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.

[NavVet]

This is not a deviation from settled law with regard to dwelling. If a cop smells pot coming from the other side of an apartment door, would you not consider that probable cause to believe Marijuana is on the other side of the door. If a cop smells alcohol on your breath at a routine traffic stop, he can act. Why the paranoia, just because a dog's nose is more sensitive.

You're not going to get arrested because a seed from a prior owner of the car is in your carpet.

[NavVet]

Big difference between odor detectors, which they use in every airport, and an x-ray machine that would look into your house. You really need to read up on the 4th amendment, before you start talking about big brother coming to get you.

[NavVet]

What the heck are you talking about.

[cspackler]

I would rather have an environment where they weren't necessary.

[NavVet]

I think you're the one that needs to study the 4th Amendment. This ruling is consistent with many prior decisions. I'll bet even the ACLU wasn't surprised with this ruling.

[NavVet]

Who wouldn't, but that's not the world we live in.

[sefarkas]

If that had been in LA or Miami, the lady might have had her car impounded and arrested. The friendly relationship between cops and citizens is disappearing rapidly in our country.

That is because the enforcement of 'laws' is too arbitrary. We all go racing down the highway without regard to that white sign with the big black numbers. Some of those violators drive cars that say 'state police.' If they were serious about speeding, they'd've required governors on car engines long ago.

The control freaks in government have created so many laws and regulations that it is impossible to enforce them.

We fear the police because they could have a bad hair day and ticket/arrest/beat you on any number of 'legal grounds.' Too many 'cops' enjoy this arbitrary authority -- we never know which one will and which one won't bother us over laws that are largely ignored -- unless we bribe them somehow. Have you tried to get on a plane lately?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

So what's to stop them from watching everything you do for hours at a time with an infrared scan? Absolutely nothing. Since they can watch you without your knowledge, it meets the "minimal intrusion" statement from the judge in the article. When they start bugging people's homes and cars and putting up cameras in neighborhoods, they'll also claim "minimal intrusion".

[avg_freeper]

"Big difference between odor detectors, which they use in every airport, and an x-ray machine", which they also use in every airport. try again

The difference between the enhanced information gathering techniques of a dog and the enhanced information gathering techniques of an x-ray machine are arbitrary.

You implied that the delta between the officer's nose and the dog's is insignificant. But if that delta is insignificant then the delta between the dog and a chemical detection systems must also be insignificant. Likewise the delta between any other of the officer's senses like sight and an enhanced mechanized version like x-ray must also be insignificant.

If this is not the case then the reason is arbitrary. i.e. x-rays are not to be allowed on Tuesdays between 4.15am and 6:34am on brown station wagons in March during leap years. In other words you are arbitrarily finding one Ok and the other not to suit the basis of your argument. It might be nice to think that there is some kind of magical line that separates the two but absolutely nothing in what you wrote proves that.

[ellery]

Would you then extend that to very sophisticated electronic monitoring systems? The trade-off, of course, is the more sensitive the monitoring system, the higher rate of false positives and thus the more harrassment of innocent citizens. Where do you draw that line?

[rdl6989]

Pretty Sad, when the only justices on the CONSERVATIVE side, are Ginsburg, and Souter.

Well put.

[Gilbo_3]

Unless you're carrying a couple of kilos what difference does it make if a dog sniffs your car ? Loss of freedom is what the homos are doing to us by creating special laws against free speech. Bomb and drug sniffing dogs are good for society.

Tell me that when the drug dog shows a false hit on your car.

Even if they find nothing, you will still be treated like scum and delayed in your journey.

you lost your job due to being an hour late, sorry.

dont think you might go to jail just for 'resisting' or being a smartass? sorry

Dont think that some cops will need to get their quota and would toss a roach into you car, just to see what else they can find? sorry

Hell, for that matter all a cop really has to do is sniff the air and say he smells someting illegal, and his probable cause is set, so again, sorry...

[John Lenin]

When I was younger I had long hair and got pulled over by the cops just for the heck of it, they would do things like dump my ashtray on the carpet and question me and than say move along.

[Gilbo_3]

Thats why they brought the dog into the scenario in the first place. That's not what I read. The K-9 officer just came upon the scene. Officers don't have the time or the desire to start checking every car on the highway with a K-9.

they either brought the dog specifically for a search, or he just happened onto the scene of a 6 mph sppedo ticket.

either way they obviously make the time to do these things when they want to. Honestly, its RARE to see a 'single' cop car on the scene of a traffic stop around here, so i would say they have plenty of time on their hands.

Now about that 'desire' thing, surely you dont believe that it doesnt make some cops feel like superman to try and save the world? Especially when the numbers crunch is only a week away...

[Gilbo_3]

And if you KNOW you are innocent and get a bit uppity with the officer a little vial of rock cocaine may just be found in your vehicle. Try and tell us that never happens

I can tell you are a heavy drug user, your imagination is out there

Obviously you are a liberal sheep, content with your belief that some cops arent corrupted by power. Hopefully you never do anything illegal or run across a desperate cop at quota time...

[John Lenin]

Obviously you are a liberal sheep

Obviously you are smoking some good sheet. I'm done with you, bozo.

[Gilbo_3]

We are no longer presumed innocent. That is the part that scares me most.

Amen, pass the ammo please...

"psychic don't cut it"... prosecuting attny to dirty Harry

[Gilbo_3]

Last time i was pulled over was for 'weaving'.

first cop ran up to my rear bumper so fast that he damn near hit my car, blinded me with his bright as he tailgated me at 75-80 mpg which forced me to make a dangerous evasive manuvere. then he blue lighted me, at this point i was adrenaline pumping, so when he and the other TWO cop cars finally got around to approaching the car [nearly 5 minutes]I was already so mad that my hands were shaking.

this one a$$bag cop was such a total pr!ck that my elementary school teacher nearly went to jail that night for challenging his authority, but more to the point, a 0.00 BAC AND 45 minutes later we were back on our way.

Your boys may be fine cops/men. But they are men, so I really doubt that they are correct 100% of the time in real life, 'probable cause' or not...

[Gilbo_3]

longer than a normal traffic stop.

Please define the length of time here...

[JeffAtlanta]

first cop ran up to my rear bumper so fast that he damn near hit my car,

Typical. I have absolutely no respect for traffic cops and I seriously think that the world would actually run better without them. They are basically just a state empowered shake down racket for cash - they don't prevent any accidents.

Your example is all too typical. I've had traffic cops tailgate me for minutes almost blinding me with their brights before either pulling me over or just driving away. I don't mind being pulled over, but cops should act like men and either pull someone over or get on with their patrol.