Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop

Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop
Posted by CN Staff on January 24, 2005 at 08:03:53 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
Washington -- 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."Injecting such animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial and (in at least some cases) longer," she wrote.Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in consideration of the case.The case is Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923.On the Net:Supreme Court: Associated Press (Wire)Published: Monday, January 24, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press CannabisNews Justice Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #39 posted by afterburner on January 28, 2005 at 05:25:44 PT
Another Reason Why our Culture Will Survive
In the tradition of "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" (Nietzsche), cannabis people are exposed to virulent opposition by politicians and law enforcement officers. Is it any wonder that we sometimes get nervous and fidgety?Frequent fidgeting leads to fitter figure --
Jan. 28, 2005. 06:14 AM"That guy tapping his pencil on the desk all day may be on to something. In fact, fidgeting, toe-tapping, wiggling and walking around are more powerful than formal exercise in determining who is lean and who is obese, researchers at the Mayo Clinic reported yesterday in the journal Science. Elaine Carey reports."  [Full Story]
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 12:15:18 PT
They Say Giving Up our Rights Fights Terrorism
US FL: Editorial: Deporting Young Chef Is Fighting Terrorism? 
(23 Jan 2005) Pensacola News Journal Florida
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 12:02:51 PT
More Dogs and Searches ''Down Under''
Australia: Big Day Out For The Sniffer Dogs 
by Kathy Mccabe, Music Writer, (24 Jan 2005) Daily Telegraph Australia Australia: Nappy Examined In Marijuana Raid 
by Greg McLean, (25 Jan 2005) Advertiser Australia
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 11:45:26 PT
Off Topic: Don't Blame the Dogs
Jan. 25, 2005. 01:00 AM 
Victims' moms split over ban:
One calls for fines, jail for owners:
Dog lovers lament `canine genocide'RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU{The mothers of two children savaged by dogs relived their anguish yesterday before a legislative committee holding hearings on a plan to ban pit bulls.{But the two women offered different opinions to MPPs — one backs a ban while the other opposes it.{Louise Ellis, whose 5-year-old daughter was permanently scarred by a pit bull attack 10 years ago, urged MPPs not to be swayed by opponents of the legislation that would ban the dogs.{"The animal rights activists will try to tell you that pit bulls don't harm people, that pit bull owners harm people. Lord how I wish the owner had bitten my child instead of his dog," said Ellis, choking back tears.{"During these hearings the victims will not be as loud as the animal rights activists, but our voice must be heard," she said.{"The wounds are real and the fear is very real. Please don't forget the victims of pit bull attacks."{But Donna Trempe, the mother of 8-year-old Courtney Trempe, who was attacked and killed by a 54-kilogram bullmastiff in April 1998, told the committee she opposes the ban.{Trempe called for a tougher law that fines or jails dog owners so they don't walk away unscathed, as did the owner of the dog that attacked Courtney.{"What I am against is irresponsible dog owners," she said. "What we need are stiff penalties and heavier fines for the owners of dogs that attack."{It was the first day of public hearings into the Ontario government's proposed legislation and attack victims were outnumbered two to one by dog breeders, animal rights organizations and individual dog lovers, who argued that breed-specific bans do not work.{"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing," said Cathy Prothro, founding president of the American Staffordshire Terriers Club of Canada.{"Irresponsible owners are to blame for the behaviour of dogs that are aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Breed- specific legislation is an injustice, canine genocide."{The pro-pit bull lobby has hired lawyer Clayton Ruby, who said yesterday he will challenge the legislation, if passed, on constitutional grounds.{Under proposed regulations, current owners of pit bulls can keep them, but the dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public, and spayed or neutered. {As well, owners of any breed of dog that bites, attacks or is a menace to public safety could be subject to fines of up to $10,000 and, for the first time, a jail term of up to six months. {"We think this is bad law in a constitutional sense," Ruby said. Attorney-General Michael Bryant "has given us a quick cheap fix" that won't address the issue of dangerous dogs or irresponsible owners, he said.{The Toronto Humane Society's Mike Connor applauded the move to strengthen the Dog Owner's Liability Act, but said "we do not ... agree, that part of the legislation include a ban of any specific breed of dog .... It does not ... address the root of the problem."{Hearings are scheduled for Barrie on Thursday, Brantford on Feb. 2 and Toronto on Feb. 3. [Accompanying photo:]{STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR 
