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.

[pageonetoo]

I had a hunch he was a troll.

Turns out he was.

It's the scent...

[TKDietz]

I understand what you are saying but the issue we were talking about is whether the dogs police use on the highway are there for sniffing out bombs and things like that as well as drugs. The answer is that in most all of the cases these dogs are drug dogs who only detect drugs. I suggest that the main reason why there are many more drug dogs than bomb dogs is that the money for law enforcement is in drugs.

Our local law enforcement seize incredible amounts of cash, vehicles, and other assets in their drug enforcement efforts. Most of this money is split between the prosecutors and the law enforcement agencies aiding in the arrests. Over a certain amount, a small portion goes to the state. The money law enforcement and prosecutors take in these efforts has become very important to them. At least here our prosecutors and law enforcement already have state and county budgets along with state and federal grants. The only stipulation with the forfeiture funds is that they spend it for law enforcement or prosecutorial purposes, and in real life this can mean a lot. I know all of our prosecutors drive "company cars" that were either seized or paid for by seized assets, their cell phones and memberships to the gym are paid for out of these funds, their lavish all expense paid continuing legal education trips are paid for out of these funds, and so on. It also pays for a lot of fancy equipment. It pays for expert witnesses and other witnesses to be flown in from all over the country and put up in hotels. It is used for bonuses and in a round about way for salary increases because the prosecutors can negotiate deals with the county where their people all get raises in exchange for not increasing their budget in some other area where they can just use the drug money to cover their needs. And in fact, the county employees at the prosecutors office where I live are paid more than the other county employees with similar jobs and time in service.

Overall these asset forfeiture funds are extremely important to them and the main way they keep the money rolling in is to stay out in numbers pulling people over from out of state and running drug dogs around their cars. The drug dogs make them a fortune. Bomb dogs wouldn't do that for them, so I wouldn't expect them to go out of their way purchasing, training, and keeping these dogs on hand. There's no money in it for them. Asset forfeiture is not the only reason for working so hard at drug enforcement, but in a place like where I live where small town police and prosecutors will generally do at least several hundred thousand or better than a million a year in asset forfeitures total, it's a huge incentive.

One thing I didn't point out before in explaining why the dogs aren't trained to smell explosives as well as drugs is that besides the fact that you can't expect a dog to learn to detect more than a few items well, you would also run into probable cause problems if the drug dogs would also alert to explosives. For instance, if the drug dog would alert to gun powder or gun powder residue, when the dog alerts the offer could assume there is a good chance there are either drugs or firearms in the car. Since it is not illegal to carry an unloaded firearm that may have burnt powder residue on it or even a loaded firearm while on a journey, at least in my state, I would think an officer would not then have probable cause search the vehicle for illegal contraband, because the dogs could have just as easily been alerting to something perfectly legal. They'd need separate dogs for those separate purposes.

[pageonetoo]

As the Maha Rushie says, "Follow the money..."

[normagene]

Scary stuff. When will it end. Was anyone stuck by the excess of "security" for the inaugeration. Anyone who attended was photographed, scanned, sniffed, and in some cases fingerprinted. In addition to concrete barricades, there were iron fences, dogs, soldiers, police, helicopters, jets, anti-aircraft battaries, secret service agents, CIA agents, etc., etc., etc. All in the name of FREEDOM!!

[Snidely Whiplash]

Maybe the SCOTUS needs a refresher on the Fourth Amendment.

Hm. I was thinking more like the Second. A thorough refresher.

SW

[Jack Black]

LOL. That's funny.

[cleo1939]

Every time congress pass a law and the President signs it
someone loses a right. I guess this is alright with you.

As a child I used to hear adults say when they saw something
that they didn't like "there aught to be a law" and now there
are many, many, many laws.

Granted some good but many that just give power to the
government and of course take power away from the average
"Joe".

I am pleased that I am coming to the end of this life, I don't
think I would care to live during the next 40 or 50 years
not to mention beyond. Good luck to you who will.

