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.

[green iguana]

With the threat of a questionable ticket over my head, of course I was going to be cooperative with the officer.

I certainly see how this stop could have played out the way you describe, and I totally understand your anger at the time. None of which changes that the search was legal, due to your consent. There are people who, even with the threat of a ticket hanging over them, will politely demur when an officer asks if he may search the vehicle. I've done it. By and large, Americans are an impatient lot. In this regard, I am more American than most. :-)

Oh, and I apologize for the "quit your whining" comment. It was uncalled for.

[Eagle Eye]

If-you-don't-have-anything-to-hide-you-don't-have-anything-to-fear bump.

/sneering sarcasm

[WildTurkey]

The first page contains websites with the various States sentancing guidelines. The data's is there. "You can lead a liberal to reason but you can't make them think." It seems to apply to you here....

Your first "google" link goes to the MA sentencing guidelnes. Posssesion is 6 months PROBATION and/or $500 fine with records sealed after probation. A FAR cry from your 15 years. I guess we can tell when a libertarian posts, he is always posting fiction to make his case.

[WildTurkey]

The first page contains websites with the various States sentancing guidelines. The data's is there.

If the data is there, why have NO pro-druggies been able to post anything to substantiate your claim that people are sentenced to 15 years for just having a weed ...

[green iguana]

I don't see thermal imaging and wiretaps and such meeting that standard now or ever.

How about portable chemical analyzers that can be programmed to detect trace amounts of certain drugs and only those certain drugs (or explosives, etc?) That technology is very close to being available.

[NJ_gent]

"_If_ the Court was right that the dog sniff could reveal only the presence or absence of"

The Fourth doesn't protect things - it protects places. It doesn't matter if he's got a kilo of coke or a box of matches in the trunk; the trunk is all we need to hear. Look at it this way - assume that the only item in the trunk was pot. Assume further that the first cop on the scene (with no dog) just decided for the hell of it to make the guy pop the trunk without consent or probable cause. What would happen and why?

The Fourth protects places regardless of the contents of said places. Unless it is apparent to a police officer in the normal course of events that there is direct evidence of a criminal act in a certain place (barrel of a gun sticking out from under the driver's seat), the place cannot be searched. The cop can have every warning bell in his brain sounding red alert, but if he doesn't have probable cause, he can't search. The cop can have 30 years of experience telling him this guy's definitely got some pot under the seat and he still can't search without probable cause. The place is protected even if the contents of said place are not.

"the dog sniff could reveal only the presence or absence of contraband, then the only information at issue was unprotectible in the first place. And if so, that falls under a _different_ exception to the Fourth Amendment from the 'plain view' exception."

I keep reading the 4th Amendment, but I still don't see anything that says it's ok to conduct a search if you're just real sure you'll find something bad.

"Here, they argue (rightly or wrongly; again, you may disagree with them) that the possession of contraband simply isn't information that falls within reasonable privacy expectations in the first place."

Again, the Fourth protects places - not things. While the 50 kilos of cocaine in my living room may not be protected, my living room (being a part of my home) is. Ergo, a cop who busts through the door, grabs the cocaine, and runs back out without looking at or touching anything else has still violated my 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. If he wants to enter my home, he needs probable cause and/or a warrant. Likewise, if he wants to search my trunk, he needs probable cause. It doesn't matter what I have in the trunk; the trunk itself is protected from searches without probable cause unless it's sitting wide open and subject to 'plain view'.

"I don't see thermal imaging and wiretaps and such meeting that standard now or ever."

You could easily have software that filters out anything not illegal - leaving only illegal 'unprotected' items for the police to view. Now what happens when your software does that and reports strictly illegal items to the police about you? Does that now make it ok to tap everyone's phones and scan everyone's house and car? As someone else pointed out, just what happens if we develop satellite-based technology that can do all this work for them? You could literally start shooting gamma rays through every part of the US and map everything down to the square inch. With powerful enough computer systems and good enough software, you could pinpoint every illegal item or substance in the country at all times. That said, we've still got a satellite mapping every square inch of our homes, bodies, children, etc. Is that what we want for ourselves?

[MisterKnowItAll]

'How about portable chemical analyzers that can be programmed to detect trace amounts of certain drugs and only those certain drugs (or explosives, etc?) That technology is very close to being available.'

That's an excellent question.

I think that under the current Court's logic, such testing would be okay as long as the substances themselves were illegal (so that the test couldn't reveal that you had some legal-under-certain-circumstances substance for a lawful purpose) -- and, of course, as long as the test wasn't administered under circumstances that failed to meet Constitutional standards in some other way.

Under those precise circumstances -- and only those -- I'd probably agree. I don't think the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to keep actual criminals from getting caught.

[NJ_gent]

"I don't think the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to keep actual criminals from getting caught."

