Full Version: Dogs, Drugs and Privacy
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case which may limit or expand the powers of law enforcement as they relate to the use of dogs to sniff our drugs, explosives, etc. Court looks at dogs, drugs and privacy.
Cablles' conviction was overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court and his fine voided, but now the case is going to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
Questions for debate
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
QUOTE
Illinois State Police were about to let speeding motorist Roy Caballes off with a warning one afternoon in La Salle County in November 1998.
Then Trooper Craig Graham and his drug-sniffing dog showed up. The canine made a pass around Caballes' car and alerted police to the trunk. Inside, they found an estimated $250,000 worth of marijuana. Caballes, who told police he was an unemployed salesman, eventually was convicted of drug trafficking. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined $256,000.
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) will consider whether Caballes' constitutional rights were violated because the dog sniffed his car even though police did not have reason to suspect Caballes was committing a crime. The case has drawn attention from law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and civil rights advocates because it pits individual liberties against an increasingly popular police tactic.
Then Trooper Craig Graham and his drug-sniffing dog showed up. The canine made a pass around Caballes' car and alerted police to the trunk. Inside, they found an estimated $250,000 worth of marijuana. Caballes, who told police he was an unemployed salesman, eventually was convicted of drug trafficking. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined $256,000.
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) will consider whether Caballes' constitutional rights were violated because the dog sniffed his car even though police did not have reason to suspect Caballes was committing a crime. The case has drawn attention from law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and civil rights advocates because it pits individual liberties against an increasingly popular police tactic.
Cablles' conviction was overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court and his fine voided, but now the case is going to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
Questions for debate
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
That is a tough one. I don't like searches without warrants period, be they drug dogs on the highway, random bag searches at the airport or DUI checkpoints.
However, Society has a right to be protected and feel safe. Should these tactics be used for drugs? I personally don't think so, but I advocate the legalization of drugs so I am biased. Should they be used for illegals? I don' agree that people who enter this country illegally have the same rights as I do, so I would say yes.
What about explosives? Considering the dangers of the world today I think it is more then warranted. I think one way to balance civil liberty with law enforcement and safety is to warn people that they will be searched for these things. If you want to fly, you and you bags will be searched. Don't want to be searched? no problem, take the train. Don't want to be searched then don't go to home games, conventions, etc.
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
I never try to predict the actions of the Aged.
That is a tough one. I don't like searches without warrants period, be they drug dogs on the highway, random bag searches at the airport or DUI checkpoints.
However, Society has a right to be protected and feel safe. Should these tactics be used for drugs? I personally don't think so, but I advocate the legalization of drugs so I am biased. Should they be used for illegals? I don' agree that people who enter this country illegally have the same rights as I do, so I would say yes.
What about explosives? Considering the dangers of the world today I think it is more then warranted. I think one way to balance civil liberty with law enforcement and safety is to warn people that they will be searched for these things. If you want to fly, you and you bags will be searched. Don't want to be searched? no problem, take the train. Don't want to be searched then don't go to home games, conventions, etc.
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
I never try to predict the actions of the Aged.
1. No, I don't think so. I would interpret that nobody has full control over a dog's behaviour, not even a police dog handler. So in this sense, it would be no different than noticing an unusual amount of carrion insects flying in & out of a window might lead an observant law officer to think there's a body inside. In other words, the dog (or the insects) give probable cause.
The dog is on a public road, and it isn't doing anything a dog wouldn't normally do (sniffing, wagging its tail, barking, etc). So I don't see that there's much parallel with other off-property searches like phone taps that are constitutionally protected.
I would say that the correct procedure would be to ask the car owner if they would open their trunk/suitcase/etc for search. If they refuse, I'd say that a time-limited warrant needs to be obtained (say, within an hour), but that the car should be impounded for that hour (so the suspect can't remove anything incriminating). Alternative transport should be offered to the suspect to get them to their destination, temporarily without their belongings if needs be. (Are airlines constitutionally questionable for insisting that luggage is carried separately from passengers?)
Course, you could move to the UK and enjoy all these benefits already - sniffer dogs are used routinely here.
2. Anybody guess, though I liked OLS's reply.
The dog is on a public road, and it isn't doing anything a dog wouldn't normally do (sniffing, wagging its tail, barking, etc). So I don't see that there's much parallel with other off-property searches like phone taps that are constitutionally protected.
I would say that the correct procedure would be to ask the car owner if they would open their trunk/suitcase/etc for search. If they refuse, I'd say that a time-limited warrant needs to be obtained (say, within an hour), but that the car should be impounded for that hour (so the suspect can't remove anything incriminating). Alternative transport should be offered to the suspect to get them to their destination, temporarily without their belongings if needs be. (Are airlines constitutionally questionable for insisting that luggage is carried separately from passengers?)
