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 ...
Posted by NJ_gent:
"...If you don't ask if you're allowed to leave or refuse the search, then exactly how is the cop supposed to know that you want to go now?..."
My vehicles are registered, inspected, insured, and operated by courteous, law-abiding people with valid licenses and no moving violations. This is precisely my reason for planning ahead with an emphatic, "Absolutely not!" response if the question of a vehicle search is ever posed to me.
I will explain to the officer that I'm not transporting anything illegal or dangerous, but that my time is valuable. Additionally, I will advise him there are reports of accidental damage and inadvertent property loss incurred during roadside searches due to the hasty nature of the exercise and difficulty cataloging possessions.
My point is that I wouldn't want to be perceived as a threat, but I wouldn't wish to be considered a pushover, either. Everyone wants to be helpful, especially when they're considering expensive insurance surchanges hanging in the balance...but I suppose we each have to draw our lines somewhere.
~ Blue Jays ~
Plea bargain? Happens all the time. If they were really jack-booted thugs and evil judges they could have given him 30 plus $200k fine. Now he will be out in probably 3-5 with good behavior.
One plant one weed, it'll spawn others left unchecked. Ever hear of Ditch Weed?
Yeah. 56, six-foot plants in the backyard just spawned themselves. Even a Cheech wouldn't fall for that one.
Thanks for playing. Bye now...
I guess in your world, cultivating 56, six-foot plants is "simple possession". Go figure.
You should see how many gladiola's my mother-in-laws grows.
Is there some Constitutional provision giving the Fed Gov control over how many plants you can grow on their own property? And the types? Can you cite the Article, much less the Section?
Yeah... I didn't think so. But random warrentless searches are just fine now as long as your Law Dogs can find a judge that agrees that a rectal exam doesn't fall under "reasonable privacy".
Pathetic attempt at deflection there as well. Still no apology.
Go back and read the majority opinion again. We need not assume that dogs will never make mistakes or will never react to something other than an illegal drug. We need only assume that the dog sniff in and of itself won't reveal any legitimately private information. Nobody even suggested that it did.
The decision intrinsically addresses [the question of whether a positive from a drug dog sniff gives police officers probable cause to search a vehicle].
No. No it doesn't. The SCOTUS didn't meet to decide whether or not Caballes belonged in jail. If they did, then they would have intrinisically addressed the issue. From the opinion: "The question on which we granted certiorari... is narrow: 'Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop'". If Caballes wants to argue that a positive from a drug dog sniff isn't enough for probable cause, he still has that option.
I would disagree because, once again, 'plain view' is being extended beyond the range of what a human being can sense during the normal course of events.
This isn't an extension to plain view. It's an entirely separate exception to the fourth amendment.
This ranks right up there with the usual 'fishing expeditions' normally shot down by judges.
Why do you think judges normally shoot down fishing expeditions? Because those fishing expeditions might let the state know whether or not someone is committing a crime? Or because those fishing expeditions could reveal private information about legal activities in addition to the knowledge that a person did or didn't commit a crime?
"...I guess in your world, cultivating 56, six-foot plants is "simple possession". Go figure..."
My relatives made a significant amount of money in the automobile and home insurance business. They retired and purchased a long-abandoned farm and turned it into a grape vineyard to make wine as a hobby. Fifty-six, six-foot vines would easily fit on one tiny parcel of their property, which now totals many acres and employs many hard-working, college-educated people.
The point is that this thread isn't so much about numbers, quantity, or degree. It's about what is right and wrong.
~ Blue Jays ~
I am quite aware of what the man said, BUT, it is all a matter of relativity. Would I want a greatly heightened chance of terrorism because I would rather the authorities treated these times like the 1950's? The answer from my perspective is a resounding no. We live in a different time and these times, given the face, or lack thereof of the enemy require a different approach. The enemy wears no uniform, hides weapons in his places of worship and id counting on this nations obsession with political correctness to by their ally in the war. Consider the inconvenience of increased security part of the war effort if it makes you feel better. If freedom is our nations most precious resource then it is certainly worth a sacrifice or 2. This is no less a war then WW was and the enemy is in many ways far more dangerous and hard to deal with.
This has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. (1) The dogs are searching for drugs, not weapons or explosives and (2) these powers were sought out by law enforcement long before 9/11.
No. My discussion with DC was his use of exaggerated propaganda to support his libertarian position. He said people were sentenced to 15 years for simple position and all he can offer up is this guy that was cultivating 56 mature plants in his backyard.
(sarcasm)Yes. Freedom must be restricted and rationed or we will surely lose it.(/sarcasm)
Is that a quote from somewhere? Or are the italicized portions of your post your very own?
About par for course at this point. When confronted with facts, you run around dreaming up anything you possibly can to support your unsupportable conclusions.
"...Consider the inconvenience of increased security part of the war effort if it makes you feel better..."
According to your posts on this thread, you sure seem to enjoy enduring roughshod treatment by the government. Why should lawful, courteous adherence to the Constitution be mutually-exclusive from normal law enforcement procedures? Both goals can and should be achieved simultaneously.
~ Blue Jays ~
This is a poor ruling. I'm not sure anything constitutes an unreasonable search these days.
You said a mouthful there!
Actually, it could.
Say the experienced cop has a good reason to be suspicious that "something's" in the trunk (drugs, bank money, kidnapped child, whatever). Say the driver has a criminal history, is acting nervous, keeps glancing at the trunk, has "lost" the trunk keys, etc.
Without the availability of a legal dog search, the cop would then have to seize the car, have it towed, get a court order, and search the trunk. Eerything nice and legal, yes? Oops, they find kiddie porn.
Well, I say the driver would have more privacy and protection if they bring the drug sniffing dog. No reaction, you're on your way.
"I'm actually more concerned about the infringements we can't see. Local cops can't really tell a damn thing about me with a drug dog....but the Feds have entire billion dollar black budgets to spy on every piece of information about our lives, with nobody to check up on them, not even dipwads in Congress."
That is the most scary element, the idea that a state can develop such a technological sophistication that it CAN efficiently suppress all improper behavior before it gets out of hand.
Apparently the facts of this case are lost on you. Dude got caught with $250,000 in ghana. That's a bit different than your unlikely hypo.
"Once he starts though, it's best to just let him finish."
-- Cousin Eddie (Randy Quaid), Christmas Vacation
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.