Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_afraid_*

  • Guest

Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:27 PM

As most of you know by now the supreme court ruled yesterday that cops DO NOT need reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle with a K9 unit during a routine traffic stop. No longer due the pigs even have to claim to "have smelled the odor of marijuana" to call a K9 unit. Basically any traffic stop can result in a K9 search, as my local police stated, if a unit is availble.

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.
<center><table border=1><tr><td>Posted ImageUpload
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
Associated Press

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.”


#2 Guest_rodger_*

  • Guest

Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:07 PM

Fortunately, the blue state I live in has more protections than the feds allow. They still have to have cause here, supreme court or no. The rest of y'all are screwed though.

#3 Guest_suckerfree_*

  • Guest

Posted 25 January 2005 - 11:43 PM

i read it in the paper today... they pretty much could do that already anyways. now they just have it backed up on paper.

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.

#4 shroomzhilla



  • Expired Member
  • 250 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 12:35 AM

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.
another idea is do the speed limit if your moving 250,000 dollars of weed.

#5 Guest_vrooota!_*

  • Guest

Posted 26 January 2005 - 08:28 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

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.

#6 Guest_taoist_*

  • Guest

Posted 26 January 2005 - 09:41 AM

Yeah, in a specific county next to mine we always know not to bring much weed because if you so much as look like a stoner the sheriff's calling the dogs. The nice thing is that if it's less than a half ounce it's only a $50 traffic violation in my state, and it's bright Southern red. Posted Image Screw you, ya' Feds!

#7 Guest_pbeester_*

  • Guest

Posted 26 January 2005 - 02:00 PM

Under a 100 grams in my state is a ticket as long as it's not packaged for resale. Even then, the dog shit is bogus. They should reread the constitution. They are blatantly interpreting it incorrectly. Well, we ain't been free for a long time, so I don't expect it to get any better.

#8 maliki



  • Expired Member
  • 416 posts

Posted 27 January 2005 - 08:06 PM

It is what it is reality.....

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 Image

#9 Guest_dead_*

  • Guest

Posted 28 January 2005 - 08:07 PM

I don't carry anything illegal in my car, it is always super clean. What would happen if I soaked some weed in alcohol and sprayed a diluted mist on the carpet? Dogs would go nuts but there would be no weed in the car to be charged with.

#10 Guest_afraid_*

  • Guest

Posted 28 January 2005 - 09:54 PM

Just so you know the best place to put a stash in the car is in the air box Air Filter area


lol...with the stock air filter removed and with some modifications you could get a brick in mine!


#11 Guest_taoist_*

  • Guest

Posted 28 January 2005 - 09:59 PM

What would happen if I soaked some weed in alcohol and sprayed a diluted mist on the carpet? Dogs would go nuts but there would be no weed in the car to be charged with.

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...

#12 Guest_i_am_me_*

  • Guest

Posted 28 January 2005 - 11:04 PM

I learned not to expect rights long ago. Especially when dealing with driving (which they consider a priveledge) and drugs (which are illegal). They don't really bend on those two combined heh. I've been pulled over about 7 times, had my car searched twice...even been told I was going to jail and they never found a single thing.

#13 Guest_pscillypj_*

  • Guest

Posted 03 February 2005 - 04:22 AM

everytime i've been pulled
over i've been high...and
always get
they never find anything...

#14 Guest_karl_*

  • Guest

Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:11 AM

city Dogs are still at it here in West they are cruising up and down the city parking lots..between cars and again in the Kroger and Giant Eagle lots ..
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 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.

#15 mycojay



  • Expired Member
  • 155 posts

Posted 04 February 2005 - 01:50 AM

my rottie goes with me most of the time cops are a little more hesitant to pull over a car with a 125 rottweiler in the car. It's my version of reverse pyschology

#16 mycojay



  • Expired Member
  • 155 posts

Posted 04 February 2005 - 01:51 AM

sorry i meant 125 LB

#17 shroomzhilla



  • Expired Member
  • 250 posts

Posted 04 February 2005 - 03:00 AM

I was just thinking that today jay, If you have a dog WITH YOU, and oh say its a female, how could they possibly conduct a search with "reasonable" results? for that matter- the former owner of my truck had his dog(s) all over in what I now call MY truck! yet the dog hair and smell is still enough for me to smell on a sunny day! what then?
oh forgot! dont need to be about truth or logic! the pig win every time!

#18 Guest_busst_*

  • Guest

Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:51 PM

whats different about not needing probable cause, for having a k9 search, which can detect drugs, even in the most secure of containers, than being able to x-ray your entire car without permission?

#19 Lefty


    Arrogant Asshole

  • Expired Member
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 07 February 2005 - 03:44 PM

Only heard of X-ray being used at international borders, maybe thats it?

#20 Guest_karl_*

  • Guest

Posted 03 February 2005 - 09:17 AM

Ran into this, maybe already a post on it.
http://boards.marihe...2x128146.sht ml
seems a bill is up for vote to decrim. all cannabis
in ole New Hampshire..

Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!