High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs

Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

[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.

[cajun-jack]

yessir!!!!!!!! and lock your drug-running ass up too!!!

[cajun-jack]

yessir!!!!!!!! and lock your drug-running ass up too!!!

[Blue Jays]

Hi JoeV1-

"...As far as I'm concerned the police can stop me every freakin' day as long as they are trying to stop crime...

How much earlier are you prepared to depart for work each morning to accommodate these random stops during commuting rush? Forty-five minutes, an hour, two hours?

How long do you feel your boss will endure your "pulled over by the police again" excuses before he terminates your employment?

~ Blue Jays ~

[Blue Jays]

Hi M1-lightning:

"...Since when are roadblocks considered a guilty sentence?..."

Try pulling a legal U-turn as you approach a police roadblock simply because you don't wish to be delayed for a business appointment with an important client. See what happens.

~ Blue Jays ~

[libertyman]

I probably did misread your post. I'm legally blind & probably thought it said something different than what you intended. Sorry!

[NJ_gent]

"The second was the amount of private information that could be gleaned from the process alone. X-rays, infrared scans, phone taps, etc, would all allow officers to learn more than whether or not someone has done something illegal."

Not if it's all run through a computer sitting in the police cruiser which then only tells the police if it finds something positively identified as something illegal. The dog can smell the air freshner, any food in the car, rust, or any number of other perfectly legal things. The value in a drug sniffing dog is its signalling when it smells drugs. It's not supposed to alert officers if it smells a ham sandwich, much like the computer in the cruiser shouldn't alert the police to the vehicle's occupants' skeletal structures. From what's said here, software that simply gives a warning if it detects something naughty in the car would be perfectly alright.

"No proper reading of this ruling would allow the use of any of the other methods you listed without a warrant."

I'm not saying it allows everything all at once, but it's definitely a move away from 'plain view', which was to protect the lives of officers. Now we're dropping into extra-human-sensory perception. We could fire gamma rays through the car and map the molecular structure of everything inside the car. Then our handy dandy computer can pop us out a warning if there's anything in there it doesn't like. We're still within this ruling. It'd probably take another few rulings, but it's this precedent that has me worried.

"You can't search everything."

Given the proper equipment and a few advancements in technology? Sure you could.

"If the dog sniff could let the officer know the guy's shopping list in addition to the location of the large stash of illegal contraband this guy was carrying, then the search, like the thermal imaging scans in Kyllo, would have been unconstitutional."

So again, we adjust our software to automatically disregard anything that's not illegal. Now your officers have no way of gaining information about legal things happening or present within the vehicle.

"Caballes acted nervous, his car smelled of air freshener, and he said he was moving but only seemed to have a couple sports jackets in the car. Now... that wasn't probable cause. Nobody claims that was probable cause. If the officers thought those actions gave them probable cause they would have opened the trunk without first bringing out the drug dog."

Agreed.

"the police were justified because the dog sniff did not invade Caballes' privacy."

Neither, technically, would using a mind-reading machine so long as it works from a distance (oh boy that's going to be a fun bridge to cross). My point is that the distance from the vehicle or its contents and the manner of extra-human sensory data collection and analysis used is irrelevant because the search itself resides outside the scope of 'plain view'. It's really no different than using a machine. A dog is a machine - a biological machine. Its use here is to bypass the restrictions on what an officer can and cannot search. The cops couldn't open the trunk to search it legally so they found a way to conduct their search without opening the trunk. The fact remains that a search was still conducted. Any which way you slice it, if a human can't walk up to the car and see/taste/smell/feel/hear something, then any attempt to locate it constitutes a search. Whether that attempt is made by a dog with a hypersensitive sense of smell or by a sophisticated scanning device that uses physics and software analysis is irrelevant. The attempt itself is the search, and that search itself is the problem. In my opinion, under the 'plain view' doctrine, in order to gain knowledge beyond that which can be perceived by a human police officer, probable cause is required. While the SCOTUS babbles on about semantics, where the air is, whose air it is, etc, they're completely forgetting the fact that there's a reason those cops can't pop open the trunk and search it. It's not because they'll untidy his vehicle by doing so - it's because the search itself is intrinsically contrary to the protections provided by the Constitution to the people of this country.

"Now, if you actually knew of scientific evidence that the drug dogs will react to Puperoni treats in addition to illegal substances, you might have a privacy case."

There are two angles here. One is whether any police drug-sniffing dog in use can be made to react to something other than the drugs. If it happens once, you're right back into the realm of potentially giving information to officers about completely legal items contained within the vehicle. The second angle is whether the dog can be fooled or encouraged into giving a false positive by its handler. If a certain tug on the leash or a swift kick in the rear can made the dog give a false positive, then you're right back where you were. My object, however, continues to live way back at the start of the actual search, which began when officers attempted to gain information about the contents of the vehicle above and beyond that which they could normally perceive without even having probable cause.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It can get even more distant than that. The Family Leave Act was passed under the Interstate Commerce Clause because, well, if someone in a company takes leave, then that company is affected financially and therefore SOMEWHERE money and goods once passed over a state line!

[xzins]

If you recall, they said the dog was not in the car. "The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car

If a cop stops you for a traffic ticket, you open your window, and a whiff of alcohol hits him in the face, should he assume drinking-and-driving and act accordingly to protect others on the road?

[scannell]

I disagree, I don't find this as an intrusion when the dogs are merely exercising their abilities. There is no prior intrusion into your wallet, personal search, etc. There has to be some way to run a police operation without giving EVERY advantage to the perps.

[scannell]

In the wildest hypothetical situation, if a psychic were able to concentrate on a crime and determine who the perp was, would you feel him doing so would be unconstitutional. (the exercise of his own talents). Is the same true if they could block terrorist activities that way?

[P.O.E.]

Who needs the other two branches of government, anyway?

[sam_paine]

Dude. Hit "View replies" on that one before you jump in with such brilliant insight....

[Spirited]

Want to bet that this does not happen to the "elites" or those with body guards or the big names in any field?

[hoosierham]

An ORDINARY traffic stop doesn't involve a dog!!!!!!!Merely bring the dog to the near vicinity of the car constitutes the beginnings of a search in the view of any reasonable person who can see cause and effect.

If the K-9 officer makes a routine traffic stop, Rin Tin Police Puppy ought to stay locked in the patrol vehicle.

And I despise the idea that the canine is a "police officer" as some states value the dog's life above that of a human being.

The dog is a tool just as a mechanical sniffer would be,although the reason-impaired might balk at the idea of a police officer sniffing the car mechanically . That also brings up the "sniffing" flashlight,which is another bad ruling. Devices can be made so sensitive that they will alarm on perfume and aftershave alcohol odors,thereby giving "cause" for search and further testing. If a human in average health can't see or smell the suspected substance while STANDING out side the open window ,the a search warrant ought to be required. The courts have been trashing our rights for years, and made us less,not more safe.

[E Rocc]

I suspect the "drug smell on money" thing is a scam. Money has its own smell, and if you taught a dog to sniff that, then if you have money the dog sniffs it and that is probable cause for a fullblown dope search.

Naw....without saying too much, I think it's just real enough to be credible. It's a matter of detectable threshold, which for dogs is very, very, low.

People need to learn that it's not "cool" to use bills as paraphernalia. They are playing into the hands of the Drug Warriors.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Exactly right - What a terrible decision - My Father always warned about having too many judges appointed by Republicans on the High Court - He did so solely because of privacy rights and how they would be done away with simply for the power of police -

The key is keeping the pressure on the GOP to respect privacy rights. The Libertarians are too weak, and the Democrats are useless.

-Eric

[scannell]

I am not sure what you mean by Ordinary Traffic Stop. Ordinary traffic stops don't involve guns either, but they bring em anyway. Rather have the dog than the gun.

[paudio]

"You Americans think you are free. Maybe once you were, but now, you live in a police state that rivals that of East Germany."

Is such remark correct? Do Americans now have to shut their mouths out of fear for their lives? Do political enemies start to disappear one by one? Do police come to your house after a foreigner visited you, asking who the guest was?

[DBrow]

I don't see how money comes to smell like drugs.

If the bills were packed in with the stuff, then maybe, or if a bill was used to sniff cocaine. But LSD, marijuana, E, and so forth are not usually associated with bills.

I'll remain sceptical until I see some solid evidence backed up with substance (not just some cop saying it is so).