I agree with that; I think its purpose was to prevent spot-checks by government agents who could use such authority in a targetted way to harass citizens and increase government power and control. I also think it was intended to operate under the idea of 'better to let 10 guilty men go free than put 1 innocent man in prison', etc.

[bigLusr]

The Constitution provides no exception for "if the cops are real sure they'll only find bad stuff".

If the cops thought it did they wouldn't have bothered letting a drug dog sniff the car. They would have just opened the trunk themselves, right? So that's not the issue.

Tell me, if this dog had reacted to beef jerky in this case,... What I also enjoy is how the SCOTUS allows their decision to rest on the infallibility of a dog.

This goes back to whether a dog sniff provides probable cause for the search of the trunk... not whether the cops needed probable cause to conduct a dog sniff. Whoa... Deja vu. The court addressed the second, not the first question. Where have I seen this before? The decision (read it) has nothing to do with the fallibility or infallibility of dogs.

The legitimate interest in privacy covers places, not things... The roof of your car is fair game. The trunk, when closed, is not.

And, then... I assume you believe that a wrapped package is not fair game either?

if you put something under your seat, even if it's an illegal weapon or drug, you do have an expectation of privacy because the location where it is stored is not within plain view.

No. Since you don't have the constitutionally protected right to possess an illegal drug, you can't have the constitutionally protected right to hide that illegal drug. The cop can't look under your seat because if he thinks there's a drug under there and he's wrong your privacy has been unnecessarily violated. On the other hand, the cop can let a dog sniff your trunk because if he thinks there's a drug in there and he's wrong your privacy has not been violated.

And don't bother twisting my words. My statement doesn't imply that if a cop's hunch is right, the joint he found in his illegal search should be used against you. To protect the innocent, you must defend the guilty.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'The Fourth doesn't protect things - it protects places.'

If that were true, it wouldn't protect 'information' _at all_ and we'd have to throw out many, many years of legal precedent protecting us from all sorts of snooping. You may recall that this was a big issue in the Wiretapping Cases a two or three decades back and that the Court decided to interpret the Fourth Amendment more broadly, precisely in order to guard _against_ such intrusions.

'It doesn't matter if he's got a kilo of coke or a box of matches in the trunk; the trunk is all we need to hear. Look at it this way - assume that the only item in the trunk was pot. Assume further that the first cop on the scene (with no dog) just decided for the hell of it to make the guy pop the trunk without consent or probable cause. What would happen and why?'

The evidence would be tossed, for _two_ reasons: (a) the trunk wasn't within the scope of the original stop, and (b) with no further information, the police had no authority to make him open it. On the other hand, if they'd smelled what they reasonably believed to be a rotting corpse and thought the smell emanated from the the trunk, they _could_ have made him open it even if they hadn't stopped him for that reason.

'The Fourth protects places regardless of the contents of said places. . . . The cop can have 30 years of experience telling him this guy's definitely got some pot under the seat and he still can't search without probable cause.'

Not quite. He can't _expand_ his search to include protected areas unless he's got probable cause. But he can get that probable cause in any number of ways, including searches that don't violate the Fourth Amendment (either by not being covered by it or by being 'reasonable'). The issue in the case under discussion here is whether the cops _got_ their probable cause in a Constitutionally acceptable manner -- i.e., whether the dog-sniff search was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

'I keep reading the 4th Amendment, but I still don't see anything that says it's ok to conduct a search if you're just real sure you'll find something bad.'

Then you're reading it correctly, because it doesn't say that and no one in this thread is arguing that it does.

'You could easily have software that filters out anything not illegal - leaving only illegal 'unprotected' items for the police to view. Now what happens when your software does that and reports strictly illegal items to the police about you? Does that now make it ok to tap everyone's phones and scan everyone's house and car?'

No, but not for the reasons at issue in this case. Again, the Court decided long ago that the Fourth Amendment _doesn't_ protect only 'places' and put constraints on the 'reasonable' uses of such technology. The logic of the current case doesn't alter them in any way (although no doubt as such technology develops, the Court will have to reconsider what is and isn't 'reasonable' in this context).

[green iguana]

I don't think the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to keep actual criminals from getting caught.

Well, in that case it's only a few years away that we should all expect to have the air emanating from our cars scanned during every legal traffic stop. See sensing device

[Dead Corpse]

Idiot...

...adds another 2-year mandatory minimum sentence for sale and can go as high as an additional 15 years in prison ...

Inconvenient for you. I know. But you'll get over it eventually.

As for someone actually drawing a 15 year sentence... Click here /a>...

There are more but I really don't have the time right now to post them all here.

