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 ...
...
cleo: You seem to jump to conclusions rather fast.
And apparently, so do you.
Here's another thought along those lines if you know of a checkpoint that uses dogs: buy some pseudophedrine cold medicine, dissolve it in water and put it in a sprayer. Spritz the solution on the wheels of vehicles headed for the checkpoint. Pop some popcorn and sit back and watch the fun.
This damn thread has gone everywhere, and I'm out of synch with what's been said and what I haven't read yet. But.....
Someone posted something about Kyllo in here, I think. The reason for the decision was that the use of infra-red was OK, and was not an invasion, but that the fact the light and heat were observed did not identify that property as being involved in any criminal activity.
The court said that it was possible to find many such innocent buildings with similar IR profiles, and there was nothing presented to the court which showed that, even with the IR profile, it was being used for criminal activity.
Now, I read that in here and not from any court document. But it sounds ok, explains the decision, and does NOT forbid LE from using the IR technique. Just needs some additional PC to make it work.
IIRC, the cops had an informant who told them about the grow site, the lights, etc. They kept the informant out of the judicial loop, IR'd the place and got a search warrant based pretty much on that.
IR is very useful in locating large fields of pot surrounded by other vegetation. And this can be used as the basis for a search warrant, since the profile comes from the MJ itself. Hemp and tomatoes give off the same profile as MJ.
Even new clauses to the Constitution!
Pop quiz, dude: Does the Constitution enumerate...
a) the rights of the people, or
b) the powers of government?
Plenty of source material, by the way: The keywords "hawaii police disability pension fraud" return 19,200 hits on Google. A nest of criminals.
Based on the CHP numbers I cited, disabilty fraud by cops, in California alone, and within the statute of limitations for felony fraud, has cost taxpayers BILLIONS.
It really does appear that the vast majority of cops are bent.
Your apparent obsession has you talking to yourself. That's a cause for concern. :0
One of the seven danger signs of freepaholism? I can stop. I really can.
lol
a) the rights of the people, or
b) the powers of government?
I say again, where does the constitution provide the people the right to keep and bear a bale of dope?
You've summed up this thread correctly!
No. It isn't the JOB of the U.S. Federal Constitution to do that.
Now answer my question: Does the Constitution
a) Enumerate the rights of the people
or
b) Enumerate the powers of the federal government
It's a very very simple question. Pick an answer, and it will tell us everything we need to know about you.
It does both.
BZZZT wrong.
Check out the wording of the Bill Of Rights. People mistakenly think it enumerates rights. What it actually does is limit certain powers of government explicitly. E.g. "shall not be infringed."
It also limits those powers generally. Read the Xth amendment and then cite where else in the Constitution the federal government is permitted to stop me owning a bale of "dope," or, for that matter, a wagon load of it harvested with a combine, if I so desire?
LOL only you would be so arrogant as to tell me that what the framers called the Bill of Rights isn't really what they meant. You certainly provide no educational information, but you're good for a laugh!
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.