High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs

[TheFederalistWeasel]

High Court Rules Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop OK Without Suspicion Of Drugs
Associated Press ^ | 1/24/2005

Posted on 01/24/2005 9:20:02 AM

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 ...

 

[R.H. Lee]

"Seemed nervous" is now probable cause???

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

It’s not so much PC you need but what is called ARS Articlable Reasonable Suspicion, that criminal activity is afoot, is the exact wording the USSC used in UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU which said…

Held: Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by Stoddard and the District Court Judge, Stoddard had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity. Because the "balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security," United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878, tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity "may be afoot," United States v. Sokolow,


Read the whole thing here…

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1519

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Since when is this anything new? I was under the impression that a dog could be used at any time with no PC needed as long as the stop was not prolonged unneccesarily? Basically you couldn't keep someone sitting on the side of the road for an hour waiting for a dog, but if one happened to be available before you finished writing the ticket then it was fair game.

 

[HankB]

I wonder how long it will be until some druggies start making up a marijuana "tea" and spraying it on car tires at the mall? If Fido starts generating a lot of documented "false alarms" how long will it be until Fido's alert no longer constitutes probable cause?

 

[El Tejon]

Dbl0, depended on the state. Supremes now set a federal floor for doggies.

"Raise your right paw. Do you swear or affirm . . ."

 

[R.H. Lee]

OK. The dog can only 'sniff' the outside of my car. So what if he gets a 'positive'? Does that give you PC to search inside? For what? What if you don't find any drugs? "thank you sir. have a nice day"? What if you find a Uzi and a hand grenade? Would that 'evidence' be admissable or the fruit of the poison tree?

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

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.

It applies to the officer’s sense of smell, if I hit on the car, say I smell weed when I walk up to the car, it’s the same as if the dog hit on the car, and I can search and anything I find is admissible.

 

[wildcard]

PAPERS PLEASE!!!

When things like this become common place, and it is happening, we are taking one giant leap into the police state.. NOW its, do you have anything that might hurt me in your car, and oh this dog is going to sniff your vehicle, and if he alerts, we search, we tear your car up, not thing one you can do about it. And if the dog alerts by mistake, so what, move along have a nice day........


seemed nervous is not PC for any kind of search....Sorry, nada, no way.

It’s not so much PC you need but what is called ARS Articlable Reasonable Suspicion, that criminal activity is afoot

In other words
cop: "he looks dirty, i am gonna stop him"

 

[cpileri]

Gee wizz, didn't see that one coming...

So let me get this straight: the courts decide in favor of expanded police powers? What a friggin suprise.

Come on folks, what percent out of the last 5 years cases involving police powers have found in favor of restricting or restraining them?

I don't know but i sure would like my suspicion to be wrong.

Since a dog can't speak, all it has to do is twitch and the officer say the guy 'acted nervous' and presto- the full search is legal.

When are you all going to realize that protections from searches and seizures, warrants, and privacy are soon going to be a mark in the history books?

The problem is that no one will say its bad to catch a guy with drugs in his car no matter what, especially with such a non-invasive means as a dogs sense of smell. On the surface, that all seems great. But the deeper more sinister problem is that it further opens the door for the true goal of the expanded search powers crowd: random complete searches ad libitum.

You read it here first.

C-

 

[CAS700850]

I think you can all relax a bit. There simply aren't enough trained dogs to do a sweep on every stop.

Sorry, another post made it in before my reply, and I want to add. Weasel, I think you can back me up on this, but believe it or not, the rules still favor the bad guy more often than not. The burden is still on the police/prosecution to prove that there were no violations of the defendant's rights. Random searches are still struck down as unconstitutional. I'll grant that the make-up of the SCOTUS is a little right-leaning right now, towards police powers and away from individual rights. But there is a pendulum effect in the rulings of the SCOTUS. Miranda was on the left swing. This is on the right swing. Give it a little time, and a few appointments, and watch it swing back.

 

[R.H. Lee]

A quote from FW's link:

Respondent was stopped by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona. A search of his vehicle revealed more than 100 pounds of marijuana, and he was charged with possession with intent to distribute.

Common sense should tell anyone that was a reasonable stop. Near the border in a remote area on an unpaved road? We don't even know what the car or the defendant looked like. (And yes, appearance is a component).
Within the context of the event(s) it appears reasonable.

What bothers me is that finding can now be applied to me (a middle aged accountant driving a fairly new four door sedan) driving down a suburban street. That would not be reasonable. Whatever happened to the 'reasonable man' theory?

 

[wildcard]

Whatever happened to the 'reasonable man' theory?

It went out the door with expanded police powers and "officer safety".

 

[Ralphpeters]

Miranda was on the left swing. This is on the right swing. Give it a little time, and a few appointments, and watch it swing back.

Not in my lifetime. My guess is the next 3 appointments will be given to younger judges. Probably be some physicals and everything. Bush is going to nominate Liberal judges? roflmao

Cas and federal. You truly are the most informative people I have ever met in a internet forum. Thanks for the heads up. And i mean that in a non sarcastic way.

 

[WYO]

This is nothing new because the vehicle was already legitimately stopped and a warning citation was being written. The problem arises where the stop has already been concluded. At that point, police need a different basis for the detention, which usually is an investigative detention under Terry v. Ohio principles. Also, the dog can't do anything but walk around the exterior.