Course, you could move to the UK and enjoy all these benefits already - sniffer dogs are used routinely here.
2. Anybody guess, though I liked OLS's reply.
So would that mean that the dog violated Mr Caballes rights? Can dogs do that?
This may be bias in the article, but 'police tactic' suggests that the dog's behaviour was not 'entirely' outwith the control of the police - in that the trooper turned up with a sniffer dog deliberately, despite there being no real cause to do so. So that the dog was near enough the car to smell the drugs WAS in the control of the police. In this case the dog is a tool used by the police to conduct a search, rather than 'just' a dog.
I don't know how the Supreme Court would vote, as it is a hard thing to predict. To be blunt though, it's probably safer if police are given more leeway with sniffer dogs than not if terrorism on US soil is still a threat. When that threat is judged to have diminished, then perhaps there is less reason to turn up with sniffer dogs.
QUOTE
The case has drawn attention from law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and civil rights advocates because it pits individual liberties against an increasingly popular police tactic
QUOTE
No, I don't think so. I would interpret that nobody has full control over a dog's behaviour, not even a police dog handler....The dog is on a public road, and it isn't doing anything a dog wouldn't normally do
JulianThis may be bias in the article, but 'police tactic' suggests that the dog's behaviour was not 'entirely' outwith the control of the police - in that the trooper turned up with a sniffer dog deliberately, despite there being no real cause to do so. So that the dog was near enough the car to smell the drugs WAS in the control of the police. In this case the dog is a tool used by the police to conduct a search, rather than 'just' a dog.
I don't know how the Supreme Court would vote, as it is a hard thing to predict. To be blunt though, it's probably safer if police are given more leeway with sniffer dogs than not if terrorism on US soil is still a threat. When that threat is judged to have diminished, then perhaps there is less reason to turn up with sniffer dogs.
QUOTE(Ptarmigan @ Nov 11 2004, 12:53 PM)
b]Julian[/b]
This may be bias in the article, but 'police tactic' suggests that the dog's behaviour was not 'entirely' outwith the control of the police - in that the trooper turned up with a sniffer dog deliberately, despite there being no real cause to do so. So that the dog was near enough the car to smell the drugs WAS in the control of the police. In this case the dog is a tool used by the police to conduct a search, rather than 'just' a dog.
This may be bias in the article, but 'police tactic' suggests that the dog's behaviour was not 'entirely' outwith the control of the police - in that the trooper turned up with a sniffer dog deliberately, despite there being no real cause to do so. So that the dog was near enough the car to smell the drugs WAS in the control of the police. In this case the dog is a tool used by the police to conduct a search, rather than 'just' a dog.
If the trooper turned up specifically with the intention of letting the dog sniff the car.
Maybe I was being naive, but there was nothing in the quote section in the opening post that made me think that. I read it that Trooper Graham stopped to talk to his work buddies, let the dog out for some exercise, and it was dumb luck that Caballes got caught.
If all troopers routinely get issued sniffer dogs, the I don't see the problem. If the traffic cops specifically radioed for a sniffer dog because Caballes was acting suspiciously, that might be different.
But it's with the Supreme Court of another country now, so I'm sure I'll be able to live with the results either way.
And, despite my reservations on the illegality of drugs, I think in this particular case Caballes was caught fair and square.
My bet:
The Supremes, if they hear the case, will overturn the lower court's decision and let the original sentence stand.
The problem is, it was in a car on a public highway. Nobody has an inherent "right" to operate a car. So, to ensure public safety, they'll allow this.
Not that I'd agree with it. It's a slippery slope problem. And for you slippery slope naysayers, the anti-smoking crowd started with airlines - look where that ended up. If they allow this to stand, then a cop can search your car just to search your car in the interest of public safety.
Finally, some laws are already circumvented when it comes to driving privileges. Example - you get pulled over by a cop and he/she suspects you of drunken driving. The cop asks if you've been drinking and asks that you submit to a breathylizer test. So, your answer is "Officer, I'd be happy to cooperate, but I respectfully request I have my lawyer present with me first".
Nuh-ugh. Doesn't apply here. You're going to jail, you're getting fined, and you're going to lose your license. With this case, the guy's going to have to pay that fine and go to prison. That's my opinion.
The Supremes, if they hear the case, will overturn the lower court's decision and let the original sentence stand.
The problem is, it was in a car on a public highway. Nobody has an inherent "right" to operate a car. So, to ensure public safety, they'll allow this.
Not that I'd agree with it. It's a slippery slope problem. And for you slippery slope naysayers, the anti-smoking crowd started with airlines - look where that ended up. If they allow this to stand, then a cop can search your car just to search your car in the interest of public safety.
