY" proper procedures that must be followed in order to search citizens and seize their property.
Allowing for "reasonable" search and seizures without sworn warrants being issued is ludicrous and is anti-liberty because that means every search and seizure has to be litigated for "reasonableness."
Again, the intent of the 4th amendment was to prevent "reasonable" search and seizures without a warrant.
Apples and Oranges. Drugs are illegal. Guns are not.
Go through these things a couple of times, your attitude WILL change.
Till then, lets just do a drug search on your house. If you got nothing to hide, you won't mind.
Ginsburg and Souter.
Oh, it's just drugs, Laz. It's not like they can train dogs to sniff gun powder or gun oil.
I'll tell my son that so he can keep your sentiment in mind if he ever pulls over a drunk driver in your neighborhood.
The case to which I was referring is less than two years old.
Well not always! Ever hear of hate crimes where the government needs to get into your head to determine what you were thinking. Instead of hate crimes they simply need to increase the jail term for the actual crime. The result is the same without the government getting into thought policing.
Sure they are. Carry one in NYC and see what happens.
Was there ever any doubt of the outcome?
Oh goodness, me. I actually do things to preserve and exercise my freedom. What are YOU doing besides posting on FR? What was the last FOIA request you filed? Do you have YOUR FBI file?
I decry the Laz's and NJ_gents of the world that fiddle while Rome burns. That is the real ostrich.
The inexorable power grab of the government already HAS affected me -- and I defended myself. And I won. That doesn't happen in a police state.
Inactive whiners, though, are a dime-a-dozen, police-state or free utopia.
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. Just transport your drugs back to the house (or their intended location) & get 'em outta the car.
Is it illegal to have a gun in your car in NYC? This case was in Illinois. I live in Illinois. I can have a gun in my car in Illinois. Therefore it's apples and oranges.
What happened to the concept of a "search warrant"? This Supreme Court has been awful on issues of privacy.
Borders are a completely different thing. They have the right to search anyone or everyone for any reason when crossing a border. You have no expectations or rights crossing international lines. However, a citizen within these borders, used to have the expectation of certain rights, such as not being searched.
Hey Laz. You got 10 minutes to post an apology.
I never defended a crooked cop. I certainly didn't defend one who was ever charged, much less convivcted, of planting drugs.
Whether a person is acting nervous really has nothing to do with this.
A dog sniff for drugs isn't even considered a search.
Official conduct that does not compromise any legitimate interest in privacy is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate, and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband compromises no legitimate privacy interest. This is because the expectation that certain facts will not come to the attention of the authorities is not the same as an interest in privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable.Essentially, if in the normal course of a legitimate traffic stop there happens to be drug-sniffing dog on the scene, the dog can sniff around the vehicle regardless of whether the driver seems suspicious. If it ain't considered a search, no reasonable suspicion is necessary unless the cop tries to keep you detained after he's finished checking your tag and your license and writing your ticket and whatnot.
[quote marks and citations omitted]