Court allows use of drug dogs in traffic stops

Court allows use of drug dogs in traffic stops

Previous ruling said privacy rights violated by unreasonable search

Friday, May 19, 2006

By JOHN R. PULLIAM

The Register-Mail

SPRINGFIELD - In a narrow decision, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that police can use drug-sniffing dogs to search vehicles during routine traffic stops.
By a 4-3 vote, the court decided that the drug trafficking arrest of a driver stopped in 1998 for speeding on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County did not violate his constitutional rights. The man was charged with the drug offense after a police canine detected marijuana in his car while an officer was writing the traffic ticket.

Knox County State's Attorney Paul Mangieri said this morning that he was pleased with the ruling. "Quite frankly, I do believe 98 percent of people out there would recognize that just simply having a dog, during a traffic stop, walking around the exterior of their car, is a minimal intrusion, based upon the law enforcement rewards it can reap," Mangieri said.

In 2003, the state Supreme Court had ruled that Roy Caballes' rights of privacy and protection from an unreasonable search had been violated and overturned his conviction. But in January 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent his case back to the state court for another hearing.

Asked if he is surprised this case has bounced back and forth in the high courts, Mangieri admitted he is."It's in a public setting. ... This is not in your home. You have been stopped for a proper law enforcement purpose. We're not talking about road blocks, we're not talking about forced stops where the individual has not committed a violation," he said.

More at:

http://www.register-mail.com/stories/051906/LOC_B9S2D165.GID.shtml

They want to search your car? Let 'em get a warrant.

Fact: Police dogs can be made to "hit" on anything, by a good trainer.

So,in effect, the dog becomes your accuser or "tipster" leading to the police searching your car without a warrent.

This opens up a whole new meaning to the loss of our 4th amendment rights :(

You're certainly not assaulting the dog, because it just happens to be in the carpet when the dog is brought in. How did the pepper get there? Mishap on the way home from the supermarket. Once the powder spilled, Officer, I couldn't get it all out.

You dont know what other people did with your car, particularly if it was a used car.

There could be some drug reside or actual drugs hidden somewhere in the car, but you dont know about them until the police find them.

Once you give them permission to search your 4th amendment right is gone even if you did not do anything wrong or know anything about the drugs.

I like the cayenne peeper thing, but I wonder if that wouldnt make them more suspicious, not less?

will have little trouble with the pepper.

Because most US paper currency has drugs on it.

Don

to keep people from smoking pot, it's a small price to pay!

:sarcasm:

let alone the 9th amendment given the hemp document....

Dogs are much better than humans. Do they ever spot on smoething that's not drugs? Yes. But it's not often, and if nothing is found, there's no problem.

Dogs have no bias of any kind. And for you to say a dog is trained to find something that's not there is just wrong.

still violated, thats all.

-------------

"Dogs have no bias of any kind."

No, but thier trainers may have. Law-enforcment makes lots of $$ off of selling confiscated property.

----------

"And for you to say a dog is trained to find something that's not there is just wrong."

----------------

Really?

Just as wrong as it is for a police officer to plant "evidence" to make a bust when they cant find anything?

Oh, thats right. That NEVER happens does it? Just like Driving While Black doesnt happen either.

Enjoy your chains, buddy.

P.S. I hope you are never wrongfully stopped by the police, as many people are, for a "fishing expedition". You will be in for a very rude awakening, IMO.

The dog is neutral, but the handler has to be honest enough to use the dog properly as well. Most probably are but some will be tempted to bend the rules and follow a hunch just like happens with other types of cops on occasion. We depend on the handler in the end rather than the dog.

Personally I do have a problem with it. So they are outside, but they are still checking what's inside. The law loves a good precedent and this isn't one that I like. With modern technology they can see heat sources flying over your home, they can tap into communications such as wireless from the street outside, they can damned near see and listen through walls and it's only getting better as time goes on.

So the dog is outside the car, it's still a search of what's inside. Give them a precedent without challenge and we might not like the end results of it.

It opens the door for more intrusive searches. You can be pulled over on any excuse. The cop says you did not make a full stop when you did. If he is profiling or whatever and wants to search he now does not need a warrant, the dog gives him the ability to search.

with no rights ( I love dogs, BTW) or reposibilities under the law, does what its owner and trainers have taught it to do.

Who will the police point to as the witness or accuser when the dog is wrong about drugs or made to "hit" on something ?

The police dog?

More and more we are moving away from Probable Cuase to "suspicion" or even "hunches" as justification for intruding on a person's 4th amendment rights.

A lady who worked for me was on her honeymoon with her new hubby. They were going on a cruise to Aruba, and were waiting in line at the airport to fly to FL to board the ship. My employee was suddenly pulled out of line because, as a drug dog was sniffing all the luggage of those in line, it cited HER bag as a potential target. Her hubby went with her to see what the problem really was. It was quite a long delay, but the end result was that her own dog had put his bone inside her luggage and that's what the dog cited on. All was finally fine, they made their flight, and the cruise, but sure have a funny story to tell everyone when they returned.

My employee didn't blame the dog or the officers who pulled her out of line. She blamed herself for mot noticing that HER OWN DOG had deposited his bone in her suitcase.

