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.

[jmc813]

Great decision, the druggies at DU will be distressed ...

You fit the FR gun-grabber/drug warrior stereotype perfectly.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'So all searches are in fact searches, except when they say the Constitution doesn't apply because they happen to like those kind of searches?'

Nope, those are searches too. Rather than address this all again, I'll refer you to post number 695, where bigLusr explains this all (again) at greater length. The key concept to watch for here is 'reasonable expectation of privacy': searches that don't violate it aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment even though they're searches.

'No. I had it from the start.'

You've had it wrong from the start. The Court's handling of 'plain English' in this case far exceeds your own ability to read it.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'Once again, legal precedent and word parsing trumps the very document that gives it power. If it IS a search, then the Fourth DOES apply. There can be no other calculus.'

Again, this is dead wrong. The Fourth Amendment does _not_ apply to government searches that don't violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you can't follow the explanations I've already given and the one bigLusr set forth in post number 695, I don't see any reason to continue to explain this simple point to you.

[Dead Corpse]

No. I read the post. Disagree with the reasoning. And must assume your are in some way too mentally deficient to understand that you are using the same kind of logic that Clinton used to try and redefine "is".

It's a search. It is covered. Privacy issues completely aside. Reasonable? Most people in our government these days wouldn't know "reasonable" if it was in mid-coition with them. I can only assume you suffer the same retardation.

What next? Quartering of soldiers only applies if you have three or fewer bedrooms? Taxation without representation only applies as long as there is a minimum of Two Representitives on the Hill?

You do know there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause in the 4th Amendment don't you? Or is that another little thing you are willing to overlook? You either have probable cause and a warrent, or you do not search. Period. end of story.

[Dead Corpse]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

Now. Put down the blunt and tell me where they are allowed to perform any searches at all without my consent or a warrant. Take your time. I realize you may need it to work your way through all the big words.

[Dead Corpse]

And it just keeps getting deeper...

What next? Tracking collars for everyone who dares go out in public?

[TigersEye]

No No No No No

No? The Phoenix FBI office issued a bulletin to local LEOs of red flags for domestic terrorists. Pro 2nd Amendment stickers, copies of the Constitution and Bibles. Those were recommended indicators of probable involvement in domestic terrorist activity. Sounds to me like an attempt to institute those things as probable cause to me. Oh, you say that that was rejected? Never implemented? Not accepted in any court? Well, if at first you don't succeed ...

[NJ_gent]

"I keep saying it's constitutional both because it wasn't inconvenient and because there was no legitimate private information discovered from the dog sniff... and you keep ignoring that second half."

The Constitution provides no exception for "if the cops are real sure they'll only find bad stuff". Tell me, if this dog had reacted to beef jerky in this case, and not drugs (which we wouldn't know because this would never have been a case in the first place), would this then be a 4th Amendment violation? They brought in a dog, it reacted to some legal substance, they then searched his vehicle without a warrant and discovered the jerky. Have we violated his rights yet?

"Since the only information that can be gleaned from a plain view search is information that is not covered by a legitimate interest in privacy"

The legitimate interest in privacy covers places, not things. That's why it doesn't matter what you have on the dashboard - it's fair game because it's in a place where you have no expectation of privacy. The roof of your car is fair game. The trunk, when closed, is not.

"If a cop who pulls you over sees a joint on the passenger's seat, he can arrest you for posession, right?"

Yes. The safety issue is, to an extent, irrelevant as you pointed out. The passenger seat, the dashboard, the roof of your car, etc are all in plain view. You simply cannot expect that people will not see what you have there during the normal course of events. Ergo, if you put something illegal on your seat, then it's fair game for a police officer to snatch it and use it against you. However, if you put something under your seat, even if it's an illegal weapon or drug, you do have an expectation of privacy because the location where it is stored is not within plain view. If the cop just decides on a whim with no probable cause to search your car, it doesn't matter what he finds - it can't be used against you in court. Why? Because even though you may not have had a legitimate interest in hiding the object, you do have an expectation of privacy for the location where that object is stored.

