Posted on 05/31/2007 6:50:24 PM PDT by djf
In a pair of decisions handed down November 20, Illinois' highest court has held that police conducting traffic stops may not undertake criminal investigations of drivers or passengers without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The twin decisions broaden Illinois citizens' right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and provide greater protection than granted by the US Supreme Court in similar cases.
In one case, the court threw out the conviction of a man arrested after a drug dog sniffed his car during a traffic stop. In the other, the same line-up of judges threw out the conviction of a passenger who was arrested after providing identification to a police officer, who then used it to run a warrant check.
Roy Caballes was stopped for driving 71 mph in a 65 mph zone on Interstate 80, and while one trooper wrote him a speeding ticket, another trooper arrived with a drug-sniffing dog and walked around Caballes' vehicle. When the dog alerted, troopers searched the vehicle, found marijuana in the trunk, and arrested Caballes.
Caballes filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion that he was in fact committing a crime. In trial court testimony, prosecutors produced no tell-tale smells, roaches in ashtrays, or any other evidence other than that Caballes appeared nervous and was wearing a new suit. The motion was rejected and Caballes was convicted. He appealed, and last week the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the drug dog search resulting in Caballes' arrest was not allowed.
(Excerpt) Read more at stopthedrugwar.org ...
Even though Washington state is generally thought to be a liberal hellhole, there was a similar decision a few years back called Byrd V Seattle, where the privacy right (as specifically mentioned in the Washington Constitution) was held in strong regard.
A person going and coming and doing his business without any obvious signs of a crime in progress is still considered innocent.
As much as I hate to see druggies get off, I have to agree with the courts decision. I know if a cop ever asks to search my car I’m Not giving him permission.
Heh.
Well, it's time we put a stop to that seditious thought. /s
Mr. and Mrs. Red, White, and Blue being presumed innocent.
What a concept!
Hey, it works for illegal aliens!!
(even though none of them are, because they unlawfully crossed the border)
As a Washington state cop for thirty years I had to work within the limits of the state Constitution which is much more restrictive than the federal Constitution. On occasion, the state supremes made ridiculous decisions regarding the right to privacy, but overall, I had no problems working within the limits set by them. It would seem that Illinois is finally catching up to Washington in regards to the safekeeping of citizens’ protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
On more than one occasion I knew a driver was “dirty” but having nothing to to go on(articulate a reasonable suspicion)it was let ‘em go with a smile and a I’ll get you next time thought.
As a Washington state resident I applaud your opinions and service.
As a youngster, my mom ALWAYS told me “If you have any trouble, go straight to the police!”
I have always valued that idea, but lately, it seems they are more interested in finding dirt on people than in protecting and serving.
I guess it only takes one bad apple(and endless media replays) of a cop doing something unprofessional to ruin the whole barrel, that’s alot of damage control to overcome.
In my few instances of relating to police I have always tried to be courteous and not give them a hard time.
But if I’m on my way minding my own business, I don’t deserve to be harassed by anyone, badge or no badge.
regards,
djf
Again, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed. "The warrant check was not supported by a reasonable, articulate suspicion that Harris had committed or was about to commit a crime," Justice Charles Freeman wrote, overturning Harris' conviction.
Sorry, but this is sheer idiocy. He has a warrant out for his arrest, but unless you suspect him of committing another crime right then, you can't book him? Stupidity.
No, it means that you don't have to produce identity papers on demand without a valid reason for the request. Being a passenger in a car that made an illegal left turn is not probable cause for being ordered to produce I.D..
such conversations should only be this long
do you know why I stopped you?..........No
where are you coming from? .....none of your business
where are you going?......none of your business
can I search your car?..............hell no
Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe one of Mario Cuomo’s last acts in NY was to make any moving violation probable cause.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because Cuomo made or signed such a law doesn't mean that it is lawful and will pass a court test.
Well I don’t try to give them a hard time or be rude, hell, they’re out there in a job where they risk their lives every day. I’m sure they meet more than their share of jerks.
But I think they dam well oughta have more than “You were lookin suspicious” or whatever.
"You seem a little nervous" is how they usually phrase it, and there's your "probable cause".
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.