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 ...
I wouldn't count on them training just for drugs. This is partly about America's fear of terrorism. I'm all for dogs finding drug traffickers, but this has wider implications.
If you thought you could travel interstate with something smelling like Breakfree exposed to the air inside your vehicle, think again. I think this is a major setback for firearms freedom. When the second amendment is reasserted and we don't have anything to fear in traveling armed across the USA, then this would be less of an issue.
CFR?? Hate Crimes Legislation (the Philly 5), etc.. I'd say at least wounded.
Probable cause is anything a cop wants it to be. I got harassed in a parking lot once where the police walked over to my car and started peering inside (presumably because I had long hair and looked funny.) They saw a brass incense burner on the front seat (that I had just purchased) and told me that it was probable cause because incense is used to mask the smell of pot. Maybe where you come from that's common sense--I leave it to you to decide. To me, it was police harassment and an illegal search. But I am sure it happens every single day, with the approval of the anti-drug borgoise.
BUMP!
After reading the first page of responses, I thought I was in "Smirking Chimp" by mistake. So I went to the last page, and the same attitude prevailed.
There is a conservative side to this, folks, and it's the way the majority of the Supreme Court voted, so I speak without fear of major contradiction as I continue.
Who has reason to dislike this new ruling besides people who handle or use illegal drugs? That wouldn't be you, now, would it?
Illegal drugs fall under the legal category of "contraband". It is the duty of all law enforcement officers to confiscate contraband whenever it is discovered. Unlawfully discovered contraband is nevertheless still siezed, though cannot be used as evidence at trial. Suppose the perp in the title case did get a finding of illegal search. His MJ would not have been given back to him.
Contraband can be discovered by use of the five senses; sight; hearing; touch; taste; smell. The use of dogs to assist law enforcement has been accepted for many years now. So don't even try to argue against the use of dogs.
And a dog's senses are very much more acute that a human's. What a human can't smell, a dog can.
Please give an officer some credit for having reason to suspect behaviours that you wouldn't think were anything but normal. Even the choice of words by a detainee can be of major significance to an experienced officer. Particularly if a small lie is told. These guys have experience dealing with thousands of people, and they learn many, many things along the way, often through mistakes, about how certain behaviour indicates that "something" is wrong with this particular situation.
A cop routinely pulls over a speeder. He senses "bad vibes" (not evidence or even probable cause), but he feels the need to take the next step, especially since he can smell the overpowering smell of deodorizer coming from the car, which he, from his experience(and you, from yours?) knows is a common tactic used by people in the drug scene to mask the smell of drugs.
The courts accept ALL of this stuff, but the cop has to back it up in court, under oath. That's your protection.
All cops lie in court? Cops, who are hired on their honest backgrounds anyway, know they only have only one opportunity to lie under oath, the first time, since after that they'll be in prison if they get caught. If you're a cop with a family and a future, like almost all of them, lying is not a serious consideration.
Back to the traffic stop. Now the cop has reason to suspect (you wouldn't, but he does) that there's something fishy with the stoppee, and drugs is a good possibility.
If there's a canine unit available he calls on it to conduct a sniff test. In this case, Bingo!
Suppose the dog sniffed and didn't react to anything. Would you still be upset that a dog sniffed your car, if you were allowed to just drive off afterwards? If you were not carrying drugs at all, you would have minded the dog even less than the officer who stopped you for speeding. At least that's how the average "innocent" citizen might be expected to feel, IMO.
But not you? Hmmmm......
Smell of drugs on money can be insignificant, since studies showed that almost ALL US currency carries the smell. But....a large wad or roll of bills, big bills, big amount, jammed in a front pants pocket, is significant to the officer, and may be yet another indicator that he's got something there.
Could it be that some of you think this decision by the Supremes might make it easier for the cops to catch druggies? Well, it does just that! And if that bothers you, for one particular reason, then your laments should not be directed at the dogs, but at the law itself. But there's no hope there. Do the crime,.......
When I compare and contrast (ha) the dog-sniffing as per the subject incident, and the use of an infra-red heat detector, I don't see the difference (though I don't remember the specifics of the decision). In that case, the police had info that an individual was commercially growing marijuana in a warehouse, and used lighting to heat and illuminate the growing area so as to create a constant state of daylight to speed the growth of the plants.
There are times when just that amount of info is sufficient for a search warrant and raid, but not in this case. So the cops flew a helicopter over the building and the IR heat detector showed the roof of the warehouse lit up like a Christmas tree, many times brighter than any of the other buildings and residences in the area.
Somehow, the court decided that looking at someone's roof was in "invasion", and needed a search warrant to make it lawful. Compare and contrast that decision with the one on the use of sniffer dogs? *flapping my lower lip* Bubbidy bubbidy bubbidy......!
How do you "civil rights protesters" feel about the Patriot Act? It's working fine, you know. Caught some bad Muslims, etc. Bother you any?
'Cause if you approve of the Patriot Act, and lament about the dog-sniffing decision, your motive for the lament becomes pretty clear doesn't it?
.................or humps your leg during a traffic stop, which could be rather embarrassing ;-)
That is the oldest, most worn-out -- and most incorrect -- cliche in the world.