This wasn't a traditional 5-4 type decision. It was 6-2, with, I presume, Rhenquist (who likely sides with the majority) not participating.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Weasel, I think you can back me up on this, but believe it or not, the rules still favor the bad guy more often than not. The burden is still on the police/prosecution to prove that there were no violations of the defendant's rights. Random searches are still struck down as unconstitutional.

Burden of proof still rests with the state; the Constitution is a list of LIMITATIONS, to which the state is held.

Random searches for the most part are usually suppressed at the trail level and rarely make it up to any type of Appeals Court.

What bothers me is that finding can now be applied to me (a middle aged accountant driving a fairly new four door sedan) driving down a suburban street. That would not be reasonable. Whatever happened to the 'reasonable man' theory?

PC is held to the object standard of the “Reasonable Man†test, ARS is held to the objective standard of a “Reasonable Peace Officerâ€. Courts have continually held that an Officers knowledge training and experience can be called into account when defining ARS.

That is why in UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU the USSC used the language…

Because the "balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security," United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878, tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity "may be afoot,"

Because criminal activity being “afoot†is not just prowlers, burglars and whatnot… it may not be as obvious to someone who has never seen it, or had no idea what it was exactly they were looking at, most folks have never seen a hand-to-hand dope sale, it looks just like one of those funky hand shakes all the hoods are doing now.

Ever seen two guys “dance off†in the middle of the street?

 

[Jeff White]

El Tejon said;

Dbl0, depended on the state. Supremes now set a federal floor for doggies.

"Raise your right paw. Do you swear or affirm . . ."

I think that the federal floor had already been set. IIRC, in the dissenting opinion on the Illinois Supreme Court decision that was heard in the USSC case that is the topic of this thread, that the IL Supreme Court Justice cited it and said the new IL SC decision was in conflict with it.

I'm off to fight crime and or evil....I'll look it up when I get off work and post it.

Jeff

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Reasonable???

For all of you pontificating from other parts of the country...

I can't count the times I've seen people standing around their cars helplessly watching cops/police/JBTs/ or whatever throwing their possessions on the ground and cutting up upholstery on the roadside near the border.

Nothing's found, no harm, no foul... eh wot?

I routinely travel in a nice motorcoach and trailer. I travel with firearms, who wouldn't, BTW? I really liked travelling US 90 through southern Tejas near the border, do you think I still do?

Search & seizure by government fiat is on the way to the rest of the country.

What everyone seems to ignore/forget is that when mens rea is removed from law, what remains is Napoleonic code...

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I can't count the times I've seen people standing around their cars helplessly watching cops/police/JBTs/ or whatever throwing their possessions on the ground and cutting up upholstery on the roadside near the border.

Nothing's found, no harm, no foul... eh wot?

Wow you should be a detective with being able to drive by a scene and sum it up that quick. Unless of course you've stopped each time that you've seen this occur, confirmed that the people were indeed "helpless" and that the police either had no reason to search or always found nothing.

 

[Dead]

Looks like I better not buy anymore doggie treats, if I get pulled over.. Wonder if a dog "hits", and all that is found are the doggies fav treats?? hmmm

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Question:

Just so happens that while on vacation with nothing to do while my wife was shopping, I stumbled across a television show on the subject of the training of police dogs. One lengthy segment showerd CT state police, and another showed officers (and dogs) from several departments being qualified by the TSA for airport security work. The emphasis of the show was anti-terrorism, and the dogs were all shown searching for and hitting on explosives.

However, the dogs and officers in the CT segment appeared to be normal K-9 units. They also showed the dogs riding in the back of a cruiser, and jumping out when a trainer posing as a bad guy jumped the officer in a simulated traffic stop.

FedW, are the same dogs that sniff for marjuana also trained to sniff for explosives? If so, do they only alert for plastique, or will they also hit on, say ... gunpowder?

As in, if I've been to the shooting range and I get stopped on the way home while I have a couple or three fired but uncleaned guns in the back seat, and several hundred rounds of ammo (and if I were a reloader I might also have several hundred rounds of fired brass), is the typical police dog going to aleert on my vehicle? And then the officer won't know what's in there, so he'll toss the interior of my vehicle looking for drugs while I stand there holding my CCW out in vain?

Doesn't sound like a pleasant prospect, yet it's quite possible if the same dogs are cross-trained to sniff both explosives and drugs.

Does anyone know?

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

From what I understand of the training issue, training bomb dogs takes a LOT of time and talent over and above training just a drug dog.

All our dogs are just drug dogs, any cross training is in stuff like building clearing looking for hidden B/G’s, handler protection and general tracking.

The nearest bomb doggies we have is a local US Air Force Base (MP Unit)

 

[Standing Wolf]

Obviously, the Fourth Amendment has gone to the dogs.

 

[Michigander]

6 miles per hour over the speed limit? On a dirt road? Near the border?

And the officer patrolling this dirt road just so happened to have a dog with him?

In my neighborhood, you have to be going at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit before an officer will even take notice. I wonder how many people drove by that officer doing 6+ miles per hour over the speed limit but did not fit the profile?

Obviously the perp was profiled with much emphasis on the location and direction of travel.

I would bet there have been numerous drug busts in just such a way on that same road.

I could see locals, assuming there are any, saying "yeah, they bring drugs accross the border all the time. Why don't the cops do something about it."

At least the court has ruled that the heat signature of that guys house was an illegal search. There is a difference in the "expected level of privacy" in one's home versus one's car.

 

[Art Eatman]

No, Michigander. Six miles over, on I-80. Not dirt.

, Art