Pit bull terrier Rollie awaits adoption at Toronto Humane Society. }
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 09:52:53 PT
I never thought of it that way. Thank you. We go thru this life one time and we should do our best not to waste it I believe. Money isn't involved in that thought process but what is in our heart as far as goals and roads to travel.A few words for today!No one can take Peace from us. We can only give it up.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 09:46:44 PT
Art Is Creativity, Not Necessarily Visual
Julia Cameron, who wrote The Artist's Way has a broad definition of Art, which includes doing what's on your heart, what your talent is. FoM, you *are* an Artist, with the creation of this wonderful website (content-wise).The Artist's way : a spiritual path to higher creativity
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 08:45:39 PT
Be an Artist
I wish I could be an artist but to me that is a God Given gift and He didn't give it to me. I believe whatever talent we are given to do it with all our heart. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by FoM on January 25, 2005 at 08:42:27 PT
I can relate. I got so tired of the tv news and hearing about Johnny Carson ( didn't watch him ) that I put on the Easy Rider Sound Track. That helped me! Hang in there. Spring is just around the corner. Spring always brings hope.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2005 at 08:22:57 PT
RE More and more, Life imitates Art
One of my New Years goals is "Be an Artist!" Look what Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Wavy Gravy, Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, and On and On were able to accomplish toward a more peaceful society, showing up the injustices and prejudices. Struggle on and party on, CNewers. I woke up a little depressed this morning, an unusual feeling for me lately (Too many commitments, too much uncertainty). Apparently, according to the news, yesterday was the one day of the year when people are the most depressed, due to post-Christmas bills and bad weather. I don't have any post-Christmas bills (mine go back farther, LTM!), but the weather has been rough and tiring.As I struggled to wake up this morning, I checked my email and received and sent a message to a dear friend. Then, I came here, as is part of my morning routine, to chat with my cannabis friends. Even though I have only met one of the posters here in person, I feel that our shared cause makes us good friends and I look forward to reading and posting to the many kind, intelligent and courageous people here.Be an Artist! We can create the kind of world we want if we show others by our example that more is possible. Support each other and Be an Artist!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Hope on January 25, 2005 at 07:28:38 PT
"no individual has any right to possess" 
Well that's just wrong...right there. The legal patients have the right to possess the so called "contraband" of which they speak. We will see that "no individual has any right to possess" brought down as far as marijuana is concerned. I resent supporting this assault on the rights of mankind. The war on drugs is all about supporting an industry that has gone wild in this nation and the world. It's huge and it's tentacles are dug in deep throughout the world. They are forcing us, through taxes, to support an industry that is sucking the soul out of the United States. And it is...I believe...about supporting an industry. It's an economical decision. A bad one.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by JustGetnBy on January 25, 2005 at 07:23:07 PT
That idea to spray tincture liberaly would very quickly invalidate a positive result of a dog search.  This was used on the channel ferries in BC last year, the man quit using the dogs on the ferries, because the whole boat had been contaminated.  I am quite sure that this teqnique will become a Felony in the near future. My local paper ran a poll on this subject, 75% thought it was a bad decision. This makes me very sad.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by Hope on January 25, 2005 at 07:18:32 PT
As I understand it
and I could be wrong. This decision just upholds what already's not unleashing something new on the people. It's the way it's been for some time. I'd hoped it would change of course, because it needs changing.We need Grace...and a lot of it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Patrick on January 25, 2005 at 07:13:01 PT
So what about the other case?
