Posted on 01/27/2005 10:35:56 AM PST by Yonkers Finest
Police who use drug dogs to sniff vehicles during routine traffic stops are not violating motorists' constitutional right to privacy if contraband is discovered, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 yesterday.
In setting aside a ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in a 1998 case in which marijuana was found by a dog after the driver was stopped for exceeding the speed limit by 6 miles an hour, Justice John Paul Stevens — in the majority opinion — said a lawful search that discovers contraband "compromises no legitimate privacy interest."
"Conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed respondent's constitutionally protected interest in privacy," Justice Stevens said. "Our cases hold that it did not.
"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,' " he said.
Read the remainder of the article at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050125-121237-9080r.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Is this to say that if no contraband is found, it is a constitutional violation of ones privacy?
The way the article is worded is does seem like that would be the case, though I don't think it is.
No, because the dogs are 100 percent correct, all the time, in all places, and even if you have no contraband Mary Jane and didn't break any laws. /sarcasm
I saw it happen to a colleague in an airport. He was ID'd by a drug dog, interrogated, and strip seached. Of course he had no Mary Jane on his person.
I guess anything goes in airports these days, but now its extended to the street, the park, the movie theatre, anywhere.
Is this the ''freedom'' Bush says we are fighting for?
Since many use dollar bills to snort contraband, and should you have such a dollar bill so used in your wallet, a drug sniffing dog might ID you.
But still, enduring a stgrip searc h would be worth it if the overall program resulted in a reduction of the use of contraband for entertainment.
I see no evidence that the 'war on drugs' is being won, and it troubles me to think that the moniker might suggest anything about the ongoing 'war on terror'.
Essentially they are saying that the sense of smell can cut throught any right to privacy if the police have a valid reason for the pull over. Of course as technology evolves and machines take over these tasks they may be significantly better at it than dogs. Criminals will respond with better sealing, but this plan will catch the dumb ones.
I believe the law should need better evidence than "you were weaving" to take this approach, but then who am I?
Can an officer go down your block, knock on doors and conduct random searches without a warrant?
That's the same thing that is going on here IMO.
Now ... what was the name of the stuff that turned off the ability of dogs to identify an odor?
And would it be illegal to spray it on the ground next to the car when a dog approached?
Or would it constitute probable cause for a search if you did so?
So many questions.
I saw a great idea on FR a day or two ago. Someone suggested that we should have a Constitutional Convention, and every law that exceeds the Constitutional limits on government power should be thrown out immediately. I would further add to this suggestion that we then look at the voting records of Supreme Court justices who upheld the unconstitutional laws and immediately impeach them.
A great idea but of course I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
I wish I could remember the name of the poster who first suggested it. It puts into words exactly what I would like to see happen.
I would say a good percentage of people appear uneasy or nervous when getting pulled over. I mean being surprised and pulled over by an oficer tends to disorient people and I would say most behave differently than normal. Also I'd say a majority of people have air fresheners in their cars (think pine-trees hanging from the rear view).
This being considered almost anyone can fit that description regardless of any wrong doings. AWESOME!!
RANDOM DRUG SEARCHES FOLLOWING SEAT BLET TICKETS FOR EVERYONE!!!!!
I dont think that being in a vehicle on a publoic street should count the same as being in the privacy of ones home.
It denigrates the meaning of the privacy of the home.
I hardly ever have any cash on me. That said, this war on drugs thing is a sham. I haven't touched mary-jane since 1978. I also think using it is stupid. I also think it should be legal. Likewise crack, and all the others.
We then build places in the middle of the desert where people who screw up their lives can be warehoused. Naturally, some sort of job skills would be taught. And their would be chaplains.
Neocons love this crap! I look forward to the next round of goon-state tactics.
These black-robed tyrants either fail to realize that technology will one day allow perfect violation of peoples' privacy with minimum effort or they do not care. Their decisions will someday be the SOLE criteria of the bounds of privacy.
May all of their grand-daughters suffer having the snout of a dog searching their persons.
I could go for legalizing pot, but not crack, coke and all that hard-core stuff.
The state has a responsibility to keep harmful drugs out of society as much as possible.
Pot isnt that harmful from what I have seen, though I have never used it. I ahve seen some crack users and coke fiends and they are obviously harmed by it, as are meth users.
It's getting to the point that dealers should just be hung from the nearest oak tree and users committed to hospitals till they clean themselves up.
Actually, your last statement may be along the lines of what it will take to actually win the war. I don't think the political will is there to actually do it though. Unfortunately...
I appears that this issue was decided pursuant to US Constitu;tional law. I don't know what the Ill. State consitiution says in this regard. I know in Indiana that this ruling would not stand unless the traffic cop who made the stop just happened to have a drug sniffing dog with him. The matter would be decided on an illegal seizure basis rather than on an illegal search basis. The Indiana Courts have long held that a mere traffic stop is not a basis for a search and that an officer can only detain a motorist for as long as it takes to write a traffic ticket. If the officer held the motorist for longer than it took to write a ticket just to wait for the arrival of a drug dog it would be an illegal seizure. This is all based on the Indiana State Consititution which gives its citizens broader protections than those granted by the US Consitiution in many respects. This is well settled law in Indiana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.