Later, dude.
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 ...
There is a world of difference between someone doing something illegal in plain view (such as growing pot in their front yard) and someone driving along apparently following the law.
Yeah, that's the part I don't care for. If they want to run a drug dog by my car when I get pulled over for speeding, then they better have it done by the time my speeding ticket is written. I'd give them 10 minutes to check my license, run my plates, and write my ticket.
It is far easier to teach a dog to "alert" on command than to train it to "alert" upon discovery of any particular substance or odor.
I have no faith in the majority of police dog training programs.
I and 99% of cops are glad they got him.
Not nearly that much is needed.
If "safety" means no bill of rights or constitution under it's original intent, then count me out.
I'll take the 'suicide pact' over BS safety every single time. It's my job to protect myself and my family. Not governemnt which isn't trustworthy enough, nor competent enough to do so.
The man in the news story was not obeying the law and had pot odor emitting from his vehicle. Whether it's a visual or an odor, it's probable cause. That's relative to the situation.
I don't believe a cop needs evidence to investigate, only suspicion. I believe a cop investigates to get evidence. Otherwise we only need officers to sit at the station and wait for a complaint. IMHO
No, IIRC the distinction is that they are not allowed to see into our houses without probable cause, regardless of what type of sensor is used.
64 posted on 01/24/2005 9:53:34 AM PST by Moonman62 (Republican - The political party for the living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
As a "biker", I am subjected to many stops in any given year for some of the silliest reasons you ever want to hear. Failure to signal is the easiest one....my word against his, dontcha know....they all come under the heading of hassasment stops and a part of my life. Many times I have to pull everything off the ride and lay it out for thorough inspection and play the silly game. The only time I have ever been ticketed, was for a really bogus charge the judge threw out of court after he read the summons.
This ruling is going to cause more citizens to be treated in a similar manner simply because of appearance, type of vehicle, origin of plate, length of hair, hours of travel etc.
Erosion of freedoms.
There seem to be a lot of "Living Document Conservatives" around when the Constitution gets in their way.
I thought infrared imaging of neighborhoods was a matter of routine, to find people who are growing pot. Likewise, "large" electric bills are reported.
Are you sure. You're probably breaking one gun laws somewhere depending on your state.
The dog "indictated" there were drugs?? Didi he say what kind and how much?
This is ridiculous, dogs are not positive indictors and should only be relied upon as an aid in search and rescue, bomb sniffing at airports and the like, etc.
I would have argued this case differently. that a dog "indication" is not proof, therefore no search should be allowed.
There seem to be a lot of "Living Document Conservatives" around when the Constitution gets in their way.
332 posted on 01/24/2005 11:57:59 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Like I said, you are one of the "good guys".
Call it a vibe. ;^)
Chicago doesn't respect my second amendment right, therefore I don't respect Chicago. I don't live anywhere near Chicago just for that reason.
Myopic.
It's not just regulation but real economic freedom. In real terms I am freer than my ancestor farmers were during the dust bowl. That's obvious. They had no freedom to travel, write blogs, argue political dissent, petition the government, publish, marry for happiness, etc.
They NEVER got paid a day in their life to be sick like I can.
In very real terms I have more tangible freedom than they ever could hope for.
I don't want to lose any of this either, and I think the dog sniffing ruling (and current attempts in the Texas Lege to get DWI checkpoints) are horrendous and need to be pushed back.
But I only took offense at Laz's hyperbole that we're worse off than East Germany. I don't have to drive a Trabi.
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.