[Randy Papadoo]

TK, if I say I understand what you are getting at, since yours is a known point of view, I ask that you consider mine (not to agree with it.)

When I argue from the LE point of view, the real issues re drugs are focused on enforcement. (LE does other things, like talk to kids at school, etc.)

I hope you can agree, for discussion's sake, at least, that enforcement of drug laws is important, given the damage that is done to the country (don't argue with this, pls. It's already carved in stone. 8-) )

If police were given every possible tool and unrestricted ability to search for and seize drugs, they still wouldn't get them all. By far, far, far. But it is LE's responsibility to keep at the frustrating drug situation, and they just do their best with the resources they have.

The forfeiture side of drug enforcement is important. It enables LE agencies to acquire new and often expensive tools to fight the drug war, such as trained sniffer dogs.

Also, drug forfeiture money goes only to drug enforcement agencies, including local PDs, prosecutors, etc. Police Chiefs, for example, get nothing. His captain in charge of the drug squad gets the money, most of which is already committed to specified drug enforcement needs. It's carefully controlled, after lots of looseness at the beginning.

And the laws on forfeiture have changed over the years. Used to be that LE agencies could keep some seized cars, the ones they wanted, to be used as official vehicles. The head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (before DEA) in SF drove a big pink Thunderbird, which was seized from a drug dealer. You report observing similar things in your area, but I kind of think that the forfeiture law now has tighter limits on forfeitures than in past years.

My point is that LE just folds the forfeiture money into the WoD. Seems logical that a prosecutor might have one of those forfeited cars, for official business.

But I think it's an error to conclude that LE's motive for concentrating on the WoD is closely tied to the desire to acquire funds. There is a very clear mandate to LE, in statute form, that sets out the mission. Forfeiture was instituted as a way to utilize the seized assets that resulted from the enforcement efforts. I feel like defining forfeiture as the reason behind the LE WoD is like the old "tail wagging the dog" idea.

Forfeiture certainly had nothing to do with the arrest which was the basis of this thread.

Most pro drug dealers use rental cars to conduct drug business. The gov't doesn't seize rental cars, because such a forfeiture has no impact on drug enforcement, only on the innocent rental agency. That only gives limited protection to the dealer, however, because when he's caught, his assets are analyzed for purposes of forfeiture, and anything he can't document as having been a legitimate purchase with clean money is subject to forfeiture anyway.

I don't think you can point your finger at LE for what you think is wrong in all this WoD stuff. (Not that you are.) The laws are on the books. That's where your focus should be if you want changes.

LE just keeps pluggin' along, working hard. LE can't change anything re its responsibilities to the WoD.

Lastly, you are right about dogs sniffing one or a related group of specific things. LE lost many dog cases in the beginning, for the very reason that they were often used for many purposes....drugs, tracking, etc. This caused the dogs to make many false hits, which resulted in cases that got tossed out of court on unreliability issues.

LE adapted by keeping records on dog performances, and found out that the dogs needed to be specialized to basically one area of sniffing expertise in order to validate the dog's capabilities to make accurate and reliable hits.

And that has happened, and a routine part of a dog-generated drug case trial is the court presentation showing the dog's hit reliability is sufficient to validate his discovery of the drugs.

I live in Hawaii, which has tight agricultural controls over fruit (and other things). Incoming passengers are notitified of the regulation against bringing in fruit, but some forget they have some, some try to slide it through, etc. There is a small beagle, wearing a knit vest, which sits at the bottom of the escalator leading to the baggage claim area. The dog just calmly walks around the passengers as they come off the escalator, and sits down when he smells fruit. An inspector meets the passenger and looks in the carry-on bag, and seizes the fruit. There's no other penalty (there could be, in aggravated circumstances). That dog is uncanny.

[eno_]

Will they take the couple hundred bucks I carry and confiscate my car, seize my home?

Yes. It will only change when narcs come home in bags.

[eno_]

You are quite uninformed about conditions in Eastern Europe. I was there.

