Posted on 01/24/2005 9:20:02 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
But aren't the two rulings inconsistent? I.e., don't you release a heat signature into public air, just as you do a scent? If so, why is a sniff okay but a thermal image not okay?
I don't think we have gotten to the point where innocent citizens need to worry about offier's attempts to take drugs (and drug dealers) off the streets. As a cop, I am familar with these situations and I believe the suspect was probably giving off a lot of vibes. Thats why they brought the dog into the scenario in the first place. Officers don't have the time or the desire to start checking every car on the highway with a K-9.
You mean I have to actually sit back and wait for you to kill my wife before you can be arrested for DUI?
Sorry. I prefer that she live, no matter how much inconvenience a drunk has to experience.
No, it isn't like East Germany...NOT YET, anyway. Maybe in another decade or so.
The whole thought that drug sniffing dogs are loss of freedom is a, a, pipedream. If you are not a butthead you usually doen't get busted for petty drug use, they pick out idiots and rightly so.
In my view, this is a potentially troubling development. The Fourth Amendment traditionally has focused on how the surveillance occurred, rather than the nature of the information obtained. Under the traditional approach, the government could not invade your property without a warrant no matter what information it wished to obtain. Under the rationale followed by the Court today, the government may be free to invade your property so long as they only obtain "non private" information. This is particularly troubling in the context of computer searches and seizures. Can the police send a computer virus to your computer that searches your computer for obscene images, or images of child pornography, and then reports back to the police whether such images are on your computer — all without probable cause, or even any suspicion at all? The traditional answer would have been no: the police cannot enter your private property to search even for non-private stuff. But thanks to the increasong focus on the nature of the information rather than how the information is obtained, it's no longer so clear.
For a full discussion of this analysis, ClikenzeeMousenMovir.
I have friends and family who have both died and ruined their lives from drug abuse. And, I have lived in the ghetto. So your comments are pure BS.
Sorry, but the crack houses are a product of the WOD. The death and destruction is too bad, but it goes on with the WOD as it's currently fought. I've lived through it.
Think about it...
Excellent point. I think a lot of people believe officers have nothing to do but harass the public. I do not believe that to be the case.
Try and tell us that never happens...
Vibes?
I appreciate your input. You sound like one of the "good guys". There are, as you undoubtably know, quite a few bad cops.
I don't think I'd worry about you. I do think I'd worry about them.
However, the philosophical deeper argument is the one I am most concerned about. We are turning from a nation whereinwhich the ends never justified the means, to a nation where the ends completely justify the means. Read this very good analysis (especially the last paragraph) and tell me what you think -- putting aside, for a moment, your natural affinity towards making your job easier.
Nothing much I guess.... It sure as hell didn't seem to do any good.
That's not what I read. The K-9 officer just came upon the scene.
Officers don't have the time or the desire to start checking every car on the highway with a K-9.
Most do not perhaps. Our rights protect us from the ones that do.
Let's change the story; all other facts remain the same except as below:
Dog sniffs car, finds several hundred pounds of explosive in trunk. Suspect Izsheit Midrawrz confesses that he is to be taking this to a suicide bombing of a local school.
Do you now feel any differently? Or should the cops have let him go?
Be careful; constitutional search and seizure law is entirely written based upon the objective observations of the cops at the time of the search. You cannot justify a search based upon its results.
Oh you just had some pot, we'll let you go, but it's OK to pull you out of the car and beat you if we later find some guns or something dangerous. Sorry, I can't justify that legal reasoning.
I'll bet the Troopers had advanced evidence and knew the guy was carrying but their evidence was either inadmissible or they wanted to keep it secret due to other ongoing investigations. So they tagged a canine unit behind the guy and just waited for him to make the slightest traffic violation. Bam - busted.
I can tell you are a heavy drug user, your imagination is out there.
That was not one of your better threads. You let your stubborness get the better of your logic IMO.
Can you steer me to the portion of Constitution that says "vibes" are probable cause?
Your typing seems a bit slurred (offier's and familar (sic)). Can we warrantlessly search your car now?
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.