"Likewise, the only information that a dog sniff can relate is whether or not illegal contraband is present."

Regardless of the fact that a dog's nose can reveal a great deal of things (certain substances' smells can drive dogs nuts), it is still a search above and beyond what you or I could detect in plain view during the normal course of events. If the smell is too subtle to a human police officer to detect, then it's beyond plain view. Again, I think we need to look at the concepts behind what we have here. If we have a machine which can map out every inch of the inside of your vehicle and alert police to anything that's illegal, is it ok to just run blanket scans on everyone's car? How about everyone's house?

What I also enjoy is how the SCOTUS allows their decision to rest on the infallibility of a dog. I don't know about you, but every dog I've ever had has done goofy things from time to time. I don't recall ever seeing a 'perfect' dog. It's as if these particular animals slowly float down from the heavens to grace us all with their infinite perfection. Seriously though, the SCOTUS here tries to dance around the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution by pretending that absence of evidence (of false positives with trained dogs) is evidence of absence. To me, that seems like they're rolling the dice with our Constitutional rights.

The larger issue, for me however, remains this expansion of plain view searches. I have absolutely no problem with a cop seeing a joint on someone's seat and using it against the driver in court. Where I have a problem is when private locations are searched without knowledge and/or consent, without probable cause and/or a warrant. To me, it doesn't matter what will or will not be discovered in the search - it's the search itself that's a problem.

[petitfour]

Repeat after me: "O'er the land of the free . . ."

"Let freedom ring."

"with liberty and justice for all."

If you repeat it often enough, you'll know that you are free. At last.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'No. I read the post. Disagree with the reasoning.'

Fail to understand the reasoning, you mean. I think you've lost track of what's at issue in this argument.

'You do know there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause in the 4th Amendment don't you?'

Of course. And _you_ do know that there's a big wide world of legal precedent out there from which, despite your ill-founded claims to the contrary, the SCOTUS is not departing one iota in the case under discussion -- don't you?

If you want to make an argument that the decision is _wrong_, go ahead and make it. But I don't think you'll succeed unless you can accurately understand what it _says_.

'You either have probable cause and a warrent, or you do not search. Period. end of story.'

Wrong again. The Fourth Amendment doesn't require a 'warrent' [sic] even for every search it covers.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.'

'Now. Put down the blunt and tell me where they are allowed to perform any searches at all without my consent or a warrant.'

The Fourth Amendment doesn't require either your consent or a warrant for every single search. The fact that you need probable cause to _issue_ a warrant doesn't say or imply that you need a warrant for every search, nor does it determine in and of itself which sorts of search require a warrant. (And there's no reference to 'consent' at all.)

'Take your time. I realize you may need it to work your way through all the big words.'

Naw, I covered all this stuff years ago in my first year of law school. You must have been absent that day.

[WildTurkey]

Google is your friend. Yes. People have been sentanced to 15 years, and in some cases more, for simple possession.

Google is my friend. If it were your friend you would have been able to find a specific link instead of the total search in which I saw nothing to support your position.

[NJ_gent]

"only those that invade a Constitutionally protected zone of privacy. According to the SCOTUS, this one didn't."

The SCOTUS decided to look past the fact that this was a trunk and that the human cops apparently didn't smell anything. It's more an issue of what constitutes 'plain view', in my opinion. Personally, I see far too many problems with extending 'plain view' past what a human being can detect with his or her senses during the normal course of events. Apparently, the SCOTUS wants to extend it to anything that can be detected by anyone or anything without physical contact. Yes, they try to dance around it neatly by saying the air comes out and is no one's property, but it's still wrapped up in the neat little package of willfully ignoring the consequences of not restricting plain view to human sensory capabilities.

"I'd suggest the following: since drug-sniffing dogs aren't infallible"

It's a tempting road to march down, and it solves the immediate problem. The problem is, what happens when science builds a better mouse trap (or dog's nose, in this case) and makes it well enough that it's nearly impossible to find fault with it? My problem isn't that the dog might find beef jerky - my problem is that a location with reasonable privacy expectations was searched by police without probable cause or a warrant by means that extend beyond the range of human sensory capabilities; thus making it not plain view.

