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 ...
You mean there isn't an unalienable right on public property to being smelly and not being smelled?
But the AP told me there was such. They told me it was new powers and they told me these new powers were broad. It all gotsta be true...
AP = BS!
Seems like just barely cracking your window to slide out the license would raise a huge amount of suspicion to the officer.
An officer can have all the suspicion he wants, but without evidence, he can do nothing legally.
If he steps beyond his legal authorization, everything beyond that point in time, will not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.
He who sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
Spoken like a true FREEPER!
Thanks, your comment was important tonight.
Remember, I personally follow the laws and expect others to do the same. However, I refuse to be a Sheep.
Heck, I have not even gotten a traffic ticket since 1984.
See the link the picture I posted points to :)
That's not entirely true - in a traffic stop you really are at the mercy of the cop in a way that you would not be hardly anywhere else. You are just as much at the mercy of the cop during a traffic stop as you are going through security at an airport.
Its not fair, but a cop can really make your life hell during a traffic stop if you rub him the wrong way. If a cop wants to (as has been discussed in this thread), he can find a reason to search your car and take it apart - you appeared nervous and wouldn't roll down the window. During this time you may be cuffed "for the officer's safety".
You are especially in for a hard time if you happen to have a gun in the car - legal or not. If you are traveling with a dog, odds are that it will be shot if it tries to protect you - again, "for the officer's safety."
You're just playing with fire when you appear suspicious to a cop during a traffic stop. Be polite, have your documentation ready and say as little as you have to.
Oh no, not the dog. They "brought over the dog.". There goes the Constitution.
The unalienable right not to have the dog brought over shall not be abridged. (Baaa!)
Correct me if I'm wrong about this case. The dog wasn't searching the car was it? Both dog and cop were simply sniffing the air in close proximity to the speeder, correct?
Like I said previously, that dog does not have the right to ever smell again.
There is nothing legally wrong, if I protect my privacy with some rather harsh spices found in every home kitchen.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security --
If I've just been at the range, and my car is full of spent brass and smoking firearms, how will the dog react?
You may like Mopar, but the Mustang in p1-2's post is a beaut. Enjoy, Salamander.
Posted by Individual Rights in NJ:
"...I did not know that... wow... wel I registered my 18th birthday and got my carry lisence at 21..."
For all intents and purposes, CCW is not available to citizens of New Jersey except in the most extenuating of circumstances. Are you sure you're not confusing your "carry license" with a permit to purchase a handgun?
~ Blue Jays ~
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.