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.

[MisterKnowItAll]

You're welcome. I'm not saying there's nothing to criticize in the ruling, but it doesn't exactly gut the Fourth Amendment and pave the road for a police state.

[Lazamataz]

You're welcome. I'm not saying there's nothing to criticize in the ruling, but it doesn't exactly gut the Fourth Amendment and pave the road for a police state.

It's a nudge in the wrong direction. Not a leap, but definitely a nudge.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'It's a nudge in the wrong direction. Not a leap, but definitely a nudge.'

I'm open to that argument, but for my own part I can only say that my objection to the ruling is really an objection to the drug laws themselves. I have a residual sense that even though marijuana is technically 'contraband', there's still something illicit about sniffing for it because I don't think it really _should_ be 'contraband'.

If the contents of the trunk had been a pony nuke, I think we'd all have a different opinion.

[mysterio]

I don't know why they even pretend to value the Constitution. If it relates to drugs or anything they deem "terrorism," they want martial law. I don't know how many times this has to be said : If you want to throw the Constitution out the window, you have to amend it first.

[Blue Jays]

Hi Randi-

Posted by Randi Papadoo:
"...Who has reason to dislike this new ruling besides people who handle or use illegal drugs? That wouldn't be you, now, would it?..."

Response by Lazamataz:
"...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..."

---

Randi, please read all of Lazamataz's cogent and accurate commentary in this thread before tossing absurd statements like that into the discussion.

The fact-of-the-matter is that this is death by a thousand bee stings. It's easy to build societal support to rail against thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles, and terrorists, etc. This then sets the stage for video cameras in public areas "for the protection of you and your children" as you go about your day.

Afterwards, it is decided that known gunowners driving about are problematic. Subsequently, why even allow people potentially inclined to criminal behavior to leave their homes when we can send police, sniffer dogs, and scanners? Wait, gunowners shouldn't be allowed to transport firearms off their property, either, they could become criminals, too...

Do you see where this is going yet? As mentioned by others earlier, it's all about incrementalism and the inability of many "law-abiding" people to notice...until they themselves are eventually ensnared in the relentless dragnet.

~ Blue Jays ~

[sam_paine]

Give me a freaking break.

[Lazamataz]

Give me a freaking break.

Which leg?
</Stasi>

[sam_paine]

Hit "View Replies" before you get too carried away. I just refuted claims that we are currently worse off than East Germany was. No freaking way, yet. Nor will *BAD* rulings like this lead to a real police state.

The Police State never comes gradually. It always flanks you and says "TaDa!"

A Police State can occur when, for example, the dimocrats finally dissolve themselves into obscurity and the Republicans debase themselves on pure power.

I'm actually more concerned about the infringements we can't see. Local cops can't really tell a damn thing about me with a drug dog....but the Feds have entire billion dollar black budgets to spy on every piece of information about our lives, with nobody to check up on them, not even dipwads in Congress.

With the local cops, I still get to go before a judge in public. Inconvenient, but still transparent.

...

If the nefarious power grabbers were smart, they'd get everyone riled up about meaningless traffic stops and then come at them with a haymaker of real oppression when they're all worn out on little battles. Oh, I see our new overlords ARE smart!

[sam_paine]

Not you again. Back to the Halcyon days when Laz was a bad word and rearely heard.

[pageonetoo]

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.

I routinely carry large quantities of cash. I like to visit pawn shops to bargain hunt. Many of my "bargains" cost hundreds of dollars, and the pawn shops do not like checks/visa... And, I buy a lot of things.

As a long time conservative, your argument sucks. Just because I get stopped by some suspicious cop does not make me guilty of anything. I am hypoglycemic, and often get the shakes in mildly stressful situations. Following this logic, I should always be checked further. Or, if I appear nervous to him, it may be that I have had too many "stops", or fishing expeditions.

I always lock my car when asked to get out. I have never been expesed to a drug dog, but feel this is a wrong decision. But, the only options are armed revolt, or move to Belize (it's really warm there), or Canada (it's really COLD there).

