Sorry Telperion, but Place and this case have almost nothing in common. Place was a search of luggage. However, this was a vehicle search done under the Carroll Doctrine, using the dog's alert as PC for the search. The cases are MUCH different. Prior to this decision the lower courts were divided on whether the dog sniffing was intrusive or not, in other words does this amount to "plain smell" or is it an actual search.
High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs
- Thread starter TheFederalistWeasel
- Start date
- Status
publius
Member
This is strange, the excerpt posted at the top of this thread says the dissent was by Ginsburg, joined in part by Souter. I found another article which says the dissent was by Souter, joined by Ginsburg. Looks like about a 50% chance that reporters get things right, which is not all that much worse than the 62% for drug dogs.
A search that can only turn up illegal stuff is OK, because if you're not supposed to have it, you can't have a protected right not to be scanned for it.
The dissent seems to be saying that you're supposed to have a reason, and there was none.
OK, that's an interesting enough discussion. I tend to go with the dissent. But if you don't like what drug prohibition has done to civil liberties, wait until you see what the war on alladembadfolks will do. Here's another article on this same subject, which doesn't say much new, until you get to the end:
That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the same logic not apply to eeevil weapons?
A search that can only turn up illegal stuff is OK, because if you're not supposed to have it, you can't have a protected right not to be scanned for it.
The dissent seems to be saying that you're supposed to have a reason, and there was none.
OK, that's an interesting enough discussion. I tend to go with the dissent. But if you don't like what drug prohibition has done to civil liberties, wait until you see what the war on alladembadfolks will do. Here's another article on this same subject, which doesn't say much new, until you get to the end:
That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would the same logic not apply to eeevil weapons?
spartacus2002
Member
If you thought the War on Drugs exception or Officer Safety exception to the Bill of Rights were bad news, you ain't seen NUTHIN' till you seen the Terrorism exception.
Don't worry -- it ain't in your copy of the Constitution/BOR, but it's in SCOTUS' copy.
Don't worry -- it ain't in your copy of the Constitution/BOR, but it's in SCOTUS' copy.
The implications from this case are very bad for the preservation of a meaningful Fourth Amendment. You can get a taste of why from this blog http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_01_21.shtml#1106585518
Al Norris
Member
Publius, Souter wrote a separate dissent from Ginsburg. Both agreed in part with the others dissent. As much as I hate it, I have to agree with Justice Ginsburg's reasoning.
In Ginsburg's dissent, it was the timing of the events as they unfolded, that to her, resulted in an unlawful search.
Stevens, in his argument for the majority, relied extensively upon Place for the opinion reversing the Illinois Supreme Court. Ginsburg notes that in Place the bags that were sniffed, were already in custody. In Caballes nothing was in custody, except Caballes himself, being the respondent of the speeding citation. There was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to think anything other than a routine traffic stop was taking place. It was a second officer, that was not called upon, merely happened by, that instituted the dog sniff. Again, without any cause whatsoever. It was far afield of the reason for the stop and therefore a violation of the 4th.
The reason Ginsburg doesn't apply the same logic between searches for drugs and searches for Bio/Chem weapons is the same reason the Court gave for the OK for sobriety checkpoints. "The immediate and intrinsic harm to the public" outweighed the individuals expectation of privacy. Drug checkpoints aren't allowed, because they don't present an immediate and intrinsic harm, as do drunk drivers on th road, or explosives at airports.
In Ginsburg's dissent, it was the timing of the events as they unfolded, that to her, resulted in an unlawful search.
Stevens, in his argument for the majority, relied extensively upon Place for the opinion reversing the Illinois Supreme Court. Ginsburg notes that in Place the bags that were sniffed, were already in custody. In Caballes nothing was in custody, except Caballes himself, being the respondent of the speeding citation. There was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to think anything other than a routine traffic stop was taking place. It was a second officer, that was not called upon, merely happened by, that instituted the dog sniff. Again, without any cause whatsoever. It was far afield of the reason for the stop and therefore a violation of the 4th.