Finally, some laws are already circumvented when it comes to driving privileges. Example - you get pulled over by a cop and he/she suspects you of drunken driving. The cop asks if you've been drinking and asks that you submit to a breathylizer test. So, your answer is "Officer, I'd be happy to cooperate, but I respectfully request I have my lawyer present with me first".
Nuh-ugh. Doesn't apply here. You're going to jail, you're getting fined, and you're going to lose your license. With this case, the guy's going to have to pay that fine and go to prison. That's my opinion.
QUOTE
The problem is, it was in a car on a public highway. Nobody has an inherent "right" to operate a car. So, to ensure public safety, they'll allow this.
I understand your point DaytonRocker, and to some degree I agree with it, as I did the rest of your post.
The problem for me is how it usually happens. You get pulled over for a traffic infraction (which could be simply DwB). The officer runs your name, license, etc. He/She writes or doesn't write you a ticket.
Then the officer holds you there, on the side of the road until the K-9 unit arrives.
This is not an issue of a drug dog happening to get a "hit" from your house as it walked by. The drug dog is called to the scene to verify that you are innocent.
If there is no probable cause for this then it is a clear violation of the bill of rights IMHO. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
Side Note: In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that I have a issue with drug dogs. I hate them. Though I am not a drug user (which surprizes some
) I have been subject to drug dog searches on numerous occasions. On one such occasion I was sleeping in my Navy barracks one Saturday morning when our barracks where surprize searched with drug dogs. Once they entered my room the dog "hit" on my locker. I was forced to open it and step away. The dog then dove into my locker and ate my sandwich that I was saving for lunch. 
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
The problem I have with this question is that there is not enough "as described in this case" to knowif it's a violation or not. If one goes by Julian's reading and assumes that Trooper Graham just happened to show up with a sniffer dog and just happened to be letting it out for a run which just happened to include sniffing the trunk of the car, then it just sounds like bad luck for Mr. Caballes. If, on the other hand, Graham was called to the scene or, even if he happened upon the scene and was deliberately using the dog to check out the Caballes vehicle, then there clearly wasn't probable cause - especially if, as the story claims, the State Police were about to let Caballes off with a warning. Up to the point the dog slerted them to the trunnk of the car, they didn't appear to have enough "cause" to bother giving him a speeding ticket.
But I think the story - and the several of the attorneys quoted - is barking up the wrong tree, if you will. The question is not whether or not using a sniffer dog is a legimate means of searching (or, more absurd, whether using a sniffer dog constitutes a "search" or not - hello, that's why they are trained to sniff out specific substances), the question is whether or not there was probable cause for employing such a search technique. And, again, there's simply not enough in the story to determine whether that's the case or not.
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
They will rule against Caballes, using their outrageous 2000 decision (police roadblocks set up to do random drug searches using sniffer dogs not constituting a "search") as justification. This conclusion requires no more detail than is supplied in the story: whether the search was intentional or accidental won't matter to a Court that doesn't consider a search to be a "search".
The problem I have with this question is that there is not enough "as described in this case" to knowif it's a violation or not. If one goes by Julian's reading and assumes that Trooper Graham just happened to show up with a sniffer dog and just happened to be letting it out for a run which just happened to include sniffing the trunk of the car, then it just sounds like bad luck for Mr. Caballes. If, on the other hand, Graham was called to the scene or, even if he happened upon the scene and was deliberately using the dog to check out the Caballes vehicle, then there clearly wasn't probable cause - especially if, as the story claims, the State Police were about to let Caballes off with a warning. Up to the point the dog slerted them to the trunnk of the car, they didn't appear to have enough "cause" to bother giving him a speeding ticket.
But I think the story - and the several of the attorneys quoted - is barking up the wrong tree, if you will. The question is not whether or not using a sniffer dog is a legimate means of searching (or, more absurd, whether using a sniffer dog constitutes a "search" or not - hello, that's why they are trained to sniff out specific substances), the question is whether or not there was probable cause for employing such a search technique. And, again, there's simply not enough in the story to determine whether that's the case or not.
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
They will rule against Caballes, using their outrageous 2000 decision (police roadblocks set up to do random drug searches using sniffer dogs not constituting a "search") as justification. This conclusion requires no more detail than is supplied in the story: whether the search was intentional or accidental won't matter to a Court that doesn't consider a search to be a "search".
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:10 PM)
Questions for debate
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
Talked about this in my Business Law class. From what i remember about the case, the officer was part of the canine unit and stopped the car and the dog found the drugs.
The ruling on the case makes sense to me. I believe it was justice O'Connor who said that using a dog isn't a "search". Dogs sniff...thats what they do. She said if they can use dogs at airports and other important places...than there is no reason not to use a dog unit for drugs/explosives.
I agree with her. Dogs are trained to sniff out drugs or explosives. If a dog go nears and picks up a scent...than i think it gives the police officer probable cause. When you are behind the wheel of a vehicle and are intoxicated, you forfeit your rights because you are putting other's lives in danger.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Nov 14 2004, 11:06 PM)
The ruling on the case makes sense to me. I believe it was justice O'Connor who said that using a dog isn't a "search". Dogs sniff...thats what they do. She said if they can use dogs at airports and other important places...than there is no reason not to use a dog unit for drugs/explosives.
I agree with her. Dogs are trained to sniff out drugs or explosives. If a dog go nears and picks up a scent...than i think it gives the police officer probable cause. When you are behind the wheel of a vehicle and are intoxicated, you forfeit your rights because you are putting other's lives in danger.
I agree with her. Dogs are trained to sniff out drugs or explosives. If a dog go nears and picks up a scent...than i think it gives the police officer probable cause. When you are behind the wheel of a vehicle and are intoxicated, you forfeit your rights because you are putting other's lives in danger.
Where do you draw the line?
If a police officer held a motorist on the side of the road to await a drug dog to arrive on the scene (which frequently happens all over the country to trashy looking and/or minority motorists on interstates with out-of-state plates). Would that be out of line? What if that wait was an hour, two hours, all day?
If a police officer walked on your property with an explosive sniffing dog, without probable cause, a warrant or permission, would you feel it was acceptable probable cause if the dog then got an explosives hit?
What if that explosives hit turned out to be the reloader in the basement you use to reload your own hunting rounds? Would you still be ok with the police kicking in the door and scaring the heck out of the family?
These animals are called SEARCH dogs. They are trained to SEARCH for different things. Explosives, Drugs, Bodies, People, etc. They are trained to SEARCH.
With all due respect to the position, justice O'Connor showed an extreme lack of common sense with this blanket statement in the decision. If the dog happened to be there and happened to get a hit and alert the handler, then that would probably be acceptable. But in cases like those listed above it is an obvious SEARCH.
QUOTE
When you are behind the wheel of a vehicle and are intoxicated, you forfeit your rights because you are putting other's lives in danger.
Scary. So then am I to assume that you feel anyone pulled over for DUI is guilty until proven innocent? When you commit a crime, or are suspected of committing a crime you DO NOT give up any rights. When you are CONVICTED of a crime you forfeit individual rights and liberties to pay for that crime.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Nov 14 2004, 11:06 PM)
When you are behind the wheel of a vehicle and are intoxicated, you forfeit your rights because you are putting other's lives in danger.
And that what to do with this case? Caballes was not intoxicated. The dog wasn't sniffing for alcohol content in his bloodstream. He was pulled over for speeding. He was about to be released. He was eventually arrested for trafficking, not using. If Trooper Graham intentionally conducted a search using a sniffer dog, it was without probably cause. Period.
I have to agree with overlandsailor. Justice O'Connor's decision (if, indeed, she was the author) was patently absurd. Talk about judicial activism! One could just as rationally argue that pulling the keys out of someone's ignition, opening their trunk, and looking inside doesn't constitute a "search" because police officers were born with hands and eyes - and they were trained to open and look inside trunks. Then - if he sees something illegal - that's probably cause. Puh-lease, leder. That's invasive, unconstitutional nonsense.
QUOTE
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
No privacy violation that I can see. One's right to privacy does not extend to that bit of atmosphere that surrounds the car. That's what the dog is sampling. To the dog, the contraband was in plain sight (sniff?) and just as apparent as a bag of marijuana sticking out of a shirt pocket. The police should not be penalized for having an effective and non-invasive tool for interdiction.
If the police compelled the driver to open the trunk to conduct a canine search you could argue cause. If the driver was detained without cause for the dog to arrive, the canine search in itself would not be a violation, but should be excluded as being predicated on a violation.
To me, this is no different than the odor of alcohol being used as cause for a breath test. Would an officer that hears a person inside the car saying "Hide the dope." have cause for a search? How would that be fundamentally different?
[Edit]Here is the narrative from Illinois v. Caballes taken off the US DOJ site:
QUOTE
1. On November 12, 1998, at approximately 5 p.m., Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped respondent on Interstate Route 80 in La Salle County, Illinois, for driving 71 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. Gillette radioed the police dispatcher to say that he was making the stop and to ask for a check on respondent's license plates. Hearing the radio transmission, a second trooper, Craig Graham, departed for the scene with his drug-detection dog. Pet. App. 1a, 12a.