The reason I posted this story is that mistakes do happen, and we all know that. There isn't always despicable motives behind them.

Trails End: A Memorial to Donald Scott

(Last update Feb. 3, 2003, by Leon Felkins)

On October 2, 1992 Malibu California millionaire Donald Scott was shot to death inside his own home, during a raid by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and agents from five federal law enforcement agencies. The Scotts were awakened by the sound of the police breaking down their door. Scott's wife, Frances, ran downstairs to find her house swarming with men with guns aimed at her.

She screamed "don't shoot me, don't kill me." Donald Scott, recovering from recent cataract surgery, got his gun and ran to the defense of his wife. When he emerged at the top of the stairs, holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death. The warrant was for evidence of the cultivation of marijuana, but no illegal activity was discovered at the Scott ranch.

More at:

http://www.fear.org/scott.html

the government has any business telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies and bloodstreams.

Of course, I think it's obscene that we spend $40 Billion a year on a "drug war" that is aimed primarily at -you guessed it- pot smokers.

I find it reprehensible that we incarcerate one out of every 130 or so of our citizens, an overwhelming majority of them, again- for non-violent drug offenses.

I find it absolutely nauseating that our government has nothing better to worry about than cancer ridden grannies who want to smoke weed to ease the nausea of chemo, or some guy with a spinal injury in a wheelchair who, due to an overzealous DEA with a hard-on, can't get adequate pain management- and as such, is now serving a 25 year sentence in prison for trying to get it, in addition to the life sentence in the wheelchair and in pain.

I don't see the societal value in spending our tax dollars to make sure that no one ever has a bag of weed in their car, and I sure don't think it's worth shredding the rest of the constitution to get there. If someone is driving under the influence, deal with that. But how the hell people ever got the idea that the government has any business, whatsoever, telling consenting adults what they can do with their own damn bodies and bloodstreams, when they're not endangering or harming anyone else-- sorry, I don't get it.

And I say that as someone who not only lost a good friend to a drunk driver, but someone who has been clean and sober for a very long time-- but I know enough to know that prohibition doesn't work, and even if it did there's NO REASON under the sun that marijuana should be illegal. (Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it, I say)

And why we need dogs sniffing everyone's cars while the cops should be going after real dangerous criminals, like murderers, rapists, Enron executives, and pedophiles (here's a hint, boys- check the Churches) is just absolutely beyond me.

Shame you don't understand the 4th amendment, either.


Hear me, napi21:


Bill of Rights - War on Drugs


Choose one, 'cuz you can't have both.

Jefferson would have had a fit if you'd brought a dog to sniff around his carriage without probable cause.



* OOOhhh, but he might have some of that hemp, we'd best lock him up! *


Fucking hell.

when you have been stopped for suspicion of speeding, NOT suspicion of drug-running, constitutes a fishing expedition. You are correct that a dog can accurately search your car for drugs without a door or trunk ever being opened. The problem isn't whether or not a dog can do the search, it's the little fact that the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches without search warrants. In the case of people stopped for speeding, the officers don't even have probable cause. They are searching thousands of people they think are probably perfectly innocent in hopes of catching the one guy with pot in his car.

If the police think your house contains drugs, they are ordinarily required to get a warrant before they can check. This court ruling opens the door to NOT requiring a warrant for any type of search that can be done without an officer actually entering the vehicle or structure, since they can have a dog sniff every house in the suburb as easily as they can have a dog sniff every car stopped for speeding.

And it doesn't stop with dogs. Technology exists to search your house top to bottom for contraband without ever entering the perimeter (millimeter wave cameras, ultrawideband radar, backscatter X-ray cameras, etc.). It is also possible to strip-search you without actually requiring you to remove your clothes--backscatter X-ray can examine you closely enough as you walk down the sidewalk to see whether or not a man is circumsized, or whether or not a woman has a piercing in a private spot. Are you comfortable with that? Because they are the same type of warrantless search that the police are doing with the dogs...

Unleash the hounds on those vile drug criminals. Nothing a police anything does is ever wrong. The citizenry must be KONTROLLED!

:sarcasm:

rather have to contend with dangerous, evil pot smokers, all hopped up from listening to the Allman Brothers and looking to score a bag of doritos?

Send in the SWAT team!

:banghead:

where they walk a dog around everyone's vehicle. They already do it for drunk-drivers, now there is no reason for them not to do this. Smoke at home folks.

like they do for drunk driving.

The day is coming soon when machines will be able to do this job instead of dogs. They have sensors in some flashlights to detect alcohol on your breath today.

If you must transport materials (you have to get it home somehow) that have easily detectable odors I strongly recommend a glass container with metal lid and aluminum foil gasket. Of course your hands must be clean when handling the container. When in doubt wash the exterior of container with a good solvent (such as isopropyl alcohol for reefer) and then detergent and water.

You could paint the interior of the container to look like tomato sauce and place in bag of groceries.

This situation bring to mind for me Hayden's recent and incorrect, but very aggressive, stance that probable cause is not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/06.html#a8184

Which reminds me. Has anyone seen any follow-up by reporters or Congress critters to hold Hayden to account for this? By that, I mean getting him to respond on record, not just the reports which call him on being wrong. I value those, but I'd like to see him publicly acknowledge that he was wrong.