The reason Ginsburg doesn't apply the same logic between searches for drugs and searches for Bio/Chem weapons is the same reason the Court gave for the OK for sobriety checkpoints. "The immediate and intrinsic harm to the public" outweighed the individuals expectation of privacy. Drug checkpoints aren't allowed, because they don't present an immediate and intrinsic harm, as do drunk drivers on th road, or explosives at airports.
CentralTexas
Member
I doubt it-
FWeasel wrote "Once the dog hits, you can go inside the car and the trunk etc…
If I find hand grenades inside the car during the search they can be submitted as evidence against you, the search was good and I have PC to be there."
Well it better be a K9 trained to alert on drugs AND explosives then and most specialize.
Your dog training papers pleezzzze.
CT
FWeasel wrote "Once the dog hits, you can go inside the car and the trunk etc…
If I find hand grenades inside the car during the search they can be submitted as evidence against you, the search was good and I have PC to be there."
Well it better be a K9 trained to alert on drugs AND explosives then and most specialize.
Your dog training papers pleezzzze.
CT
If there is probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs, and immediately recognizable (without manipulation) evidence of other crimes or contraband is found within areas that could conceal the drugs, they are seizable and admissable under the plain view doctrine and will not be suppressed.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
You're kidding, right? My regular job at a television station means that I work a 3pm-11pm shift in a neighborhood that is less than pristine. On top of this, I often do freelance video post production work in the same neighborhood. When I'm working on a particularly intense project, it is not uncommon for me to leave around 2 or 3 am. Again, this necessitates my driving through the aforementioned less-than-savory neighborhood.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=95605
TheFederalistWeasel
member
CentralTexas
Sorry man but it happens all the time in more than just my state of GA, with and w/o a warrant. All the courts want to see is if I had a legal reason to be there and a dog hitting on your car based on a free air sniff is all I need in GA.
I can go inside and if I find dope fine, if I find explosives fine, if I find a dead body fine… guess what you are going to jail and you can argue all day long that I was not looking for guns/bombs/dead bodies until you are blue in the face, in the end all the judge will only want to hear is why I was inside the car in the first place, and if it’s legal then it’s a good search and whatever I find can be used against you.
It’s been done that way for along time and will continue to until it is changed.
Sorry man but it happens all the time in more than just my state of GA, with and w/o a warrant. All the courts want to see is if I had a legal reason to be there and a dog hitting on your car based on a free air sniff is all I need in GA.
I can go inside and if I find dope fine, if I find explosives fine, if I find a dead body fine… guess what you are going to jail and you can argue all day long that I was not looking for guns/bombs/dead bodies until you are blue in the face, in the end all the judge will only want to hear is why I was inside the car in the first place, and if it’s legal then it’s a good search and whatever I find can be used against you.
It’s been done that way for along time and will continue to until it is changed.
publius
Member
No kidding!
How's this for an idea, given that I've heard so much about the police searching vehicles & tearing them apart, etc.
Hold the police to the same standards that, say, a cleaning company would be held to. If they break it, they've bought it (or more accurately, a replacement for it). The department has to pay the person something like $20-$40 an hour, billable in half hour increments. Note: At first I was "if the police don't find anything", but then I thought, wait, this would be an incentive for the officer to find something, above and beyond pressure already there. So pay it even to the guy trasporting a dozen kilos of cocaine in the seat padding. You can get it back when the judge orders fines after conviction.
"Let me get this straight. You search my car for 15 minutes, and pay me $20? And you have to pay for any items you break? Deal
.
Hold the police to the same standards that, say, a cleaning company would be held to. If they break it, they've bought it (or more accurately, a replacement for it). The department has to pay the person something like $20-$40 an hour, billable in half hour increments. Note: At first I was "if the police don't find anything", but then I thought, wait, this would be an incentive for the officer to find something, above and beyond pressure already there. So pay it even to the guy trasporting a dozen kilos of cocaine in the seat padding. You can get it back when the judge orders fines after conviction.
