Chicago Sun-Times: Court backs Madigan on crime-sniffing dogs

"WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday during traffic stops, ruling in an Illinois case that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they might be carrying narcotics.

In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 in LaSalle County for driving 6 miles over the 65 mph speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous. Asked if he would consent to a search of his car, he said "No." The State Police drug interdiction team makes frequent arrests on I-80 for drugs.

A team member pulled over Caballes, 38, and noticed a Nevada license plate. Another member of the team drove up with Krott the drug dog and walked him around Caballes' car. The dog reacted, and police searched the car and found $250,000 worth of marijuana.

The Las Vegas resident was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 12 years in prison, but his conviction was overturned when the Illinois Supreme Court ruled the troopers improperly broadened an ordinary traffic stop."

Gotta love a 6-2 Supreme Court decision.

Lisa Madigan argued the trial herself. Does she face any real challenge in '06?

Apparently, "probable cause" in Illinois is being black and nervous. If Ms. Madigan argued for that position, that will really not play well with minorities or civil libertarians.

In a perfect world, this makes perfect sense. Let's say you have a guy with an out of state license plate or driver's license, so then you bring the dog out with you. As far as I'm concerned, that's good. I don't want to make Illinois a drug haven. But you are right, there's going to be a TON of racial profiling on this one. It will have to be monitored closely to be done correctly and I doubt that will happen.

guess there will be dogs at all of those bogus things, also. Wonder how many of those are in minority areas? We have them here in boondockville every 6 months. Lisa was doing her job as the head attorney of Illinois when the state cops were fighting an appeal -- but this endears her to no one but the right wing. I would have preferred her to use her valuable personal work time going after the insurance company scandal which has landed in Illinois, albeit only reported in the New York papers to my knowledge -- it's a Spitzer issue -- Spitzer and Boxer in 2008!!!!!

according to the clear wording of the Illinois state constitution, but that obviously doesn't matter. This decision really pisses me off. We're moving ever closer to a fascist police state. At least the Illinois Supreme Court had it right for once.

or she would be doing something about them, huh? I heard her on the radio say it was a great victory in the fight against drug traffickers -- and Gonzales's memo was a great victory in the fight against terrorists, too, huh? They both allow the use of dogs to intimidate, even if there is nothing there. Isn't there an old adage in the south about dogs and sheets -- hasn't there been a history of using the same to cast fear into particular groups? This decision is from the top -- it ain't about Illinois any more, Harriet! Our cops MAY be professional -- but the south? Probable cause -- is that even in the law books, any more?

since the Illinois Supreme Court had found differently, Lisa could have let that decision stand -- it was up to her to take it higher --now, I am really disturbed. The ACLU was on the other side and the justices who dissented had the same concerns which we have expressed here.

What if the cop is a Republican and the driver has a pro-Democrat bumper sticker? What about a Democratic cop and a pro-Republican bumper sticker? That's just the tip of the iceberg. This dog thing could become a huge harassment issue. This definitely is a defeat for democracy, not a victory.

especially Souter's dissent:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jan20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-923.pdf

do you know if these safety stops have been litigated? Souter, in his DISSENT, is saying here that the use of the dog must be seen in the context of the stop because a sniff is tantamount to a full search since dog alerting leads directly to that -- so if you are stopped for a traffic violation, there is no justification for the dog sniff. Souter is right, IMO. I guess, given the majority that the dog alerting is the probable cause, the dogs can just walk down the street, sniffing at everyone, and be wrong up to 60% of the time, but meantime, you have been strip searched. I can see it in a movie, now, -- A walks past B on a busy New York Street and puts contraband in his pocket as a part of a set up, just as the cop with the dog walks up. Really not much of a movie plot as virtually the same thing was alleged in my community -- cops put up A to plant drugs in the pocket of B and then they move in.

There is already pollution detector that sniffs auto exhaust, snaps a picture, and a notice is sent. I have no problem with improving life without penalty, but the potential for future use is unlimited. The news last week reported a company in Michigan that bans tobbaco use by employees, even on there own time. They are tested and if positive will be fired. The reporter asked about other potential health risks like obesity. The owner said that is being developed next. There is no protection for the workers in Michigan law. Will they test DNA next?

WTF? So if they are eating fatty foods, they get fired? That's not big brother, that's just dumb.

It makes sense that technology would replace dogs. Dogs are much more intimidating than any potential machine though.

But he didn't say for how long and if firing would be at the end of the line. He said they were going to help employees with a broad range of health problems. Dogs would still be used I'm sure but machines can monitor you 24/7, anywhere, anytime, and don't require as much maintenence.

by the ACLU to that Michigan company -- pregnancy has inherent risks, are you going to ban that for employees? I mean, come on, this smoking thing is ludicrous, and yes, I think DNA testing for hereditary propensities is down the line -- hopefully I'll be dead by the time they go that far. Besides, I have read a study which says that smokers save society money because they die earlier, not to mention the high product taxes they pay. So this health insurance employer is just hepped up on paying out more for Alzheimers, or what? In the meantime -- don't have that bacon in the fridge -- the Nazis might take a look in your cupboard.

Privacy is a thing of the past.