I still never agree with Stevens.
As a "biker", I am subjected to many stops in any given year for some of the silliest reasons you ever want to hear. Failure to signal is the easiest one....my word against his, dontcha know....they all come under the heading of hassasment stops and a part of my life. Many times I have to pull everything off the ride and lay it out for thorough inspection and play the silly game. The only time I have ever been ticketed, was for a really bogus charge the judge threw out of court after he read the summons.
This ruling is going to cause more citizens to be treated in a similar manner simply because of appearance, type of vehicle, origin of plate, length of hair, hours of travel etc.
Erosion of freedoms.
The dog "indictated" there were drugs?? Didi he say what kind and how much?
This is ridiculous, dogs are not positive indictors and should only be relied upon as an aid in search and rescue, bomb sniffing at airports and the like, etc.
I would have argued this case differently. that a dog "indication" is not proof, therefore no search should be allowed.
Idiots.
Court made the right call.... sorry guys. You get pulled over for speeding and someone smells wrotting flesh from your trunk, better believe it not a violation to notice.
Suspects do not "own the air" and have no expectation of privacy to it. Dog sniffs around a vehicle.. and detects drugs... not illegal or a 4th ammendment violation.
I'm sure the fact the IL Attorney General (Lisa Madigan)was completely unqualified to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the outcome. Had the AG done the right thing and let an experienced trial lawyer argue the case, the ruling may have gone another way. Her daddy (Mike Madigan, speaker of the house) even cancelled a session of the legislature so he could watch her in action. Yet another example of how corrupt Dems are ruining everyone's life.
Great decision, the druggies at DU will be distressed ...
What you said.
What is wrong with these people?
I would urge every one on FR to consider doing the ride along with police. I suspect there is more to this case than just a "nervous" driver. (Dare I say profile?)
It has long been the case law to allow for the calling of a police dog. That part is not new. The issue is the sniff outside the car.
Also keep in mind this is the same court that said police can not use technology to "see" into houses without first obtaining a warrent. (just b/c tech advances does not mean police can bypass laws)
Anyways, do the ride along it will confirm both bad and good.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3000483
My threads never get one of those :-)
Who needs the other two branches of government, anyway?
Want to bet that this does not happen to the "elites" or those with body guards or the big names in any field?
Exactly. Again... thanks to this Supreme Court
Oh no, not the dog. They "brought over the dog.". There goes the Constitution.
The unalienable right not to have the dog brought over shall not be abridged. (Baaa!)
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?
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).
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.
The authorities are trying to have it both ways. 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).
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 TerrorTM 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?
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!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.
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 ~