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 ...
Sorry for the mis-spellings although they gave you the opportunity for a good quip. The courts have traditionally recognized the officer's reliance on "knowledge and experience" when making decisions on the street. Anyway, I wasn't using that as a justification in this case, just as the court didn't. I was just pointing out that officers are not going to run out and parade their K-9s around cars just because they can, absent something else (vibes).
Dude. Don't get tense. I'll give it back to you. I was just looking at it. I'd never seen one before.
Stop molesting children.
You have the perfect name for a druggie.
That's nothing. You're agreeing with the ACLU.
Heheh. :) How many times do you think Scalia as believed one thing, the ACLU believed the opposite, and FReepers overwhelmingly sided with the Anti Christian Leftists Union?
I don't agree with the ACLU or Ginsburg. I see the ACLU's point (ouch, that hurt), but the court made better points. If Caballes had been forced to wait while a dog was brought in he would have been detained illegally. If the traffic violation had been bogus he would have been detained illegally. But the stop was legit... and if Caballes hadn't posessed any marijuana the cops would not have invaded his privacy.
It's easy to make the slippery slope argument and imagine hidden cameras in our bedrooms... but we don't hate that idea because of all the illegal things we could otherwise be doing in our bedrooms... We hate the idea of the government intruding in all the legal but private things we might do there. The court addressed this. "The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is categorically distinguishable from respondant'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 posess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."
But let this be a lesson to you all. When transporting massive quantities of an illegal substance, obey the traffic laws. ;-)
So Thomas and Scalia voted for this, huh? SIGH.
Still not sure why I let these punks get my goat. Good Luck...
Funny coming from someone with the screen name "John Lenin".
"Conservative", to the Republican Party and the judges they dump on us, simply means their version of gigantic, intrusive, stupid government.
Republicans have zero interest in liberty. They crave power and money, period.
I think you need to drive by a crack house and think again. Drugs make you stupid and eventually they catch up to a person, I don't care who you are. I've seen it with my own eyes, people who handled drugs really well for a while that turned into psychos when they get high.
Such as NRA stickers in New York?
So wouldn't it make more sense to fight to have guns legal in those areas rather than fight to have the right to hide them illegally?
Definitely. You've inspired me to do a tally, healthy, injured or dead:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; : Injured. There are loads of laws respecing religion, both supporing and limiting it.
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;: Healthy. I can't think of any clear examples.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble: Dead. "Free speech zones" with selective enforcement and denial of permits.
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.: Healthy.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.: Injured. I see lots of infringements on the books.
The right of the people to be ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated: Injured. This case and many others are bringing it close to dead.
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.: Injured. PATRIOT really cut that one down.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury: Dead. Technically still there, but subverted by a rubber-stamp grand jury system.
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy: Dead. Now we try you for a crime, and if not guilty, try you again for violating someone's civil rights while committing the crime you've just been found not guilty of committing.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself: Healthy. They can do this in grand juries by giving you immunity, but since you do have immunity I'd say it still stands.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: Dead. PATRIOT and executive order in the WOT.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.: Injured. Between WOD seizures and eminent domain abuses. Would be dead but fore recent seizure reform.
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial: Injured. How long did they hold Kevin Mitnick? Would be dead but for how rare it is.
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed: Dead. With jury selection as it is these days, it's hardly impartial anymore. Plus, law doesn't allow you to have a jury for various small crimes.
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.: Dead. Money is still needed for a proper implementation of this, and that doesn't count the government claiming "national security" to keep your witnesses from appearing.
Amendment VII: Healthy.
Excessive bail shall not be required, ...: Injured. Bail often too high, but punishment is not cruel.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.: Dead, oh so very dead.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.: Dead. Fedgov rules all.
We're not doing too well, are we? Any comments about my evaluations?
The mentality on drug threads provees the point on why drugs are illegal.
Do you know the false positive rate of sniff searches?
Obey the law or lobby to have the law changed.
The sniff isn't a search, but once the dog alerts the cops that drugs are in the car, that alert serves as probable cause for a search warrant. Once there's probable cause for a warrant, the motor-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement comes into play, meaning the cops get to do the "real" vehicle search without actually getting the warrant beforehand. The sniff is really just a means of obtaining probable cause for a search.
...you're going to stick your head in the sand and sit by while every aspect of freedom we've taken for granted is stripped away from us ....
Please do tell me how it is you know so much about me that you would seek to label me, or do you just shoot from the hip whenever it suits you?
Do not despair. I was quite happy to see that most Freepers got past the 'drugs' angle, which we all agree that drugs are bad, but went on to understand the true problem behind this ruling: The nature of the information being more important to the court than the method of surveilance.
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.