Posted on 04/21/2015 10:46:54 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I know they will touch a car to see if it still running.
bacon grease?... hmmmmm.
Perhaps, but let's see what happens on further consideration by the 8th Cir.
"The determination adopted by the District Court that detention for the dog sniff was not independently supported by individualized suspicion was not reviewed by the Eighth Circuit. That question therefore remains open for consideration on remand. P. 9. 741 F. 3d 905, vacated and remanded."
Let’s not forget that federal drug laws, while doing much more harm than good, are also unconstitutional except in legitimate interstate commerce issues between the states.
State drug laws also do more harm than good as they allow way too much government intrusion into personal lives.
This is a surprising step in the right direction because as I remember it wasn’t too long ago that the Court OK’d dog sniffs for a traffic stop if it didn’t take too long.
It also wasn’t long ago that they ruled those dogs cannot be used on the front porch of a residence “just because.”
Scalia is a 4th Amendment champion. So I am not surprised that he joined this opinion.
I don’t know the facts of the case but there seems to be some disagreement in the Court as to whether after the valid traffic stop, the police had reasonable suspicion of drugs. Sounds like the dissent said, they had reasonable suspicion (”suspicion couple with additional objective fact”). It’s pretty settled law that after a valid stop, the police can act further if during the normal process of the stop reasonable suspicion or probable cause arises.
I no longer respect Roberts after his willful re-writing of that collection of rules and regulations known as 0bamacare.
Which I refer to as 0bamaRobertscare.
This is very interesting. I wonder, if the suspected crime were more serious, would the court find differently.
More concretely, I wonder, if when the court gets a case where a police officer suspected that a car might contain bomb making material, will the court find differently?
I know I agree with the case decided today. Then I view the potential harm as negligible. In my hypothetical, the harm is potentially much greater. But then again the behavior of police now, and maybe that is just human nature, makes me unsure how I would want the court to decide.
think that this is the first time I’ve disagreed with Justice Thomas.
Wow, I can’t believe the SC sided against the cops and a further erosion of 4th amendment protections. I’m speechless.
Try reading some of his other search-and-seizure cases.
Awesome response!!
It’s a cross between a poodle and a maltese. It was supposed to be teacup sized but it’s over 20 lbs. And that is a GOOD thing since we moved to rural KY with all the hawks around here.
Fluffy white.
Until municipalities pay a price for infringing on basic rights, these kinds of impositions and police state actions will continue.
Until municipalities pay a price for infringing on basic rights, these kinds of impositions and police state actions will continue.
This sort of thing will have consequences. Even if only at the individual officer level it will change the playing field.
Not if these government employees retain their employment or are rehired elsewhere. They need to be toxic and it needs to go up the chain of command. Department heads and chiefs simply reflect the attitude of the elected officials.
reminds me of the USSC overturning the police using infrared cameras to look INSIDE homes on whim.
I actually hear what you are saying. My point is that if they don’t change their policy there will be exponentially more videos of them “acting badly” to the point that there will either be a political solution or private citizens will be psychologically empowered to treat these cops the way they would treat a civilian doing the same thing.
Imagine the lady that had the phone ripped from her hand pulling a gun as the cop grabbed it and shooting him in the face.
The video would vindicate her.
We are living in interesting times, but they are nowhere near as interesting as I am sure they are about to be.
there is a reason the Obama administration / democrats are disarming veterans by abrogating their second amendment rights.
Assigned seating?
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.