WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Monday that police do not violate the constitutional right to privacy when a dog sniff of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop turns up contraband. 

The justices by a 6-2 vote, in a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), set aside an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that such searches required reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

"In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed" on the individual's constitutionally protected privacy rights, Stevens wrote.

"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" protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Stevens concluded.

The case involved Roy Caballes, who was stopped in 1998 on an interstate highway in LaSalle County for driving six mph over the speed limit. Trooper Daniel Gillette asked Caballes for consent to search the car, but he refused.

Trooper Craig Graham arrived and began walking around the car with the dog. The dog acted as if the trunk contained drugs. Gillette searched the trunk and found marijuana.

Caballes was arrested and charged with one count of marijuana trafficking. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined more than $256,000, the street value of the drug found.

Caballes sought to suppress the marijuana found in the trunk as an unconstitutional search, and the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that use of the dog was an unjustified expansion of the traffic stop.

Stevens said Caballes did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy for contraband in the trunk of his car. He said that was different from the expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private.

Justices David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) dissented.

Souter said he would rule that using the dog for the purpose of determining the presence of marijuana in the car's trunk was a search unauthorized in connection with the speeding stop and unjustified on any other ground.

Ginsburg agreed and said she would hold the police violated Caballes's rights when they conducted the dog sniff without cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Both Souter and Ginsburg said their dissent only applied to use of dogs sniffing for illegal drugs in vehicles, and did not apply to their use to detect explosives or dangerous biological or chemical weapons carried by a would-be terrorist.

Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20050124/ts_nm/court_search_dc

Sniff sniff.

Interesting.

I hate cops having even more threshold search power than they already have.  They will definitely abuse it.

I hate cops having even more threshold search power than they already have.  They will definitely abuse it.


Of course they will, so when you're carrying pot, don't speed.

Of course they will, so when you're carrying pot, don't speed.


I have driven with it in my car, and it made me nervous the whole way home!  I avoid the situation whenever possible!
:o

Of course they will, so when you're carrying pot, don't speed.


You do know that police sometimes set up checkpoints and roadblocks.

To me, you're an idiot to do pot, but to have it in your car knowing it's illegal and you get caught, you deserve to go jail....how stupid can you be?

You do know that police sometimes set up checkpoints and roadblocks.

To me, you're an idiot to do pot, but to have it in your car knowing it's illegal and you get caught, you deserve to go jail....how stupid can you be?

And you think this is a good use of public resources, do you?
???

Of course...think of all the $$ that is generated by those "driving without insurance" and "no horn" tickets.  Which, here in IL, if your horn doesn't work, it is a valid ticket, punishable by a ridiculous fine (I think it's $75) ::)

If pot possession was like speeding, it would profitable.  The cops would just write you up a huge fine, and your insurance premium would skyrocket.  Unfortunately, marijuana is scheduled in the criminal class of drugs.  Incarceration is a drain on the state coffers.  On the other hand, it's great for the prison-industrial complex which is very cozy with the Republican party!
How do they know if you're horn doesn't work?  I'm sure they check at state inspection, but otherwise?  Does the cop tell you to honk your horn when he pulls you over? 
There are some people who oughta have their horns removed by court order, like the pr*cks who start honking their heads off as soon as the light turns green!
:P
Reminds me of a George Carlin bumper sticker:
"Honk if your horn is broken."

I have driven with it in my car, and it made me nervous the whole way home!  I avoid the situation whenever possible!
:o



    I've been in a car (as a passenger) immediatly after smoking a jib.  I don't know how the cop did'nt notice ::) he had probley just got done smoking one himself.  I really feel it's much less dangerous than having 2 or 3 beers.  For me, being average size (125lbs) 2 Bud Lights puts me on the tipsy side if I hav'nt had a full meal.  So I say, smoke it if you got it.

    I've been in a car (as a passenger) immediatly after smoking a jib.  I don't know how the cop did'nt notice ::) he had probley just got done smoking one himself.  I really feel it's much less dangerous than having 2 or 3 beers.  For me, being average size (125lbs) 2 Bud Lights puts me on the tipsy side if I hav'nt had a full meal.  So I say, smoke it if you got it.

Pot doesn't do the same number on your central nervous system alcohol does, but I wouldn't endorse driving stoned.
It can impair judgement, vision, and reaction time.
DWS can also make you paranoid...like when you're driving that hilly country road home and you keep misinterpreting headlights behind you as the flashing lights of a police cruiser...then you feel really nervous for a second and you realize it's just headlights...then a minute later, you think you see flashing  lights behind you, and you get really nervous for a second...

How do I know this?  I'll take the Fifth!
:-X

Didn't some states go to the "ticket & a fine" for pot possession?  I know I read it somewhere ???
Not sure.  There may have been proposals to do so for possession of under a certain amount (ie possession without intent to distribute).

At the roadside checks.  "Safety" checks, they call them here in IL.  We don't have statewide inspection (each county decides if they want to do it or not) and that's one of the things they check.  My little brother got stopped at one as he was on his way home from getting his alarm installed in his car.  The horn worked just fine before, but didn't afterwards.  He got the store that installed the alarm to pay for the ticket ;)

Do they stop everybody like they do with the drunk driving check points, or just suspicious-looking vehicles?

Do they stop everybody like they do with the drunk driving check points, or just suspicious-looking vehicles?


You mean the cars in dark overcoats wearing shades?

Didn't some states go to the "ticket & a fine" for pot possession?  I know I read it somewhere ??? 

It's been 3 years since I lived there, but while in CA I went to court over a traffic ticket and the kid in front of me was there for possession under an oz in his vehicle.  If I remember correctly, it was some paltry assed fee because I remember thinking, when slapped with my $270.00 fee, that I sure wished I'd have just got stopped with pot in my car!

Seems to me this emphasis on pot is a tremendous waste of resources.  There are so many more serious crimes cops should be focusing on.

Legalize Pot

Fight real crime