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 ...
As a cop I would never tell you that it hasn't happened, although in 28 years I've never seen it. The problem is you make it sound like officers plant evidence WHENEVER someone gives them a hard time and that is false.
Shaking, blushing, and fumbled speech are a good examples.
You've missed every point so far by going on meaningless tangents and focusing on irrelevant minutia. The specific state that the defendant or you live in is totally immaterial since we are speaking on the broader, general point of searches.
Guns are illegal in many areas and there is great pressure to make them illegal in many others. The second amendment does not protect anyone since it is not currently "incorporated" by the 14th amendment.
Since gun laws can be created on the local ordinance level, a person driving through to work may pass through several different jurisdictions that all have different gun laws.
The larger point is that many Freepers don't see a problem since this will be used against druggies - a segment of the population they don't like. The problem is that this could easily be used against gun owners (currently or in the future) - a segment of the population that they do like.
We are no longer presumed innocent. That is the part that scares me most.
Correction:
This ruling allows dog-drug searches on the basis of a cop later claiming that someone was acting "nervous."
In Blythe, California, a city ordinance declares that a person must own at least two cows before he can wear cowboy boots in public.......
Roger that.
I suppose Astral Projection will be the next substitute for probable cause.
Oh, I see. Guns aren't illegal. It's just carrying a gun in a useful condition that's illegal.
I suppose Astral Projection will be the next substitute for probable cause.
So it's ok because they might have already illegally searched his house?
Dear Blue,
You are probably a good guy, but I'm a biker, and I've been on the receiving end of "vibes".
It's possible, sure. Wouldn't be the first time, though.
Drop the crack pipe dude.
I stand corrected, and point out that I was in near total shock when I made that earlier post.
Just not paying attention are you....
You might be a good cop. But you are becoming a MINORITY instead of a majority.
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.