Once Gillette pulled over respondent's vehicle, he informed respondent that he had been speeding and asked to see his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Respondent complied. Gillette noticed an atlas on the front seat, an open ashtray, the smell of air freshener, and a pair of suits hanging in the back without any other luggage. Gillette told respondent to reposition his vehicle out of traffic on the shoulder of the road and then to come back to the police car. After both vehicles were moved away from traffic, respondent entered the patrol car and was told by Gillette that he would be receiving a warning ticket. Gillette then radioed the police dispatcher to check on the validity of respondent's driver's license and to check for outstanding warrants. Pet. App. 2a, 12a.
While waiting to hear back from the dispatcher, Gillette asked respondent about his destination and what Gillette had observed was respondent's "dressed up" attire. Respondent replied that he was moving from Las Vegas to Chicago, and that he was dressed up because he was a salesman, although currently unemployed. Respondent was nervous and continued to be nervous even after being told that he would be issued only a warning, which Gillette found unusual. Pet. App. 2a, 12a-13a.
At 5:09:58, the dispatcher advised Gillette that respondent had surrendered a valid Illinois driver's license to Nevada and, at 5:11:58, the dispatcher confirmed the validity of respondent's Nevada driver's license. Gillette immediately requested respondent's criminal history from the dispatcher. Gillette next requested respondent's permission to search his vehicle, but respondent refused. Gillette asked whether respondent had ever been arrested, and respondent said that he had not. At 5:12:42, the dispatcher advised Gillette that respondent had two prior arrests for marijuana distribution. Gillette began to write the warning ticket. While writing the ticket, Gillette was interrupted by another officer calling him on the radio about an unrelated matter. Pet. App. 2a, 13a, 17a n.1.
Also during the time Gillette was writing the ticket, Trooper Graham arrived and started walking his dog around respondent's vehicle. At approximately 5:13, while Gillette was still writing the ticket, Graham informed Gillette that the dog alerted at respondent's trunk. Gillette then searched the trunk and found marijuana. At 5:15, Gillette changed the activity code for the stop to a narcotics investigation. Respondent was arrested and taken to the police station.
Once Gillette pulled over respondent's vehicle, he informed respondent that he had been speeding and asked to see his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Respondent complied. Gillette noticed an atlas on the front seat, an open ashtray, the smell of air freshener, and a pair of suits hanging in the back without any other luggage. Gillette told respondent to reposition his vehicle out of traffic on the shoulder of the road and then to come back to the police car. After both vehicles were moved away from traffic, respondent entered the patrol car and was told by Gillette that he would be receiving a warning ticket. Gillette then radioed the police dispatcher to check on the validity of respondent's driver's license and to check for outstanding warrants. Pet. App. 2a, 12a.
While waiting to hear back from the dispatcher, Gillette asked respondent about his destination and what Gillette had observed was respondent's "dressed up" attire. Respondent replied that he was moving from Las Vegas to Chicago, and that he was dressed up because he was a salesman, although currently unemployed. Respondent was nervous and continued to be nervous even after being told that he would be issued only a warning, which Gillette found unusual. Pet. App. 2a, 12a-13a.
At 5:09:58, the dispatcher advised Gillette that respondent had surrendered a valid Illinois driver's license to Nevada and, at 5:11:58, the dispatcher confirmed the validity of respondent's Nevada driver's license. Gillette immediately requested respondent's criminal history from the dispatcher. Gillette next requested respondent's permission to search his vehicle, but respondent refused. Gillette asked whether respondent had ever been arrested, and respondent said that he had not. At 5:12:42, the dispatcher advised Gillette that respondent had two prior arrests for marijuana distribution. Gillette began to write the warning ticket. While writing the ticket, Gillette was interrupted by another officer calling him on the radio about an unrelated matter. Pet. App. 2a, 13a, 17a n.1.
Also during the time Gillette was writing the ticket, Trooper Graham arrived and started walking his dog around respondent's vehicle. At approximately 5:13, while Gillette was still writing the ticket, Graham informed Gillette that the dog alerted at respondent's trunk. Gillette then searched the trunk and found marijuana. At 5:15, Gillette changed the activity code for the stop to a narcotics investigation. Respondent was arrested and taken to the police station.
The officer's purposely had the dog placed in the area of the car because they where suspicous. Unless you believe that a canine unit just happen to pass by after the officer observed he was nervous and after the officer got the call from dispatch stating that he had two prior marijuana distribution charges.
Immidiately after it was transmitted that he had two marijuana distribution arrest's a canine unit "just happens" to radio him on an "unrelated matter" and procede's to the site and "just happens" to let his dog out. -- Right
This fall's under what is propobal cause which is up for intrepetation.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm
Im not sure what the judge's will decide. Does nervousness coupled with prior conventions give probabal cause?
