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 ...
Well said.
But of course, we who are in our 40's also have very dramatic observations of freedom lost.
you need to get a grip, there is no violation of any freedom here. Goodness, the man was checked for carrying ILLEGAL drugs. what part of illegal do you not understand.
Not quite true. Some acts may be crimes depending on what you were thinking at the time.
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.
Has that happened to you more than once?
Try being politically incorrect at work. Call someone a n***er in public. See how fast you will wind up in jail.
You can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling.
You miss jumping thru one of those hoops and you'll find out what you have to do.
BigMack
People are not "seized" by a traffic stop. They are seized when they are arrested. This is a horrible ruling. The SC is so out of control and will only continue to get worse. I know they have jobs for life, but maybe it's time to rethink some type of term limits or mandatory retirement age. These justices live in their own little worlds and have no one to answer to.
Yeah, but where were you when the Mustang came out? That was all about freedom...
So is this one of those "you have no rights in an automobile" rulings? I do recall that the Supreme Court has never been friendly to individual rights of anyone in a car.
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, " are they missing? A car is certainly an effect, and is a portable abode (house). It can be thought of as an extension of the person.
Police already patrol self storage places with dogs. The owner of the facility lets them on the property and lets the dogs sniff around the doorways. Although a person has an expectation of privacy for things within the storage room, it has been ruled that any scents (even if it takes a dog to detect them) that emanate from the room are not private.
Ending the war on drugs is really the only way to stop the assault on our liberties.
Sad, isn't it. Maybe judges should have read the BILL OF RIGHTS berfore making that decision.
Only when I act nervous.
Unfortunately it's now "precedent" and the Supremes don't like to go against precendent.
I've lived in Europe. I've been to East Germany long before the wall came down. What you see depicted by Hollywood isn't far from the truth. Wise up.
(/heaving stomach sarcasm)
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.