SUPREME COURT RULING ON DRUG DOGS @ TRAFFIC STOPS
Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:27 PM
One last time...the use of drug sniffing k9's DOES NOT constitute an unreasonable or an intrusive search of ones vehicle EVEN IF THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO SUSPECT that you have drugs.
here is the official Supreme Court Opinion in PDF.
drugdog.pdf (229.1 k)</td></tr></table></center>
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) Illinois police are welcoming a court decision giving them broader powers to use drug-sniffing dogs during traffic stops.
Sangamon County Sheriff Neil Williamson says the ruling will help his department catch drug smugglers during roadside safety checks and other traffic stops.
And Peoria County Sheriff Mike McCoy says he will be able to use his office's canine units more effectively.
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that drug-sniffing dogs could not be used in traffic stops unless police had a solid reason to suspect hidden drugs. But yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling says dogs can be used more often.
The American Civil Liberties Union fears police will abuse their new authority. The group says Illinois should follow the lead of other states and adopt rules for when police can bring in drug-sniffing dogs.
Justices rule 6-2 that dogs can sniff the outside of cars after traffic stops
By HOPE YEN
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can have dogs check out motorists' vehicles for drugs even if officers have no reason to suspect illegal activity.
The 6-2 opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, stipulates police dogs may sniff only the outside of a car after a motorist is lawfully stopped for a traffic violation.
But privacy rights advocates said the ruling would lead to far more traffic stops as a way to find drugs.
Before Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court had authorized drug dogs to sniff luggage at airports.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who argued the case, said, "The use of canine units to help fight this battle is indispensable."
The case involves Roy Caballes, who was stopped by Illinois police in 1998 for driving 6 mph over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after noticing air freshener in the car and noting Caballes appeared nervous.
The dog indicated drugs were in the trunk, and police searched it even though Caballes refused to give permission. They found $250,000 worth of marijuana, and Caballes was convicted of drug trafficking.
The verdict was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled the search was improper because police had no particular reason to suspect Caballes had drugs.
In his opinion, Stevens reversed the state court ruling, saying the intrusion into Caballes' privacy was too minimal to invoke constitutional protection.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday on a La Salle County search-and-seizure case allowing police broader search powers during traffic stops.
The ruling allows police officers to use drug-sniffing dogs to sniff motorists and their vehicles during traffic stops even if officers lack reasons to suspect the motorist are transporting drugs.
La Salle County State’s Attorney Joe Hettel said he was pleased with the decision.
“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled we can do a drug search that’s not intrusive or in violation of the Fourth Amendment so we’re very pleased about the decision,” he said.
In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 near Peru for driving six miles over the 65 mph speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver’s license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous.
The dog sniffed out $250,000 worth of marijuana in Caballes’ trunk. The Las Vegas resident was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 12 years in prison, but his conviction was overturned when the Illinois Supreme Court ruled the troopers had insufficient grounds for conducting a sniff.
Monday’s decision reverses the state high court’s ruling. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, despite having limited trial experience, personally argued the case in Washington.
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 opposed 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.
District 17 State Police Capt. John Morscheiser is one of many law enforcement officials who were pleased with the decision. Morscheiser said the 6-2 decision makes it apparent that the arguments were overwhelmingly in favor of law enforcement.
“They have decided we are not violating anyone’s rights by allowing the dogs to be used in a lawful traffic stop,” Morscheiser said.
La Salle County Sheriff Tom Templeton said he believes the case is a landmark decision that will affect law enforcement nationwide. He said the ruling showed that Illinois law enforcement officials were doing their job properly in accordance with the law.
Templeton said before the Illinois v. Caballes ruling the La Salle County deputies routinely allowed police dogs to perform free-air-sniffs and frequently found drugs on the occasions they performed the sniffs. He said the ruling would give law enforcement back a tool they had lost for stopping the transportation of illegal narcotics.
According to Master Sgt. Rick Hector, the Illinois State Police Public Information Officer, the Illinois vs. Caballes case allowed police dogs to be utilized only when officers already had a probablecause to believe there were illegal drugs in a vehicle. According to Hector, the high court ruling allows an officer to have probable cause for a search due to a police-dogs reaction to a vehicle.
“The decision is going to be especially beneficial for state police in their attempt to interdict drugs being transported along highways,” said Spring Valley police chief Doug Bernabei. “As it helps law enforcement, it will help society by getting drugs off the street across the country.”
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:07 PM
Posted 25 January 2005 - 11:43 PM
all any cop has to do is say he smelled weed coming from the car.... and then run his dog along it. if he's right...
what judge is going to listen to you crying "but really.. it didn't smell..!"..
if he's wrong... he just moves along.
Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:35 AM
another idea is do the speed limit if your moving 250,000 dollars of weed.
Posted 26 January 2005 - 08:28 AM
another idea is do the speed limit if your moving 250,000 dollars of weed.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> LOL
I don't even think I'll be smoking in cars anymore if I've got shit in my pocket.
Posted 26 January 2005 - 09:41 AM
Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:00 PM
Posted 27 January 2005 - 08:06 PM
Where I live im to close to the border there are just random customs stops all over the place plus ones that are almost allways up and runing.
Ive seen K9 units there but the K9's are allways caged . Who nows next time I go trhu maybe they will be runing dogs simply because they can without question or impunity . Its in the name of security my ass.
Just so you know the best place to put a stash in the car is in the air box Air Filter area , so long as the vehicle is runing there is no smell its taken into the engine and burned out the exhasut. Just make sure you put it on the fresh air side of the air box or the smell wont be the only thing burning up....
Posted 28 January 2005 - 08:07 PM
Posted 28 January 2005 - 09:54 PM
lol...with the stock air filter removed and with some modifications you could get a brick in mine!
Posted 28 January 2005 - 09:59 PM
one angle is the time line of the search. if your being held for an "unreasonable" amount of time waiting for the dogs to arrive, there may be a defence. remember to check the time when your pulled over.
If they don't find anything there's a civil tort for unlawful holding, I forget what it's called, learned it back in high school...
Posted 28 January 2005 - 11:04 PM
Posted 03 February 2005 - 04:22 AM
over i've been high...and
always get searched....lol
they never find anything...
Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:11 AM
they call it "exercising" the Dog. I have not yet heard anything about any busts or of the legallity if the Dog gets a hit..??
giving probabale cause to search into the vehicle...BUT..best watch out..its a college town here with 30,000 not so cool little students..and the city looks for every buck they can make..or break.
Posted 04 February 2005 - 01:50 AM
Posted 04 February 2005 - 03:00 AM
oh forgot! dont need to be about truth or logic! the pig win every time!
Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:51 PM
Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:44 PM