QUOTE
At 5:12:42, the dispatcher advised Gillette that respondent had two prior arrests for marijuana distribution. Gillette began to write the warning ticket. While writing the ticket, Gillette was interrupted by another officer calling him on the radio about an unrelated matter.
Immidiately after it was transmitted that he had two marijuana distribution arrest's a canine unit "just happens" to radio him on an "unrelated matter" and procede's to the site and "just happens" to let his dog out. -- Right
This fall's under what is propobal cause which is up for intrepetation.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm
QUOTE
The precise meaning of "probable cause" is somewhat uncertain. Most academic debates over the years have centered around the differences between "more probable than not" and "substantial possibility". The former involves the elements of certainty and technical knowledge. The latter involves the elements of fairness and common sense.
Im not sure what the judge's will decide. Does nervousness coupled with prior conventions give probabal cause?
I don't think the Founders ever thought a dog sniffing would ever be considered a reasonable search or cause for search. Maybe if the dog were Lassie, she was always able to talk to people. 
The supremes will probably overturn the ruling. Our goverment is no longer constitutional, it is a goverment of convience.
The supremes will probably overturn the ruling. Our goverment is no longer constitutional, it is a goverment of convience.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Nov 10 2004, 10:10 PM)
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case which may limit or expand the powers of law enforcement as they relate to the use of dogs to sniff our drugs, explosives, etc. Court looks at dogs, drugs and privacy.
Cablles' conviction was overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court and his fine voided, but now the case is going to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
Questions for debate
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
QUOTE
Illinois State Police were about to let speeding motorist Roy Caballes off with a warning one afternoon in La Salle County in November 1998.
Then Trooper Craig Graham and his drug-sniffing dog showed up. The canine made a pass around Caballes' car and alerted police to the trunk. Inside, they found an estimated $250,000 worth of marijuana. Caballes, who told police he was an unemployed salesman, eventually was convicted of drug trafficking. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined $256,000.
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) will consider whether Caballes' constitutional rights were violated because the dog sniffed his car even though police did not have reason to suspect Caballes was committing a crime. The case has drawn attention from law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and civil rights advocates because it pits individual liberties against an increasingly popular police tactic.
Then Trooper Craig Graham and his drug-sniffing dog showed up. The canine made a pass around Caballes' car and alerted police to the trunk. Inside, they found an estimated $250,000 worth of marijuana. Caballes, who told police he was an unemployed salesman, eventually was convicted of drug trafficking. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and fined $256,000.
Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) will consider whether Caballes' constitutional rights were violated because the dog sniffed his car even though police did not have reason to suspect Caballes was committing a crime. The case has drawn attention from law enforcement officials, defense lawyers and civil rights advocates because it pits individual liberties against an increasingly popular police tactic.
Cablles' conviction was overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court and his fine voided, but now the case is going to be heard by the US Supreme Court.
Questions for debate
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
2. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case?
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
1.)Yes, it clearly violates the 4th amendment since there is no probable cause in the first place. The officer who pulled Cabellas over did not suspect drug use or shipmetn of drugs. The officer who arrived on the scene did so on his own will, not at request due to the initial officer's concerns. The editors of the St. Petersburg Times hit the nail on the head as to how the court should rule. I know others have mentioned other circumstances and cases, but to me, all else is secondary of the importance of the fourth amendment.
-Editorial
1.)Yes, it clearly violates the 4th amendment since there is no probable cause in the first place. The officer who pulled Cabellas over did not suspect drug use or shipmetn of drugs. The officer who arrived on the scene did so on his own will, not at request due to the initial officer's concerns. The editors of the St. Petersburg Times hit the nail on the head as to how the court should rule. I know others have mentioned other circumstances and cases, but to me, all else is secondary of the importance of the fourth amendment.
QUOTE
Just three years ago, the Supreme Court said it was illegal for police, without a warrant, to use a device that can sense heat emanating through walls of a home to identify hydroponic marijuana-growing operations. This same reasoning should be applied to the odors that only dogs can smell, coming from locked car trunks. It is an invasion of privacy, because the process is intimidating and intrusive.
-Editorial
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Dec 20 2004, 10:22 PM)
1. Does the use of police dogs to detect drugs/explosives/illegals as described in this case constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Why or why not?
1.)Yes, it clearly violates the 4th amendment since there is no probable cause in the first place. The officer who pulled Cabellas over did not suspect drug use or shipmetn of drugs. The officer who arrived on the scene did so on his own will, not at request due to the initial officer's concerns. The editors of the St. Petersburg Times hit the nail on the head as to how the court should rule. I know others have mentioned other circumstances and cases, but to me, all else is secondary of the importance of the fourth amendment.
