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.

[Blue Jays]

Hi Dead Corpse-

Oops, forgot to ping you in post#563 where you were mentioned by name! Glad to see you're on this thread.

~ Blue Jays ~

[NJ_gent]

"couldn't [the Fourth Amendment] be written better to protect the privacy we all actually desire in this invasive technological society?"

I don't fault the founding fathers for not looking ahead to the technological marvels/horrors that would be constructed in this day and age. I think the 4th Amendment is in great shape - it just needs to be clarified. We've had a long list of precedent defining plain view searches and probable cause searches as reasonable. I'm fine with both of those, and I think just about everyone else is too. If a cop hears someone crying out for help in my house, I certainly expect them to bust down my door and get in there ASAP.

What we need to distinguish, in my opinion, is plain view from not plain view. If a satellite system can use gamma rays to map out every square inch of your house, then plain view takes on a whole new meaning. I would suggest a law - not an Amendment - which defines plain view as what a human being can detect with his or her senses. If you can see it, smell it, or hear it coming from the property, then it's fair game. Otherwise, no matter how super duper wonderful your scanning equipment may be, it requires a warrant to use it.

If the police have a legal warrant to search my house, then by all means, map every square inch of it with a satellite. I find that to be better than having cops tearing through the house, and I have no problem with it so long as there's a warrant behind it.

Want to know where things get worse? We're already looking at ways to read human brain patterns to discern general thoughts and feelings. Now what happens when the technology reaches a point where we can read the human brain and search its memory from a distance? :-)

[Dead Corpse]

Eh... I was here. Then I left. Now I'm back.

Call me Schroedingers Corpse... ;-)

[NJ_gent]

"But here's the key part of their ruling"

Their ruling continues to ignore the fact that a search was conducted without a warrant. It's like saying that it's alright to bust down someone's door so long as you're right about them having drugs in the house. The SCOTUS also doesn't seem to understand how technology can extend the power of a dog's nose. When police can map out every inch of your car without laying a hand on it, where does that leave our 4th Amendment and our right to privacy?

[MisterKnowItAll]

'This is a separate problem with the legal system -- it fails to properly calibrate the definition of "reasonable search" to the case at hand.'

I agree with your dual point here -- i.e., both that 'reasonableness' should be calibrated to each case and that this is a separate problem from the one under discussion.

[green iguana]

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified

You consented to the search. You were ignorant of what this might entail. I bet you don't do it again, as you are no longer ignorant in this matter. Or maybe you are, as you still don't seem to understand that once you give consent to a search, the officer will do as thorough a search as he sees fit.

I've read every post in this thread.

[WildTurkey]

I have friends from other countries, a few have settled here, and without fail, they remark "You Americans think you are free. Maybe once you were, but now, you live in a police state that rivals that of East Germany."

My wifes says that Americans who make stupid comments like that have never lived in a police state and are woefully ignorant of how much freedom we have and in most cases totally inadequate in the taking of their responsibilities.

[Dead Corpse]

I lived in Japan for two years.

My dads brother was born in East Germany. My dad in post WWII Ukraine.

Yes. We are becoming a police state.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'Their ruling continues to ignore the fact that a search was conducted without a warrant.'

This too is incorrect. Their ruling specifically holds that the type of search at issue in this case is not subject to the Fourth Amendment and therefore does not require a warrant. You may disagree, but that's very different from claiming that the SCOTUS ignores the point altogether.

'It's like saying that it's alright to bust down someone's door so long as you're right about them having drugs in the house.'

Again, the SCOTUS specifically addressed this point when it held that searches that _could_ reveal genuinely private information (as busting down someone's door obviously could) are subject to the Fourth Amendment and are, under the circumstances you have in mind here, unreasonable.

'The SCOTUS also doesn't seem to understand how technology can extend the power of a dog's nose. When police can map out every inch of your car without laying a hand on it, where does that leave our 4th Amendment and our right to privacy?'

According to the SCOTUS -- which specifically addresses _this_ point as well -- it leaves the Fourth Amendment right where it was. The majority decision specifically states that their holding in this case is consistent with their holding in a prior case involving searches that rely on thermal imaging technology.

Again, you may disagree with any or all of the decision itself. But I respectfully suggest that you _read_ it before sounding off about what the Court doesn't address.

[NJ_gent]

The problem is that the government has, under its law enforcement authority, certain powers above and beyond what an ordinary citizen has. A police officer can detain you for doing something wrong. A private citizen usually cannot (especially for something like a traffic stop). On the other hand, we have a problem with the law (once again) not keeping up with technology. Show me the law that says I can't use a sophisticated scanning tool to search your house every day from the street. Does this follow under peeping tom laws? Possibly. Those would definitely not apply, however, to me searching your car. That means I can search your car from the comfort of my house (if we're neighbors) whenever it's in your driveway.

I'm sure we want to make that illegal, but it can't be illegal for me to watch you pull out of your driveway. Ergo, we're back to plain view vs enhanced view.

[green iguana]

Boy, I wish I could add something to MisterKnowItAll's reply in post 670, but I think he covered it all quite well.

[Dead Corpse]

So it is all peachy keen as long as the SCOTUS goes about redefining plain English? Wasn't there someone else trying to redefine the word "is" that we came down rather hard on as well?

[WildTurkey]

My dads brother was born in East Germany. My dad in post WWII Ukraine. Yes. We are becoming a police state.

Then both know what is like to live in a country where you can't leave or criticize the government. Of course you know that you are free to criticize the government and you are free to leave.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'So it is all peachy keen as long as the SCOTUS goes about redefining plain English?'

I can't answer that question adequately without knowing what 'plain English' word(s) you think the Court is redefining. I've already pointed out that they _don't_ redefine 'search' to exclude dog sniffs (and I wouldn't think it was all right if they did). What did you have in mind here?

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah. So excuse us while we try and KEEP it that way. Of course, if you don't like it that we would prefer not to see our freedoms wasting away, you are free to leave.

[Dead Corpse]

So a dog sniffing your car for a particular oder it has been trained to identify is NOT a seach. In what alternate Universe?

[WildTurkey]

Yeah. So excuse us while we try and KEEP it that way.

What's your beef. This guy said our police state rivaled that of E. Germany and now you are saying we should work to keep it that way in response to my post that we are a free nation unlike E. Germany. What's your beef with me?

[MisterKnowItAll]

'So a dog sniffing your car for a particular oder it has been trained to identify is NOT a seach. In what alternate Universe?'

I don't know, but I agree that it's not this universe and so does the Court. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the SCOTUS does _not_ claim that a dog sniff is 'NOT a sea[r]ch'.