Maybe you like living in a police state. I do not! If I break the law, punish me. But, make sure you do it properly, not playing some gung-ho cop trying out his "profiling"!

Of course they also have "revenue enhancement" posed as safety! Its all about the money!

[Lazamataz]

Not you again. Back to the Halcyon days when Laz was a bad word and rearely heard.

Shut up, citizen.

[sam_paine]

HOW DO YOU KNOW I'M A CITIZEN?!?!?

[ex 98C MI Dude]

I must disagree with your comment about the police state not coming on gradually. I present for your edification Great Britain. It is no longer lawful to defend yourself from an invader in your own home. You will be arrested, and the criminal you 'assaulted' will be able to swear a criminal complaint against you. You no longer need to be observed by human eyes exceeding the speed limit. Camera equipment placed along roadways take pictures after a radar gun (unmanned) detect your speed. A ticket is then mailed to your home. Trucks drive about detecting electromagnetic fields generated by television sets, comparing the number detected against the number registered. For tax purposes, you see. You are taxed on the number of t.v.'s in your home.

So a gradual police state is indeed possible. Does this ruling make the US one? No. But it is the tinyest step in the wrong direction.

[Lazamataz]

We gave you a chance, citizen.

[Blue Jays]

Hi Lazamataz-

"...Shut up, citizen..."

---

Oddly enough, there are people on this thread who are somehow comforted by seeing disguised, black-clad troopers with truncheons and armor protecting their local Starbucks Coffee [note background] retailer.

How does one convince one of the troopers in that picture that we're among the "good eggs" in this society? My guess is that this would be a very difficult discussion unless you yourself are one of them. Imagine if municipal officers are empowered to begin suiting-up like this on a daily basis in support of The War on Terror...

Getting back to original idea of this thread, this is why the militarization of the police is such a bad direction for our country. Traffic stops are increasingly more and more adversarial and erode the visionary concept of community policing.

~ Blue Jays ~

[sam_paine]

UK is a good example.

But the post that got me in everyone's crosshairs on this thread was the statement that we are NOW no better than East Germany. I think you'd agree we're not there yet.

I have also submitted that we are on the way to becoming a police state, but not because of judicial rulings like this.

I think the UK is doomed because Parliament has become a rubber stamp for a single mindset. The backbenchers are no real opposition to the power.

Gradual vs. sudden examples abound. But there is still a possibility for a gradual police state to be rolled back in one grand peaceful popular revolt in Congress. But if the parties mold into one, and the RINO-DINO party chooses sides against the people, then we are suddenly in the same spot as the UK.

[pageonetoo]

...How does one convince one of the troopers in that picture that we're among the "good eggs" in this society? My guess is that this would be a very difficult discussion

My oldest boy is a cop. He volunteered for SWAT duty, because that is where the adrenalin flows. I don't even bother to discuss it with him, any more! He's lost to the dark side!

I understand that the same chemicals are released, by the body, during these situation, as when a hype shoots up... That keeps runners going, and cops kicking down doors/ stopping "suspects" (suspect=you) hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[sam_paine]

Oh. God. No. Do anything! But not pix-el-late-mah-faaaace! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[pageonetoo]

I have questions for you...

Do you get to visit many other towns or cities?

If so, what proportion of the local PD/Sheriff Dpts are clothed in BDU's and boots?

Why do you think they do that? Is it a job requirement, or a personal statement?

Why do you think it is so easy to get pics, from google searches, of JBT's?

[sam_paine]

visionary concept of community policing.

Guess what. That only works in a community.

Large cities are not communities. They are vast collections of anonymity. For the people, and thus also the cops.

I have lived in big cities and small towns, and guess what, Barney Fife lives! And sure enough, he's nicer and you're nicer when both of you know each other's family.

People hiding in cars at a big beltway checkstop and ninja cops with sniffing dogs are two sides of the same coin, mah anonymous internet poster frenz.