When I first read this article I thought about the future outcome of the other case before the Supremes…"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Stevens said. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure.I hate to say this but I am predicting that we loose on the states rights issue as well. In my view, stopping someone for a minor traffic violation and then letting a dog sniff the car is an “unreasonable” search. This decision makes it official. We are now living in a police state. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by Hope on January 25, 2005 at 06:41:03 PT
Kudos to Ginsburg and Souter. They have a better grasp on reality and truth and the spirit of the Constitution, apparently, than the others on the court, in this matter.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by kaptinemo on January 25, 2005 at 04:41:03 PT:
More and more, Life imitates Art
I'd recommend that anyone who wants to see the ultimate progression of this kind of ruling should go to the library and get a copy of Taylor Caldwell's "The Devil's Advocate" to see what kind of a country we're heading for. Fair warning: you won't like it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 21:06:41 PT
It good to read your comments. I've always respected the way you see things. These are very hard times for America and freedom loving people. I can't imagine what life will be like after the next 4 years is over. I don't think I want to know either.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Ron Bennett on January 24, 2005 at 20:57:40 PT
Don't even have to be speeding to be stopped
I would be nervous too if a cop pulled me over for going just 6 miles over the speed limit. Here in new york if you are not doing atleast 10 mph over the limit you and not even keeping up with the traffic.Worse, an officer can legally stop most any vehicle on the basis of "driving too fast for conditions" ... some officers don't even bother with waiting for a reason, they just make up a reason and make the stop ... no one drives perfectly - follow someone long enough (including police cars LOL!) and chances are they don't stop fully at a Stop, occasionally drift out of their lane, don't always signal properly, have stuff hanging from their rear-view mirror, their license plate is dirty/hard to read, ... could go on and on ... basically, an officer can legally do a traffic stop on most any vehicle - they're generally free to pick and choose what fits their fancy.With this recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it's now open season ... officers can now, not only pull over most anyone, but now search most anyone for most anything - the bulk of U.S. money that law abiding citizens carry contain detectable traces of illicit drugs ... did the court ever even consider that?...Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the posted articles, didn't specifically define what is considered contraband nor what type animal, for that matter, is permitted to do such a search ... oh that's right, the court doesn't consider it a search - so what is it then? ... ah, the life in the not so free America :(Ron
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by siege on January 24, 2005 at 17:52:50 PT
The Brookings InstitutionIndependent research shaping the future This is where it all started back in about 1940's to lie misinform or not tell them the people anything. this is what they/ The Brookings Institution told the gov't to do. on any thing important. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 17:45:14 PT
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone. I sometimes wonder if this is the way it will be from now on or is there hope that the laws concerning Cannabis will change. I don't look beyond our issue because I know that in times of war people are suppose to be strong and be tough. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by lombar on January 24, 2005 at 16:54:19 PT
You're not insane FOM, accepting prohibition IS.
How does one measure 'sanity'? If you 'go along' peacefully, follow the herd? The 'herd' is destroying the planet, letting their rights be stripped away, not reigning in the evil governement(s)(Canada is not that much better), food banks are growth industries, protests are met with harsh suppression while morally bankrupt people pronounce judgement on anyone that is not in agreement with their ideology.I find your page and the many comments here a calm refuge on a sea of insanity. Sensible, compassionate responses to the evil drug war which can be extended to other problems. It is frustrating, fighting against prohibition, but it is a worthy cause. If the governments are willing to lie to us about cannabis (and destroy millions of lives in the process) then how much other deceit is there and how can we put a stop to it??? People of low or no morals should never be in the position to make laws. People who value greed over peace are completely immoral.I was shocked when I heard that a few schools here in Canada would be allowing dogs to sniff lockers until I realized that if I was still a student, I would make a tincture of cannabis (schwag of course) and spray it througout the school. 99 false positives out of 100. The outrage at the uselessness of it would put a stop to it quickly.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by jared3602 on January 24, 2005 at 14:55:51 PT
I would be nervous too if a cop pulled me over for going just 6 miles over the speed limit. Here in new york if you are not doing atleast 10 mph over the limit you and not even keeping up with the traffic.This is a complete outrage. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Sam Adams on January 24, 2005 at 14:41:53 PT
Max F, I agree with you, it's shocking to see how far we've come. Now anyone who gets into a car can be freely searched by a dog.I love the logic the corrupt "judges" use: it's not an INTRUSION into your privacy, the dog just circles the outside of the car. This completely misses the whole concept of the Bill of Rights. Privacy does not mean freedom from inconvience: it specifically means that one has the right to drive around with contraband in the car and not be searched! It means that even if someone is breaking the law, their privacy is paramount. I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic as Kapt on hoping that this will fire up the populace to advocate for change. We've seen high school kids commit suicide because of a marijuana arrest; we've seen teenage girls have to pull down their pants and give urine; we've seen elementary school kids with snarling dogs and guns held to their head on the evening news. So far, no mass uprising. No new momentum.Quite the opposite, actually. The president was elected on fear of foreign, dark-skinned terrorists, not white-trash cops. I'm afraid that no one has the urge to change policy just because it's morally right. No, narcissism seems to rule the day. If you're wronged, you find a lawyer and get yours - your settlement. Then you forget about everything & turn the TV back on. Retreat to your suburban castle. The apathetic taxpayers foot the bill. They're too busy and empty-headed to even question their massive tax bill.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by goneposthole on January 24, 2005 at 13:05:49 PT
pre-destination of the fall of the empire
ok, so the 'stars' say so. Nicht so schnell, newehvo mexichano. I don't believe in that stuff atall, no matter how many times it is printed and shouted. Of course, I'm a Virgo and that astrological stuff doesn't fly with Virgos. Ergo, I ain't buyin' into the 'revealed truths'. harsmoke some cannabis. George Bush never has been President. The emperor has no brains. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by nuevo mexican on January 24, 2005 at 12:49:02 PT
The U.S. has fallen, nothing to be sad about....
