Court Refuses To Hear Fla. Drug Case

Court Refuses To Hear Fla. Drug Case
Posted by CN Staff on November 27, 2006 at 13:19:25 PT
By The Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press
Washington, DC -- The Supreme Court today refused to consider whether using a police dog to sniff for marijuana from the front door of a residence constitutes an illegal search.The state of Florida asked the justices to hear the case of a Florida man charged with possession of drugs including marijuana. Lawyers for James Rabb of Hollywood, Fla., succeeded in suppressing the drugs seized from his house, because a search warrant had been issued based on the dog sniff at the front door.
It was one of two cases in which the court turned aside requests from states to get involved in constitutional issues stemming from drug investigations.The state of Illinois was seeking to challenge a state appeals court decision that a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion when asking a driver's permission to search his car during a routine traffic stop. The search of the car driven by John Sloup turned up a pipe used to smoke crack cocaine.In the Florida case, the state attorney general said drug-dog sniffs disclose only the presence of narcotics and do not intrude on a legitimate expectation of privacy.The case has already been before the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices directed a Florida appeals court to take a 2005 Supreme Court decision into consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court said a dog sniff that detected marijuana in a car during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.Early this year, the Florida appeals court affirmed its earlier decision to suppress the evidence, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the use of a thermal imager to detect a marijuana growing operation inside a garage constituted an illegal search.The cases are Florida v. James Rabb, 06-309, and Illinois v. John Sloup, 05-1367.Source: Associated Press (Wire)Published:  November 27, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Associated Press CannabisNews Justice Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #4 posted by doc james on November 28, 2006 at 06:07:12 PT
this is gr8 news for floridians
that's right....good news for americans. I smell somethin funny, better make sure, what do you think rover? Should we bust down the door? Ruff....ruff.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Richard Zuckerman on November 27, 2006 at 15:27:24 PT:
Even though the defendant won the motion to suppress, out of curiosity, I want to know whether that defendant asserted the dog sniff violated the Florida State Constitutional Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? In addition, I want to know whether that defendant plans to sue the police for the unreasonable search and seizure? If he does sue the cops for the dog sniff search and seizure, then I hope he asserts violation of the Florida State Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, in addition to asserting violation of the other [U.S.] constitution, and files the lawsuit from the date of the search and seizure, not from the date of the termination of the criminal proceedings!!Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, N.J., 08840-0159, (Cell telephone number)(848) 250-8879.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by whig on November 27, 2006 at 15:04:03 PT
The state supreme court in this case suppressed the sniff-derived evidence. The state wanted the supreme court to overturn that suppression. The supreme court declined the appeal. This means the evidence remains suppressed, and Florida state courts are bound by the precedent.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by global_warming on November 27, 2006 at 14:39:43 PT
the drug war is alive and well
I wonder how many of those Supreme Justices are on some kind of medication?The line is drawn, legal medication, I wonder if these Justices are aware of the corruption? Both in medicine and justice.Best I have another drink so that I forget how I ever got to this place.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment