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

Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

[MisterKnowItAll]

'Bringing in a trained dog is a specific inquiry into the person and property of the target -- i.e. a "search" (the Court's sophistries to the contrary notwithstanding).'

_Whose_ 'sophistries'? The Court didn't hold that a dog sniff isn't a 'search'. The Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit searches -- just 'unreasonable' ones.

[NJ_gent]

"I'm not saying there's nothing to criticize in the ruling, but it doesn't exactly gut the Fourth Amendment and pave the road for a police state."

What it does pave the way for is - after a few more rulings based on this precedent and a few jumps in science - police driving up and down the streets of neighborhoods scanning each house with sophisticated equipment that can detect all sorts of illegal drugs, weapons, chemicals, and other such things anywhere in the house from the street. Worse, you could even have police listening in on private in-home conversations without a warrant using laser-based technology pioneered by the CIA during the Cold War.

Are we there yet? No, but this is a very dangerous precedent that says if the search isn't inconvenient and doesn't involve a cop laying a hand on your property, it's ok to do it with no warrant and no probable cause.

[NJ_gent]

"If the nefarious power grabbers were smart, they'd get everyone riled up about meaningless traffic stops and then come at them with a haymaker of real oppression when they're all worn out on little battles."

Or they'd use little traffic stops that no one cares about to get precedents on the books to use to support the really nasty tactics planned for later. Precedents matter. The SCOTUS hates nothing more than to overturn a SCOTUS decision. It forces them to admit that sometimes, they're wrong.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'What it does pave the way for is - after a few more rulings based on this precedent and a few jumps in science - police driving up and down the streets of neighborhoods scanning each house with sophisticated equipment that can detect all sorts of illegal drugs, weapons, chemicals, and other such things anywhere in the house from the street. Worse, you could even have police listening in on private in-home conversations without a warrant using laser-based technology pioneered by the CIA during the Cold War.'

Exactly wrong, since the ruling itself (from which I posted a substantial excerpt) specifically affirms the Court's prior holdings that searches of the kind you describe _are_ unreasonable and unconstitutional. There isn't any way to read the ruling as a 'precedent' for 'a few more rulings' of the sort you say it 'pave[s] the way for'.

[sheltonmac]

Let me in on your plan to actually combat this one single erosion of liberty.

Well, actually noticing that there are erosions is a start.

[NJ_gent]

"Bringing in a trained dog is a specific inquiry into the person and property of the target -- i.e. a "search" (the Court's sophistries to the contrary notwithstanding)."

Bingo. People (and the SCOTUS) keep putting the cart before the horse. The dog's sniffing didn't give them probable cause for a search - the dog sniffing was a search.

[Blue Jays]

Hi NJ_gent:

Posted by Blue Jays in #504:
"...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..."

Posted by NJ_gent above:
"...Or they'd use little traffic stops that no one cares about to get precedents on the books to use to support the really nasty tactics planned for later..."

Whether currently supported by law or not, traffic stops without due cause are a huge problem. You're absolutely correct about the courts getting these smaller-scale "nuisance" stops on the books now to support a much heavier load in the future. We are in complete agreement.

~ Blue Jays ~

[NJ_gent]

"But I don't think there's any law against you walking your dog by my car."

No, but if you're bringing a dog that has been specially trained to search for something directly to my car (as opposed to just happening by my car), and then proceed to give the dog the commands to search my vehicle, then you've conducted a search. If you're an agent of the government, then the government has conducted an illegal and unconstitutional search of my property.

[NJ_gent]

"The Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit searches -- just 'unreasonable' ones."

Plain view is reasonable; using specially-tuned biological or mechanical equipment to conduct a search of my property is not.

[sam_paine]

police driving up and down the streets of neighborhoods scanning each house with sophisticated equipment that can detect all sorts of illegal drugs, weapons, chemicals, and other such things anywhere in the house

Gent, you frame the basic question question quite well:

Is the 4th Amendment really sufficient to protect the privacy we all actually want?

Forget about nice doggies for a minnit. Fast forward to your scenario.

Let's say you can do it by satellite/computer. Every morning a desk cop gets an automated report on suspicious activity, and he grabs his coffee and walks over to get bench warrants based on that probable cause.

How will we be able to use the 4th Amendment for protection then?

It seems like sniffing dogs or super-spy technology, the 4th Amendment is actually broken in many ways before we begin. Seriously, couldn't it be written better to protect the privacy we all actually desire in this invasive technological society?

How would the 4th Amendment be written to effectively allow for the initiation of the collection of evidence for a warrant without being open to misuse?

[NJ_gent]

Except for prisoner petitions, the SCOTUS doesn't take a case that doesn't allow it a chance to set precedent.

[green iguana]

the dog sniffing was a search

But here's the key part of their ruling with regard to that: "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 possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."

[MisterKnowItAll]

'Plain view is reasonable; using specially-tuned biological or mechanical equipment to conduct a search of my property is not.'

Fine -- then you're now claiming the dog sniff is an _unreasonable_ search. This is quite different from your claim (to which I was responding) that the Court said it wasn't a 'search' at all.

Once again, here's a link to the full text of the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-923

Anyone who still thinks the SCOTUS denied that a dog sniff constitutes a 'search' is invited to post the relevant excerpt.

As for the reasonableness/unreasonableness of the search: you'll have to do more than assert that the 'search' in this case was 'unreasonable'. A search of your property isn't automatically 'unreasonable' just because it was performed with 'specially-tuned mechanical or biological equipment', under this ruling or any other.

[inquest]

Seriously, couldn't it be written better to protect the privacy we all actually desire in this invasive technological society?

I don't think it necessarily needs to be written better, but understood better. The basic sum and substance of it is that government can't do to citizens' persons and property what citizens aren't allowed to do to each other's persons and property, unless they get a warrant (which can only be issued under certain specified conditions). So every warrantless action by government agencies that's remotely suggestive of a search has to be examined as though it were merely one citizen doing it to another, and asking if it would be legal.

[Dead Corpse]

Lots of us Conservatives are very protective of the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, but we are kinda in the minority...

[steve-b]

The authorities are trying to have it both ways. If a K-9 is not a "police officer" when it comes to obeying search limits, then it must not be considered a "police officer" in any other way (i.e. shooting one carries the same penalty as shooting a family pet dog, not a second more).

[MisterKnowItAll]

'But here's the key part of their ruling with regard to that: "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 possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."'

Exactly right. The Court is holding that such a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (And that, in accordance with precedent, it _would_ have been unreasonable if it had been of a type that could have revealed genuinely private information or if the stop had continued longer than necessary for its original purpose.)

[MisterKnowItAll]

'But here's the key part of their ruling with regard to that: "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 possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."'

Exactly right. The Court is holding that such a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (And that, in accordance with precedent, it _would_ have been unreasonable if it had been of a type that could have revealed genuinely private information or if the stop had continued longer than necessary for its original purpose.)

[steve-b]

I'm open to that argument, but for my own part I can only say that my objection to the ruling is really an objection to the drug laws themselves. I have a residual sense that even though marijuana is technically 'contraband', there's still something illicit about sniffing for it because I don't think it really should be 'contraband'.
If the contents of the trunk had been a pony nuke, I think we'd all have a different opinion.

This is a separate problem with the legal system -- it fails to properly calibrate the definition of "reasonable search" to the case at hand.

I'd have no problem with a legal doctrine that says that the cops need less evidence to search for (e.g.) terrorist preparations than to search for (e.g.) somebody's pot stash. Of course, the doctrine would need to be backed up with corresponding exclusions (e.g. if the cops went in looking for a pony nuke based on minimal evidentiary support accepted in such cases because of the public safety issue, didn't find a pony nuke, but did find pot, they can't use it even if it was in "plain sight" once they got into the house).