-Editorial
1.)Yes, it clearly violates the 4th amendment since there is no probable cause in the first place. The officer who pulled Cabellas over did not suspect drug use or shipmetn of drugs. The officer who arrived on the scene did so on his own will, not at request due to the initial officer's concerns. The editors of the St. Petersburg Times hit the nail on the head as to how the court should rule. I know others have mentioned other circumstances and cases, but to me, all else is secondary of the importance of the fourth amendment.
QUOTE
Just three years ago, the Supreme Court said it was illegal for police, without a warrant, to use a device that can sense heat emanating through walls of a home to identify hydroponic marijuana-growing operations. This same reasoning should be applied to the odors that only dogs can smell, coming from locked car trunks. It is an invasion of privacy, because the process is intimidating and intrusive.
-Editorial
That doesnt make any sense. A dog is not a "device". A dog smells...that's what a dog does. If a dog smells something and starts going nuts...is that not probable cause? And how exactly is it intimidating? "Oh, the drug addict is intimidated by a sniffing dog." Give me a break. Privacy is one thing...but when you are on the road with drugs, you have the potential of putting other people's lives in danger.
Personally, if a person wants to use marijuana for medicinal or leisure purposes...then they should be allowed to in the privacy of their own home. But once they walk out their door high...do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars...straight to jail.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Dec 20 2004, 11:27 PM)
That doesnt make any sense. A dog is not a "device". A dog smells...that's what a dog does. If a dog smells something and starts going nuts...is that not probable cause? And how exactly is it intimidating? "Oh, the drug addict is intimidated by a sniffing dog." Give me a break. Privacy is one thing...but when you are on the road with drugs, you have the potential of putting other people's lives in danger.
Personally, if a person wants to use marijuana for medicinal or leisure purposes...then they should be allowed to in the privacy of their own home. But once they walk out their door high...do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars...straight to jail.
Personally, if a person wants to use marijuana for medicinal or leisure purposes...then they should be allowed to in the privacy of their own home. But once they walk out their door high...do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars...straight to jail.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how marijuana in this guy's trunk put people's lives in danger.
That's definitely a new one. Was there enough of it in his trunk that it weighed down the back end, forcing him to drive on two wheels? 
You are failing to realize one simple thing: While sniffing is what dogs do, sniffing out drugs and "going nuts" in response to them is not what dogs do. Dogs get specially trained to do this. Therefore the dog is a device, a tool. If it's not a tool then why the hell do cops use them? Do they take a stray from the pound and walk around with it, waiting to see if it barks at something? Please.
QUOTE(Looms @ Dec 20 2004, 10:50 PM)
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how marijuana in this guy's trunk put people's lives in danger. That's definitely a new one. Was there enough of it in his trunk that it weighed down the back end, forcing him to drive on two wheels?
You are failing to realize one simple thing: While sniffing is what dogs do, sniffing out drugs and "going nuts" in response to them is not what dogs do. Dogs get specially trained to do this. Therefore the dog is a device, a tool. If it's not a tool then why the hell do cops use them? Do they take a stray from the pound and walk around with it, waiting to see if it barks at something? Please.
That's definitely a new one. Was there enough of it in his trunk that it weighed down the back end, forcing him to drive on two wheels? You are failing to realize one simple thing: While sniffing is what dogs do, sniffing out drugs and "going nuts" in response to them is not what dogs do. Dogs get specially trained to do this. Therefore the dog is a device, a tool. If it's not a tool then why the hell do cops use them? Do they take a stray from the pound and walk around with it, waiting to see if it barks at something? Please.
QUOTE(Justice Sandra Day O'Connor)
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing vote on the court, insisted that a "sniff is not a search." She said that as long as the canine remains outside the vehicle, the officer is not searching the car.
"If a sniff doesn't constitute a search, the officer hasn't violated a person's rights," she said during an oral argument before the justices yesterday.
"If a sniff doesn't constitute a search, the officer hasn't violated a person's rights," she said during an oral argument before the justices yesterday.
QUOTE(Justice Antonin Scalia )
Justice Antonin Scalia replied that police often use their senses, such as sight and smell, to look for illegal activity.
"Is anything I observe a search?" he asked. "If I'm a police officer and I'm looking for someone with a nervous twitch on their face, is that a search?"
"Is anything I observe a search?" he asked. "If I'm a police officer and I'm looking for someone with a nervous twitch on their face, is that a search?"
QUOTE(Justice Anthony Kennedy )
Justice Anthony Kennedy said odors emanating from a car or home were "out in the open" where privacy could not be expected.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...s/25232546.html
QUOTE
Justice Antonin Scalia took a different view, noting that drug-sniffing dogs are widely used to check luggage at bus depots.