[WildTurkey]

Google is your friend. Yes. People have been sentanced to 15 years, and in some cases more, for simple possession.

Wow! 292,000 hits! You expect me to wade through that in the slim chance that there might be one to support you position? Do your own homework.

[NJ_gent]

"The key concept to watch for here is 'reasonable expectation of privacy': searches that don't violate it aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment even though they're searches."

They are covered under the Fourth: "no unreasonable". I would argue that looking upon that which anyone else may look upon in the normal course of events is wholey reasonable. I would further argue that anything that falls outside that category is wholey unreasonable.

[Dead Corpse]

Legal precedent? Are you now going to contest that decades of legal twisting can now bring the plain meaning of a Constitutional provision 180 degrees from what it is supposed to mean?

I'm done with you if that is all the more cognition you are going to exhibit.

[Dead Corpse]

The first page contains websites with the various States sentancing guidelines. The data's is there.

"You can lead a liberal to reason but you can't make them think." It seems to apply to you here....

[MisterKnowItAll]

'The SCOTUS decided to look past the fact that this was a trunk and that the human cops apparently didn't smell anything. It's more an issue of what constitutes "plain view", in my opinion.'

Sure, and that's a much better argument than the claim that the Court redefined the word 'search'.

However, I think the main problem is still that -- 'plain view' aside -- there doesn't appear to have been a legitimate privacy interest in this case at all. _If_ the Court was right that the dog sniff could reveal only the presence or absence of contraband, then the only information at issue was unprotectible in the first place. And if so, that falls under a _different_ exception to the Fourth Amendment from the 'plain view' exception.

'Personally, I see far too many problems with extending "plain view" past what a human being can detect with his or her senses during the normal course of events. Apparently, the SCOTUS wants to extend it to anything that can be detected by anyone or anything without physical contact.'

I don't think that's their argument in this case. Here, they argue (rightly or wrongly; again, you may disagree with them) that the possession of contraband simply isn't information that falls within reasonable privacy expectations in the first place.

'The problem is, what happens when science builds a better mouse trap (or dog's nose, in this case) and makes it well enough that it's nearly impossible to find fault with it?'

According to the Court's logic in this case, it still has to be precisely tailored to collect _only_ unprotectible information in order to pass Constitutional muster. I don't see thermal imaging and wiretaps and such meeting that standard now or ever. (Again, this isn't currently a 'plain view' issue since it falls under a different exception to the Fourth Amendment.)

[NJ_gent]

"By the time I realized what the "hold-up" was, it was to late to protest."

It's never too late to protest. You may ask at any time, and as many times as you like, whether you are free to go or under arrest.

"Either way, why would you protest something when the cop has the threat of a ticket hanging over your head?"

If you're hoping the cop is going to play nice with you, you're going to have to play his game. Option 2 is to request that you be ticketed in a timely fashion and released. When the dog showed up, you could have asked for your ticket and refused the search. If the cop has probable cause, he can search the car. If you believe he does not yet he still searches the vehicle, file a complaint.

"I wasn't sure if "failing to signal a lane change" was a traffic violation in Oklahoma, (it wasn't a violation in my state, unless it contributed to an accident). With the threat of a questionable ticket over my head, of course I was going to be cooperative with the officer."

Then it was your own practices that put you in a position of being at the mercy of the officer's ballgame. He wanted to play let's make a deal. You had the option of not playing his game, but you chose to anyway in the hopes that you could avoid a ticket for your traffic infraction. I can sympathize with being in another state and being unsure of the rules, but that's why I play it safe. Cops love busting out of state drivers because they so rarely are willing to come all the way back just to fight a $100 ticket. It's not maliciousness - it's human nature.

In terms of the traffic laws themselves, that's a legislature issue. I can't fault a police officer for enforcing a law he had no hand in passing, and I can't fault a cop who's willing to let you off the hook under certain conditions.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'I'm done with you if that is all the more cognition you are going to exhibit.'

How about you go ahead and be done with me anyway?