As this country was founded on genocide, not democratic principles. Ask any native American, or African-American, and be willing to listen for a while.For anyone to think the founding fathers had freedom for the slaves they held is foolish. They were only interested in be free from British Tyranny. This ruling proves we live in a 'Plutocracy'. End of debate.They had some great ideas, and fresh from British torment, they crafted the laws so they would be protected.Yes, Jefferson had the right idea, but once the Electoral College was put in place, Democracy was dead in the water.Just a tool to make sure the unwashed masses don't really have their say!Not to be depressing, but it has always been an illusion that America was the land of the free, and now that illusion has been shattered, for all to see, the world is better off.Maybe not we Americans, but it is only right that we should pay for the sins of our 'fathers'. Look at the price the Iraqi people are paying for the supposed sins of Saddam, are they to blame? Neither are we, but so it goes.Karma is a bitch, and it is we, the American 'sheeple' who will pay! The complete and total collapse of the U.S. will occur, is occuring, and cannot be stopped. Bush is the willing catalyst for this, and is doing a FANTASTIC job isn't he!2012 is only 7 years away, and that is when we will begin the rebuilding of the world, not America, as the very word will be banned after bush is done with the bill of rights, the constitution, Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency.America=Amerikkka Look at him go! He ripping the place apart as fast as you can say: Rhenquist, Thomas and Scalia! Have at it Georgie, you will go DOWN in history, that's the only thing for sure! And you will take this country down with you, all prophecies point to this, Biblical, native American, Astrological, the pyramids of Egypt, and so on.Do your reseach. Bush is the catalyst for the end of everything that is 'wrong' with America, and a catalyst for everything 'right' that the world has to offer. Are you ready for the shift? Get your passport, and take your own poll! Americans will be the last ones to 'get it', as is evident by the 'fool on the hill' that currently (and apparently) presides over our future. The good news is that is only 'appears' this way, and the reality is exactly the opposite. Bush is not really the 'president', Saturn, the taskmaster is, and will have the last word. The lesson Saturn is teaching us is:Be patient, have faith, and know that a world with America at the helm is not a good thing.Change is the only constant. And this ruling by the Extreme Court is a tip off. Soon bush will brag about the U.S. Police State, and seek to impose it worldwide, Afghanistan and Iraq are only the starting point. Wake up world, and stop the U.S. before you become 'Iraqisized'! Don't think so, well, ask Iran!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 12:18:24 PT
Kapt and Everyone
Sometimes I think I am totally insane. Sometimes I think I have all the answers. Sometimes I feel anger inside me. Sometimes I feel hope which I count on. Sometimes I wonder why our country is being destroyed from within. Sometimes it gets so complicated that I just don't understand how to put it in prospective. Do we have any hope of changing the laws at least for medical marijuana? Drug laws I don't even think about because that is way off in the future but how can we survive what is happening to us under this current administration?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on January 24, 2005 at 12:08:52 PT:
In piles of manure, sometimes a diamond
Though, it's not one you'd want to take home; more like the kind you use to rip things apart with.As much as I hate the idea of the dogs, I welcome it.No, I'm not insane. Things on the tyrannical side are being pushed, further and further and further, out from the shadows and into the light. Things which have been used against us for many years will now be openly used against Joe Sixpack. With no warning or explanation beyond "It's for the kiddies!"We've all wondered at what point would Joe Sixpack rebel. What will tick him off enough to wake up and realize that despite what he thought, all the things that has allowed to be used against us (FLIR peeking at their houses, forfeiture stealing without a charge being leveled, and now dogs) will eventually be used against him? "Only the guilty need fear!" usually means that everyone is afraid because everyone's a potential criminal. Or so the operators of a police state would naturally infer.Ol' Joe will find out soon enough, when some dog at a 'routine traffic stop' smells the leavings of a fellow carpooler's joint that slipped out of the pocket and onto a back seat...and the poor schmuck is crying the blues after his ride is torn apart looking for evidence by his supposed public servants wearing a daring, knowing smirk.Yes, it's sad but true that until they become personally threatened, in the eyes of most people, civil rights are things only radical whackos rant about preserving.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 11:03:12 PT
I hope you're right. I really do.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by afterburner on January 24, 2005 at 10:59:57 PT
We Didn't Start This Fight...