"Let me get this straight. You search my car for 15 minutes, and pay me $20? And you have to pay for any items you break? Deal
.lostone1413
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 447
Just a little more freedom lost. Hard to believe the powers we give the police dept our founding fathers would have found unconstitutional. Read this site and see how our founding fathers intended it to be setup http://www.gunowners.org/fs0402.htm
CAS700850
Member
Justin,
I read the thread you linked to. All I can say is "bad cops". I have never in my career seen an officer try to justify anything close to the arrest, or even the stop. And, trust me, I've seen a few bad cops along the way.
Don't know what else to say, really. Not willing to defend bad actions by a bad officer.
Funny, in my part of the world, the actual Sheriff is a beaurocrat that carries a gun, sits in an office, drinks coffee, and talks to reporters like he's doing real cop work.
I read the thread you linked to. All I can say is "bad cops". I have never in my career seen an officer try to justify anything close to the arrest, or even the stop. And, trust me, I've seen a few bad cops along the way.
Don't know what else to say, really. Not willing to defend bad actions by a bad officer.
Funny, in my part of the world, the actual Sheriff is a beaurocrat that carries a gun, sits in an office, drinks coffee, and talks to reporters like he's doing real cop work.
First, none of this crap would be happening if not for the War on Some Drugs.Dbl0Kevin said:
Second, when cops routinely search for those drugs-which-should-not-be-illegal, and/or doing questionable seizures based on questionable "reasonable suspicion, and then in the process ignore proper procedure, and then people go around complaining about how many officers are killed in the line of duty...
It's frustrating. It's also tragic. I'm sick of it for both reasons, and for both reasons it needs to stop.
TallPine wrote:
CAS700850 wrote:
Back when I used to hit the clubs, I could expect to have some lunkhead leave his opened beer bottle in the bed of my pickup.
CAS700850 wrote:
Wonder what would happen if Draven sniffed your wallet full of dollar bills that had been in circulation for a while? If Draven gets a hit, what is the next step (if you were Joe Average?
It would go something like this:
"Up against the car. Hands behind your back" {clicking sound of handcuffs} "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you." etc., et yada et
CAS700850
Member
Nah. It would get you patted down, maybe searched really, really well ( 
), but I can't see an arrest. Unless the cop wants to get laughed at by the prosecutor.
Possession of money that smells like drugs. Not likely.
), but I can't see an arrest. Unless the cop wants to get laughed at by the prosecutor.Possession of money that smells like drugs. Not likely.
Deavis
Member
I think this is what bother me the most. Why does the intrusivness of an action even factor into whether it is constitutional or not? I've read the decisions that have been posted but I, personally, don't see the link between how intrusive a search is and why it would be constitutional.
"Well, you are only stopped for as long as you are at a red light, so a checkpoint is ok."
I just don't buy that as a logical reasoning. It seems like the judges decided what they wanted and then made up a reason to fit their decision. Personally, I find red lights to be a huge inconvenience in Austin (5 minutes, no lie) but in Houston they weren't (<2 minutes). Does my patience factor into it?
Come on, that just can't be the way people envisioned the SC deciding the constitutionality of a search. It isn't a search because it doesn't take very long... Much like in Miller, they made up some wacky reason to justify the NFA. If you tried to apply that reasoning today, then 922 would be toast, and we'd all have MGs since they are the current "militia" weapon. Maybe I'm missing some fine legal point but I just don't see the link.
Bottom line, if a person or an animal uses their sense of smell to discover the narcotics, it is a search. Whether it is a passive thing that is unavoidable (your car reeks of weed when an officer walks up) or active (leading a trained animal around that is actively smelling) seems like the crux of the issue to me. You don't bring out a drug dog just to stand around, you bring him out to find drugs in a proactive way. I can justify one but not the other. Help me out here...