"The republic seems to have survived," Scalia said.
"The republic seems to have survived," Scalia said.
Couldnt' have said it better myself. If a police officer stops you for a regular traffic stop and he happens to be a canine unit then how is it a search? Is the officer supposed to tell the dog "don't sniff this person's car"? If the dog smells something, then that is probable cause to do an actual search.
What i meant by saying putting other's live in danger... i meant that if the alleged had drugs, there is also the posibility he was high or was going to get high soon which would make him impaired.
QUOTE
If a dog smells something and starts going nuts...is that not probable cause?
I see your point here, but probable cause should come in to play before the dog is let out of the back of the police truck. Letting the dog sniff around is nothing more than a fishing expedition for a cause.
I'm really surprised by Scalia's reasoning that you quoted.
QUOTE
"Is anything I observe a search?" he asked. "If I'm a police officer and I'm looking for someone with a nervous twitch on their face, is that a search?"
When officers pull over a drunk and notice alcohol on a person's breath, that is probable cause that the person is....intoxicated. If the person is observed having blood-shot eyes or a syringe in plain, open view, that is probable cause. Scalia's position seems to endorse searching someone if they have a nervous twitch on their face, since probable cause is thrown out the window. No sane person would argue that eye-observation is a "search" by any means.
QUOTE
Justice Antonin Scalia took a different view, noting that drug-sniffing dogs are widely used to check luggage at bus depots.
"The republic seems to have survived," Scalia said.
"The republic seems to have survived," Scalia said.
Wow, talk about apples and oranges here. For one, people know that luggage will be x-rayed, sniffed, or occassionally opened. A person cedes their privacy rights over that luggage in order to fly. When you are pulled over, you don't assume that the police will have the same privileges to that which is not visible to the naked eye. "The republic seems to have survived," wow-great citation of previous cases and legal precedent.
-The first thing we must conclude is that the police actually performed a search: the Constitution prohibits 'unresonable searches and siezures'. Does walking a trained canine around a car constitute a search? If it was a search, was it unreasonable? If it was unreasonable, the Illinois high court did make the right decision by excluding the "fruits of the poisonous tree." Personally, I think a search did take place. The necessary 'probable cause' must be obtained through human means, not the extraordinary capabilities of a canaine. The Constitution expressly states that probable cause must be met to justify a search; that is, a 51 % chance or better that the police think Mr. Caballes is up to no good must exist. Clearly, they did not have the requisite cause and used the canine for some arbitrary invasion as a last resort on a possible(not probable) hunch they had. If we begin letting probable cause be gained by unorthodox and superbly-advanced means, we will open the door for higher technology detecting contraband which the police would, have otherwise, not detected, and this would be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. For example, most would agree that the police using infrared radar to detect heat plants used to grow marijuana in someone's private home would be unconstitutional. What is the real difference?
-As to the second question, there is no doubt in my mind that the increasingly conservative Court will rule in favor of the State and once again compromise our preciously-protected privacy right. They might doubt that a search actually took place and thus that no probable cause was needed because there was no physical encroachment into the car by the dogs. This would be incorrect; it would be so because, otherwise, phone taps and the above mentioned "infrared" search would be constituional as well. I am aware that this view might allow potential explosives and other contraband to go undetected, but this is a cost of having a most-appreciated limited government. Laws such as these that completely bypass these limits have no place in America, but perhaps today, with the omnipresence of terroristic threat, my policy should be preserved to be enacted once this threat has subsided. The U.S has a justified history in setting aside civil liberties during times of national disaster.
-As to the second question, there is no doubt in my mind that the increasingly conservative Court will rule in favor of the State and once again compromise our preciously-protected privacy right. They might doubt that a search actually took place and thus that no probable cause was needed because there was no physical encroachment into the car by the dogs. This would be incorrect; it would be so because, otherwise, phone taps and the above mentioned "infrared" search would be constituional as well. I am aware that this view might allow potential explosives and other contraband to go undetected, but this is a cost of having a most-appreciated limited government. Laws such as these that completely bypass these limits have no place in America, but perhaps today, with the omnipresence of terroristic threat, my policy should be preserved to be enacted once this threat has subsided. The U.S has a justified history in setting aside civil liberties during times of national disaster.
UPDATE: Justices say police can use dogs
QUOTE("MSNBC")
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police could have dogs check out motorists’ vehicles for drugs even if officers had no particular reason to suspect illegal activity. The 6-2 opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, stipulated that police dogs may sniff only the outside of a car after a motorist is lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, such as speeding or failing to stop at a stop sign
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.