Under Communism, unless you were the sort to complain a lot, you were left alone. You could choose among identical shabby apartments, indifferent doctors, and, as for taxes, Russia's are now lower than our's.

Here, you can choose among doctors that will report you for spanking your kids and for gun ownership. You can choose among indifferent mediocre doctors as long as they are on your HMO's list. And you can overpay for ticky-tacky housing.

Yea, freedom lite. Almost, but not quite, worth defending.

The Stasi never had anything so kewl as Total Information Awareness. They used paper files. If we forced our government to use paper files, we would be more free than we are now.

[pepperdog]

You raise an interesting questions. There have been several stories on people buying cars or rvs at DEA auctions and then finding drugs or money still in the vehicles. Scary.

[eno_]

The dog just calmly walks around the passengers as they come off the escalator, and sits down when he smells fruit. An inspector meets the passenger and looks in the carry-on bag, and seizes the fruit. There's no other penalty (there could be, in aggravated circumstances). That dog is uncanny.

Since many of the passengers are carrying fruit, you could get the same "uncanny" result with a Ouija board.

[eno_]

LE just keeps pluggin' along, working hard. LE can't change anything re its responsibilities to the WoD.

It can, and does: LE focus on busts that bring in property, and more cops are corrupt. Bend cops and pols were one reason why Prohibition was a bad idea. We have the same problems now.

[Dave278]

Sorry a house doesn't fall under the "mobile vehicle" exception so they couldn't go inside and "scan the interior of your house" without a warrant issued by a Judge or you permission. A dog alert on the outside of the house opens up a whole other set of questions. The dog sniff of the exterior of a car is considered "non intrusive" since the dog is sniffing the "free air" from the exterior of the vehicle. If the dog alerts it is probable cause to search the vehicle on the spot. No warrant needed because the vehicle is considered mobile It never hurts to apply for a warrant for the vehicle even with a dog alert even though it is not required.

[TigersEye]

Apparently the facts of this case are lost on you. Dude got caught with $250,000 in ghana. That's a bit different than your unlikely hypo.

Unlikely or not I was speaking of a hypothetical situation in relation to the court decision. That specific case is irrelevant. I have no concern for it, no empathy for that perp.

I was discussing the ramifications of the court decision in future application. So were the people I was replying to. Context means a lot. Snap to that or look like a dolt it matters not to me.

[ClintonBeGone]

Unlikely or not I was speaking of a hypothetical situation in relation to the court decision. That specific case is irrelevant.

That court decision is the entire basis for your silly hypo. Life is not lived on crazy hypos, it's lived based on facts. The facts are that this dude got busted big time with a LOT of pot, and the court and most sane americans support the methods used to bring down another dope dealer.

[sam_paine]

I am pleased that I am coming to the end of this life

Disgusting. Why don't you take that selfish attitude and go park it on a railroad track like that other petulant fool did that got 10 innocent people killed?

[sam_paine]

Here, you can choose among doctors that will report you for spanking your kids and for gun ownership.

Explain how my three friends worked their way through med school to be doctors? They were not chosen by the state, each one decided to get up off their butts and but in 16-18 hour days and do it.

You can choose among indifferent mediocre doctors as long as they are on your HMO's list.

Uh. That's idiotic. I work for myself. I do not have an HMO. I have a single doctor and personally pay for Blue Cross (and I still make more than working for a slogging company.) I used to be lazy and work for a mega-corp, but I cashed in on freedom.

And you can overpay for ticky-tacky housing. Yea, freedom lite. Almost, but not quite, worth defending.

Again, you are limited by your mediocre skills, not the government. I bought a suburbia house after college, now I'm rolling the profit from that into building my own house out in the county, where the taxes don't hold me down.

In short, freedom doesn't guarantee success.

Sounds like you are MUCH more in tune with the ways of collectivism than I am.

[TigersEye]

That court decision is the entire basis for your silly hypo.

That's right. The court decision, not the case. It's very simple but you seem unable to comprehend that.