Otisimo
member
Federist Weasel Said
"Sorry man but it happens all the time in more than just my state of GA, with and w/o a warrant. All the courts want to see is if I had a legal reason to be there and a dog hitting on your car based on a free air sniff is all I need in GA.
I can go inside and if I find dope fine, if I find explosives fine, if I find a dead body fine… guess what you are going to jail and you can argue all day long that I was not looking for guns/bombs/dead bodies until you are blue in the face, in the end all the judge will only want to hear is why I was inside the car in the first place, and if it’s legal then it’s a good search and whatever I find can be used against you.
It’s been done that way for along time and will continue to until it is changed.
__________________
TheFederalistWeasel, Special Agent-Bureau of Missing Socks
The Definition of Probable Cause—Anything that will probably cause you to get your @$$ locked up!!!"
Your post sounds like that of a weasel. You sound like a stereotypical, blockhead cop and you pontificate like you are not just some schmuck that sounds like an LEO from City Boy Raper, Geoooga, which is what you imply you are.
As for your signature, the passive aggressive would say, "what me? that was just a joke" The bible says, (paraphrasing) the tongue speaks the heart.
I will make this qualifier. I am new to this forum, and you may be a great guy and a hero of the forum. The above is a comment on how you seem to an outsider.
"Sorry man but it happens all the time in more than just my state of GA, with and w/o a warrant. All the courts want to see is if I had a legal reason to be there and a dog hitting on your car based on a free air sniff is all I need in GA.
I can go inside and if I find dope fine, if I find explosives fine, if I find a dead body fine… guess what you are going to jail and you can argue all day long that I was not looking for guns/bombs/dead bodies until you are blue in the face, in the end all the judge will only want to hear is why I was inside the car in the first place, and if it’s legal then it’s a good search and whatever I find can be used against you.
It’s been done that way for along time and will continue to until it is changed.
__________________
TheFederalistWeasel, Special Agent-Bureau of Missing Socks
The Definition of Probable Cause—Anything that will probably cause you to get your @$$ locked up!!!"
Your post sounds like that of a weasel. You sound like a stereotypical, blockhead cop and you pontificate like you are not just some schmuck that sounds like an LEO from City Boy Raper, Geoooga, which is what you imply you are.
As for your signature, the passive aggressive would say, "what me? that was just a joke" The bible says, (paraphrasing) the tongue speaks the heart.
I will make this qualifier. I am new to this forum, and you may be a great guy and a hero of the forum. The above is a comment on how you seem to an outsider.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
No way! Ya think?
Never happens!
Intune
Member
Otisimo, just a heads up, you may want to read the rules of THR. The FW is telling us exactly how the "law" sees it. Don't like it? Get the laws changed and give LEO's different guidelines to work by. Until then it only promotes ill-will to attack the messenger. Oh, and welcome to THR.
thorn726
Member
A hA you feel me!
you dont like my vice, maybe i dont like yours either! hehehhe
really, MJ vs Coffee- to sides of the same coin.
i'll accept your anti MJ laws just as soon as you except my anti caffeine laws!
but more to the point, here in CA , i got a script, it's legal for me to have.
so knowing the smell stays with me, i dont like the idea of some Reno cops tearing my whole car apart because they smell something.
(i would NOT be carrying MJ in a state like NV)
thorn726
Member
i guess you've never been pulled over for
"driving while looking weird"
why did you stop me???
because of your speed... (i was doing 60 in a 65 , they were tailgating in unmarked pickup)
"really, my speed?"
"well, you had out of state plates and backpacks in the car"
"you fit the proflile"
got to love it. im not black, so profiling me is ok.
i think that because of this ruling police will have more right to mess with people, that they will stop persons they otherwise might not have stopped, and that many deptartments will use this ruling as a reason why they Need to get a dog for their dept.
- Status