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

Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

[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.

[m1-lightning]

Seriously. You don't have anything to hide, do you? Freepmail me your address. We're going to search.

To be more fair and relative, how about sending over a dog to sniff around the house instead?

[sam_paine]

There's the Laz I know and write of!!!!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I got a couple that are guaranteed to alert to drugs or guns or whatever we feel like finding.

[NJ_gent]

"There seem to be a lot of "Living Document Conservatives" around when the Constitution gets in their way."

I generally refer to them as: "Conservatives of Convenience". They're "conservative" insofar as the label suits their needs and doesn't interfere with their agenda. The moment Big Guv is willing to give them something or do something they like, all that silly "conservatism" goes out the window and is labeled "unrealistic ideology". That's when they magically transform into the saviors of the day: pragmatists.

Pragmatist - a 10-letter word for one who abandons his or her principles when they become inconvenient.

[Lazamataz]

There's the Laz I know and write of!!!!

Those robot insect alien overlords are almost as bad as living in East Germany.

[m1-lightning]

I got a couple that are guaranteed to alert to drugs or guns or whatever we feel like finding

And when you don't find anything, it will result in a waste of your time and money.

[Lazamataz]

To be more fair and relative, how about sending over a dog to sniff around the house instead?

Fairness ain't got nuttin' to do wit' it! We're catchin' CRIMINALS, by crikey! What's he got to hide????

[NJ_gent]

"I think the dog sniffing ruling (and current attempts in the Texas Lege to get DWI checkpoints) are horrendous and need to be pushed back."

Ok, then we're agreed on the issue.

[robertpaulsen]

"If a two-legged law officer's nose detects marijuana, is that counted as probable cause to search a car?"

Not the trunk.

[rottweiller_inc]

When's the last time you read about a police officer going to jail for shooting the wrong person or shooting a person that didn't need such force? What about tazars which since it's "non-lethal" they seem to feel free to use willy nilly? I would not call this holding police to a higher standard at all.

[Lazamataz]

In real terms, citizens lives in this country have never been so regulated or government so overbearing as today.

I'm not seeing it reversing itself, either.

In any country in the world.

[NJ_gent]

"As far as I;m concerned the police can stop me every freakin' day as long as they are trying to stop crime."

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[blueknight]

Thank You. We are legion.

[t_skoz]

"The spacecraft has apparently been taken over – "conqured" if you will – by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality I could be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."

[bigLusr]

Which translates to: People who do bad things don't deserve and do not have rights.

Not at all. It translates to: any person, guilty or innocent, does not have a right to privacy if the state has probable cause to believe that he has done something illegal. My point was that the dog sniff itself was not an invasion of privacy. The search of the trunk was an invasion of privacy, but the cops were justified because the dog alerted the cops to the marijuana... and the dog only alerted the cops because the marijuana was actually present.

Now... if the cops had pulled over the guy for a traffic violation and searched his trunk without the dog sniff, Caballes' rights would have been violated... because even people who do bad things have rights. But the cops had probable cause.... the dog barked.

Rulings like this give the police the opportunity to put someone through Hell on a hunch.

No. Not at all. The opinion specifically noted that the sniff itself didn't inconvenience Caballes in any way... and that if it had put him through any type of hell (even just the inconvenience of waiting an extra few minutes while the drug dog arrived) then the sniff would have been unconstitutional.

So long as your confession is the only thing beaten out of you, as opposed to your grocery list, any interrogation is a-ok. The criminal does have the right to privacy, even when that privacy may end up concealing his criminal activities.

Again, no. The fourth amendment protects a person's effects except when the state has probable cause to search or seize them. The fifth amendment protects a person from being compelled to incriminate himself without qualification... That is to say, there is sometimes justification for invading privacy but there is never justification for compelling self-incrimination.

[blueknight]

I personally know of several instances where the police use of a tazer has saved a life. Like a recent case of a man holding a knife to a woman's neck. Methinks you paint with too broad a brush.

[NJ_gent]

"the government has the authority under the interstate commerce clause to do any damned thing it likes."

Oh, of course. You bought the car from someplace other than your home state, or your insurance company is from another state, or your gas came from another state, or something, somewhere in or around your vehicle came from another state.

So of course this falls under interstate commerce. Of course.

[MileHi]

I'm not seeing it reversing itself, either.

In that regard, this administation has been a disappointment.

FReegards, Laz

[Lazamataz]

I know. Most cops are good guys trying to do a tough job.

With the exception of a lot of Southern cops. It's common knowledge among even the squeakiest cleaniest law-abidingist people in the South that most Southern police are unnecessarily rude, overly aggressive, unhelpful, and ready to hassle you without real reason.

I never understood the anti-cop anti-authority mindset of such shows as "Dukes of Hazzard", until I moved to Atlanta.