I am a proud member of Narcotics Anonymous. I'm coming up on my second 'birthday'. I despise drugs, because I personally have seen what they can do to a person.
But what I despise just as much as drugs, and perhaps a little bit more than them, is the abrogation of the Bill of Rights. The War on Drugs has diluted or destroyed most of our guaranteed freedoms, and now it appears that the rights of a person to be secure in his person, home, papers and effects is under extreme assault.
Power and authoritarianism, fascist control and unyielding government are also addictive, and have a druglike effect on those who wield it.
I might rightly observe that you and your kind, who have little concern for rights but who place all trust in the Omniscient and Omnipotent State, are the TRUE ADDICTS in this equation.
No.
But like East Germany, vast databases are being compiled on even those who are considered law-abiding. Monitoring is becoming more pervasive and more robust. Police are now allowed to secretly enter your home and/or your computer ... something that was not permitted until recently. An American citizen may be held indefinitely without charges being leveled against him.
Sounds very East German to me.
Could not have said it better myself and that is EXACTLY where it will lead.
You misspelled who the police officer arbitrarily decided might be breaking the law, thusly serving as judge and jury and short circuiting all the legal protections we are guarenteed in the Bill of Rights.
Hope that helps heaps.
I have a hunch about you.
I suspect you are a troll.
It is dangerous to be right
when the government is wrong. --
Voltaire, 1764
YES.
Back in the 'cocaine binge' days of the 80's many articles were printed exactly on that happening. I can't recall exactly, but it was reported that 'most' of our paper money was contaminated with trace amounts of cocaine. Scores of people went through legal hell because of it.
At that time my wife's one cousin was 'hooked' on snorting coke. Every time he got in our car I was concerned about him leaving traces of it (worse yet dropping a bag between the seat). I always vacuumed the car like crazy the next day.
Just another Statist noob! Just what a FREE Republic needs. If you don't have anything to hide, post your address and some of us will pay you and your family a 0200 visit. Put your money where your mouth is. Blackbird.
Please, please, go back to DU.
Although it's smart to write such a long rant, filled with liberal inanities, in order to obviate responses, it is not a new strategem.
FR is tested all the time by experts trying this very same thing, and most of the time, it is recognized for exactly what it is and discounted.
Nice try, though.
You're right... it would. And I wouldn't have a problem with such equipment being used. Why do you?
it's because the search itself is intrinsically contrary to the protections provided by the Constitution to the people of this country.
I think it all goes back to what you think the purpose of the fourth amendment was. Was it to keep big brother from catching the bad guys? Or was it to protect us from big brother's harassment?
As long as this X-ray + software package isn't used to harass people (i.e. the inconvenience is kept to nill [that includes the provision that cops can't stop people just to run this scan]) and as long as it doesn't alert the officers about my ham sandwich it doesn't violate the framers' intent.
One is whether any police drug-sniffing dog in use can be made to react to something other than the drugs. The second angle is whether the dog can be fooled or encouraged into giving a false positive by its handler.
Both of those concerns speak to whether the dog sniff gave the cops probable cause to open the trunk... not whether they needed probable cause before letting the dog sniff the trunk. The court addressed the second issue but not the first... (though they noted that there's no evidence that false positives are a problem).
Those of you drawing all sorts of dire conclusions from this ruling might want to review the actual decision instead of a short and somewhat misleading article about it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-923
Here's an excerpt:
'Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause, and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained.
'In the state-court proceedings, however, the judges carefully reviewed the details of Officer Gillette's conversations with respondent and the precise timing of his radio transmissions to the dispatcher to determine whether he had improperly extended the duration of the stop to enable the dog sniff to occur. We have not recounted those details because we accept the state court's conclusion that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop.' . . .
'Official conduct that does not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy" is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Jacobsen, 466 U. S., at 123. 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." Ibid. 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." Id., at 122 (punctuation omitted).' . . .
'This conclusion is entirely consistent with our recent decision that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect the growth of marijuana in a home constituted an unlawful search. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001). Critical to that decision was the fact that the device was capable of detecting lawful activity . . . . The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondent's hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his car. A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.'
--end of excerpt--
The guy was lawfully stopped, and while one officer wrote up his warning, the other officer walked the dog around. The officers didn't detain the guy for any longer than was necessary to write his warning. The dog alerted at the trunk of the car, where (a) there's no expectation of privacy and (b) the only information the dog provided was about the presence of an illegal substance. (I don't like our drug laws but that's not the issue here.)
Had the stop been unnecessarily prolonged, or had the officers used a search method that could have revealed genuinely private information, the Court would have ruled the other way (just as it has done in other cases).
(ps: Thanks for the backgrounder)
So the police have probable cause to stop and search anyone whose money was once used by a dealer, since dogs and maybe electronics can sense dope residue on the bills you just got from the money machine. If this is truly "nearly 100%", that means me, and you.
And if they decide you have "too much" cash, they take it, because who else but a dope kingpin carries more than a kilobuck, and besides it smells like dope, and dope is illegal. You can hire a lawyer and sue to get it back after a few years, so what's the big deal?
And if the dog just likes the smell of money, so much better for the police, since they can now justify their actions based on the behaviour of an animal they trained.
I see how it all fits.
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.