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

It is very disconcerting to see the number of bootlickers who are willing to sacrifice anything and everything in the pursuit of the War on Terror^TM domestically. All the piss n' vinegar is exciting for an online debate, but it's genuinely sobering that many statists will simply accept ANY law that is thrust upon them. Not to mention reporting so-called "troublemakers" to the authorities. Gee, does anyone recall this nifty technique from European history, say over the past seventy years or so?

As a comical aside to terrorism posted in another thread, the cinemas in my area have the 16-year-old ushers requesting to peer in customer bags for "security" purposes as they enter the movie. I simply say, "No thank you!" and brush past the acne-prone beanpoles.

Now, that's a silly plan that is NOT based on law and I simply won't comply. It's yet another outrageous private-sector rule designed to help people "feel" safer when no additional safety exists. My guess is that they are using terrorism as a disguise to search for smuggled candy and sodas...not to increase security. You would not believe the number of full-grown adults who queue-up for this treatment!

The REAL challenge is when legislation is enacted to make these kind of inspections legal and common (like these absurd dog sniffing searches) in our great country. What has to happen to mobilize honest people to have their Fourth Amendment rights respected? Where will it all end?

[/rhetorical questions]

~ Blue Jays ~

[WildTurkey]

As for someone actually drawing a 15 year sentence... Click here /a>... There are more but I really don't have the time right now to post them all here.

Uh, 56, six-foot plants is not exactly "possession of a weed"! This guy was definitely dealing.

[NJ_gent]

"it doesn't give them the right to detain you"

I'm still fuzzy on why you believe you were detained. From what I can tell from your story, the cop pulled you over for a traffic violation and asked to search your vehicle. You consented. He then called for a K-9 unit. You did not object or ask to leave at any time. The K-9 unit searched your vehicle. You still did not object or ask to leave. The K-9 unit completed its search. If you don't ask if you're allowed to leave or refuse the search, then exactly how is the cop supposed to know that you want to go now? Mind-reading isn't a course taught at police academies so far as I know. :-)

[WildTurkey]

I think the article is in error. It was probably "cultivation that got him the 15 years, not possession. Given the AL marijuana laws, he was one real stupid doper.

State Of Alabama Marijuana Laws

Alabama Marijuana Laws
Incarceration Fine

Possession
2.2 lbs or less misdemeanor 0 - 1 year $2,000
More than 2.2 lbs felony 1 - 10 years $5,000

Cultivation
2.2 lbs or less felony 3 years MMS, possible 10 - 99 years $25,000
2.2 to 100 lbs felony 5 years MMS* $50,000
100 to 500 lbs felony 15 years MMS* $200,000
More than 1000 lbs felony life MMS*
*Mandatory minimum sentence.

[NJ_gent]

"If the cops thought it did they wouldn't have bothered letting a drug dog sniff the car. They would have just opened the trunk themselves, right? So that's not the issue."

It's part of the issue. The decision that the sniff was not an illegal search was the first part, and the decision that the reaction of the dog provided probable cause for a search is the other. We're assuming the infallibility of dogs if we aren't assuming they'll sometimes make mistakes or react to something other than an illegal drug.

"This goes back to whether a dog sniff provides probable cause for the search of the trunk... not whether the cops needed probable cause to conduct a dog sniff."

That's part of the issue. Personally, I'm less concerned with the perfection of drug-sniffing dogs than I am with their use in dancing around the 4th.

"The court addressed the second, not the first question."

The decision intrinsically addresses it. The sniff must provide probable cause for the search that revealed the drugs by the court's logic. Otherwise, the dog's sniff passing constitutional muster is irrelevant because the search would have been conducted without probable cause and the evidence would have been inadmissible.

"The decision (read it) has nothing to do with the fallibility or infallibility of dogs."

I did - did you? (Hint: Souter's dissent)

"On the other hand, the cop can let a dog sniff your trunk because if he thinks there's a drug in there and he's wrong your privacy has not been violated."

That's the issue at hand. I would disagree because, once again, 'plain view' is being extended beyond the range of what a human being can sense during the normal course of events. That's a road I don't think the founding fathers envisioned us walking when they gave us the 4th. This ranks right up there with the usual 'fishing expeditions' normally shot down by judges. There was no evidence of criminal activity, but the dog was brought in to 'fish' around a bit to see what might just happen to turn up.

[JeffAtlanta]

If a K-9 is not a "police officer" when it comes to obeying search limits, then it must not be considered a "police officer" in any other way (i.e. shooting one carries the same penalty as shooting a family pet dog, not a second more).

Exactly - assaulting a police dog is considered the same as shooting a human officer.

[Dead Corpse]

If so, then why was he not CHARGED with it? One plant one weed, it'll spawn others left unchecked. Ever hear of Ditch Weed?

The charge was possession. The sentence 15 years. I'll await your apology. Not that I think you are man enough to admit you were wrong.