But we *will* finish it!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 10:58:18 PT
Max Flowers 
I agree with you. I am very upset today.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on January 24, 2005 at 10:56:24 PT
Kozmo, exactly
This kind of search is EXACTLY the kind of unreasonable searches the founders had in mind when drafting the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Try to imagine, in their day, what it would have meant if a man's horse and carriage could be stopped by anyone with the color of authority and scrutinized. To be equal to today's drug dogs back then, I think it would be a case of them tearing the carriage apart piece by piece, simply because the driver "looked nervous"! It's on, folks. This decision proves it for me. We're in deep doo-doo.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 10:47:04 PT
A Canadian Article
Soon the laws in Canada will be just like ours. It's happening right before our eyes.200 More Police for B.C.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on January 24, 2005 at 10:45:38 PT
Furthermore, and moreover
The fact that six Supreme Court justices do not see that the constitutional tenet of innocent until proven guilty is being tossed aside by this decision is beyond shocking to me.That a citizen can now suspected of a crime and searched for it without any cause, reason, indication or suspicion is not a "constitutionally cognizable infringement"?? WHAT THE...?? These bitter, sick, withered old people have totally lost all touch with the principles of the law they are creating and deciding. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Kozmo on January 24, 2005 at 10:43:55 PT
"minimal intrusion"
The fourth amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Where in that amendment does the judge find an exception saying what level of intrusion is acceptable. In plain english it says that a person "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches". I don't see anything in there that says "well if its minimal intrusion then it's ok".
Sorry judge but you are wrong. Any search of a persons self,houses,papers, effects without probable cause and a warrent are unconstitutional. Might want to go read that founding document called the Constitution again. Maybe a little refresher course on the english language would be helpful also.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on January 24, 2005 at 10:37:15 PT
police dog state
 - "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. - YES IT DOES, as a dog's nose is as powerful as an MRI or x-ray machine, or more... they would not not approve rolling anyone and everyone through a huge x-ray machine that would look right through the vehicle (or these days maybe they would!), but that's what a dog's nose does. A dog-sniff is equivalent to a strip search of the car and driver.This is a very bad development that clearly shows how our civil liberties are indeed eroding.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on January 24, 2005 at 09:38:55 PT
so then
It would be ok to hang around the premises of Justice Stevens home and peek through the windows now and then to see what he is up to in his home. It would be minimal intrusion of privacy.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 09:17:24 PT
Decision in pdf
The court's opinion in Illinois v. Caballes is available at: 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by potpal on January 24, 2005 at 09:09:07 PT
Said it before...
...what's a police state without snarling dogs?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 08:18:09 PT
Related Article from United Press International
Dog Drug-Sniff Not Illegal SearchWASHINGTON, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 Monday using a police dog to detect drugs during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Constitution.Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is fighting thyroid cancer, did not take part in the decision.Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion using a dog, even without a warrant, to sniff the exterior of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop "generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests."A state trooper stopped Roy Caballes for speeding in LaSalle County, Ill., in 1998. However, the trooper discovered from the radio dispatcher that Caballes had two prior arrests for the distribution of marijuana.The trooper called in a drug-sniffing dog, which helped find a large quantity of marijuana in Caballes's trunk.A divided Illinois Supreme Court ruled the search was unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court threw out that decision, and ordered the state court to come up with a ruling consistent with Monday's majority opinion.Copyright 2005 by United Press International
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 24, 2005 at 08:06:25 PT
What is Freedom?
I believe freedom means allowing a person to be themselves as long as they don't hurt anyone but maybe themselves.What is freedom in the eyes of our country?I don't have any idea.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment