Skip to comments.High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs
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 ...
What you said.
Somewhat agree. I was stopped by Atlanta police once in college for going through a red light - the light was yellow and the car in front of me panicked because it saw a police car at the intersection, slowed down and left me in the middle of the intersection as the light turned red.
Anyway, the cop actually made me get out of the car, patted me down for weapons and made me sit in the back of his cruiser while he wrote me a ticket. At that time I was a nerdy looking, white-bread college student in a suit coming back from an interview that weighed about 140 lbs so I hardly fit a profile. I got the last laugh though as I contested it in court and he was 5 minutes late so he wasn't there to contest the charge when I plead not-guilty.
Got pulled over once between Atlanta and Athens for speeding - I passed a police car since I had turned on the wrong road and thought the speed limit was 65 rather than 55. I insisted to the officer that he was wrong about the speed limit but when then he realized I was confused about which highway I was on. He was cool about - laughed and gave me a warning.
I thought about sending an email to sheriff's department letting them know about how polite and understanding the officer had been, but I figured it would just get him in trouble for not writing me a ticket.
I haven't noticed you here before, but I like your argument style.
What is wrong with these people?
Ruling classes rule the masses.
More folk have been damaged by alcohol and killed, than by the rest of all drugdom.
Your calling people by names, and trying to be cute with your phrasing, is not scoring points. Your "feelings" are worthless, in the face of simple logic. Unfortunately, all through life, there are those that wish to control the lives of others. You seem to be one of them... Read your constitution, and bone up on the source wisdom of our country! When you have some wisdom to share, let us know. In the meantime...
If you don't want to take a hit, pass the joint... just quit letting it go out (and quit your whining)!
It is far easier to teach a dog to "alert" on command than to train it to "alert" upon discovery of any particular substance or odor.
I used to run around the neighborhood with toy guns, and have snowball fights when I was a kid. I believe both are illegal now.
Here in WNC, we don't lock our homes or our cars. We can leave $700 in cash, a digital camera, and a handgun on the front seat while we go in to the post office and nobody will take it (I have really done that).
When somebody dies, 1000 people turn out for the funeral - in a small town. When a funeral procession goes by, the cars on the opposite side of the road pull over and stop out of respect.
If your car breaks down or you have a flat, you won't have to wait more than five minutes before somebody will stop and help you.
And best of all, we can shoot game and pee off our back decks (not simultaneously, usually).
I'm no going to name names for you, just shows how deluded you are from drugs that you would call me a liar and make yourself look like an even bigger fool .
How did he call you a liar? He just said that a little hemp didn't kill your friends, poor judgment did.
It may have been hyperbole, but there should be little dispute that you don't get "there" (East Germany) without first going through "here" (allowing cops growing powers to detain, inspect, and search, based on minimal motivation other than that they feel like it.)
A minimal speeding offense has zero relation to public safety, so is a mere pretext. A drug dog alerting is an opportunity for error, deception, and fraud. Cops have drugs to smear on the car to cause the dog to alert, can trigger an alert when there are no dogs, and can plant drugs (though not 250 pounds as in this case.)
Remember when cops were like him...
Now, this is all they want to do...
It's your life, learn the hardway, just don't kill anyone while you are high.
All joking aside, the ruling had a lot to do with what is called "plain view" search. The molecules and atoms that the dog can smell are in 'plain view' to the dog. This ruling had to go this way or the chemical sniffers that the US Gov antiterrorist folks are implementing across the US would also be inadmissable in court against the bad dudes with large or small explosive devices and radiological weapons.
That's why the Conservative majority went this way. They are protecting our collective right of self defense against attackers.
If a dog alerts on your vehicle and it is searched, contraband MUST be found for any arrest to be made. Drug dust on money is insuffient as it does not represent a measurable amount for an arrest to be made.
I do agree that rights are historically lost when we need to become 'safer'... and this may represent such a loss.
That's bizarre - when did I say that I use drugs? I don't own a gun but I'm sure in favor of gun rights.
Seriously, you might be a little too emotional about this topic to think about it logically. That's understandable since you did lose some people close to you - it's the same thing that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving go through. Maybe you should take some time off and take a step back later and examine the bigger issues.
Well, actually, that's the only difference I really have here. I agree that giving cops too much leeway encourages abuse. Or at least, with any power there will always be some abuse. Traffic cameras are of more concern to me than stopping for a traffic violation because EVERYONE is being watched.
But I would differ with you on the "here" to "there" argument. I don't think they are related. The power of the police state is not grassroots. By that I mean that giving cops ultimate police powers will not actually precipitate a police state on its own.
Yikes! Hold on. Don't flame me yet!
The state encroaches on rights gradually (boiling frog.) The people react periodically in backlashes (see Ahhnold.)
As long as they have an outlet on top (play one party against the other to balance power) then there's always a method to have the creeping progress of the State's Power rolled back in one fell swoop.
I worry about the parties molding into one, at which point, it may be all over. Meanwhile, I like to see arbitrary tax cuts defund the various departments...taking some of their oxygen and making them grow slower than I do.
What I have learned is this, I fought the law and the law won. Knock yourself out, see if I care.