High court limits drug-sniffing dog searches during traffic stops

The Los Angeles Times ^ | April 21, 2015 | David G. Savage

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Supreme Court told the police Tuesday they may not turn routine traffic stops into drug searches using trained dogs.

The 6-3 decision ends the increasingly common practice whereby officers stop a car for a traffic violation and then call for a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the vehicle.

The justices, both liberal and conservative, agreed that it was an unconstitutional "search and seizure" to hold a motorist in such cases.

"Police may not prolong detention of a car and driver beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the court. [snip]

Ginsburg said police officers who stop a car for speeding or another traffic violation are justified in checking the motorist and his driver's license. But a traffic stop does not give officers the authority to conduct an "unrelated" investigation involving drugs, she said. [snip]

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia. Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined her opinion.[snip]

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. They said the stop itself was legal, and it was reasonable to hold the motorist because the officer suspected they may be carrying drugs.

[envisio]

While I would never have drugs in my truck, it is not any business of the government (police) to know what I have in my truck.

If they have probable cause to believe I have committed at crime, or they have a search warrant, then by all means, search away. Otherwise, write me up for my infraction and leave me be.

(of course... a police officer can pull any kind of “probable cause” out of his butt, i.e. - ‘acting suspiciously’)

[Talisker]

Thomas, Alito and Kennedy are "law and order" conservatives; Roberts and Scalia take the Fourth Amendment as seriously as they take the rest of the Constitution.

Thomas, Alito and Kennedy are wrong. Roberts and Scalia are right.

You sure you've got the right FReepname?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thomas, Alito and Kennedy are wrong. Roberts and Scalia are right.

That's exactly what I said.

You sure you've got the right FReepname?

Yes, which is why I am on the side of the 4th Amendment.

[Talisker]

Just so y’all know the local impact of Marijuana legalization: The guy who sat across from me on the 6:00 A.M. train was going to work stoned out of his mind already.

So what was the local impact?

[Talisker]

My mistake then - twice over. But imagine you meant the opposite and re-read your words, given that most FReepers have come to believe Roberts is against the Constitution (which is what I erroneously presumed about you).

[Uncle Miltie]

He stank.

I wouldn’t want to be his employer or customer.

[Uncle Miltie]

I’ve noted a substantial increase in the frequency of stoners on the street and public transport since legalization. My nose tells me.

[Wolfie]

I take the train every day next to a woman who reeks of vodka.

[Uncle Miltie]

There’s that.

[Talisker]

He stank.

LOL! Well I agree that that is indeed a negative "local effect"!

[envisio]

“””The guy who sat across from me on the 6:00 A.M. train was going to work stoned out of his mind already.””””

Giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, I look completely stoned at 6am everyday. (eyes half shut, slow speech)

But going to work stoned is no different than going to work drunk on booze. I am sure someone gets fired everyday somewhere in America for showing up to work drunk.

[ConservingFreedom]

I take the train every day next to a woman who reeks of vodka.

That reminds me: More days than not I share a train car with a fellow knocking back a styrofoam cup of whiskey.

[envisio]

Many of these dogs will "alert" when they know the handler wants them to alert

Or the officer will say they alerted when the dog did not.
I saw an officer during security training that said the dog alerted. The suspect said "No he did not. I watched him. He did not do any such thing". The suspect was right, the dog did not alert but the cop said "oh yeah, he alerted, we can search now."

[envisio]

And by the way... the dogs will alert on Immoduim AD or any other such over the counter drug.

[Lurking Libertarian]

most FReepers have come to believe Roberts is against the Constitution (which is what I erroneously presumed about you).

There is, unfortunately, not one Justice on the Supreme Court who consistently takes the Constitution seriously. They all have their blind spots. In criminal cases, too many "conservatives" take the attitude that the cops can do no wrong. In this case, Roberts got it right.

[from occupied ga]

where the dog alerted and the cop put the driver thru a cavity search and turned up nothing.

But the cop suckers here on FR will constantly tell us "the police are on our side." (I'm from the government and I'm here to help you) too.

[DariusBane]

I don’t know what a “metrosexual multipoo” is, but hey this is America. I am not judging you.

[barefoot_hiker]

This is good, but all a cop has to do is say “I’m detecting an odor of marijuana” and they can tear your car apart. No dog needed.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[T-Bone Texan]

Cops will also, at a stop, rub their finger on a car as they initially approach it.

We know now that this is to create false positives.

What is on substance on the cops’ finger? BBQ sauce? Bacon grease?

I don’t know, but when you view the videos it is apparent that dogs love it.