High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches
Bump and Update: The Supreme Court decision in Illinios v. Cabales is available here (pdf.) Here are some links to news articles and web reaction:
Associated Press provides this quote from the majority opinion of Justice Stevens:
"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"
And this from the dissent by Ginsberg (Souter joining):
Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population," Ginsburg wrote, citing the danger that police could soon conduct "suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps" of parked cars or cars stopped at red lights.
A remedy is for states to enact their own legislation:
Some states, including New Jersey, have passed legislation requiring police to have valid grounds to use dogs during traffic stops partly because of the danger of racial profiling, in which minorities are singled out for traffic stops or other scrutiny.
FourthAmendment.Com has extensive analysis and commentary, including this:
Unbelievably bad writing from a luminary like Stevens (must have been drafted by a law clerk and not fully vetted for what it can lead to); an opinion full of holes for both sides....
Among the holes: pretext searches
The Supreme Court has always said that subjective intent is irrelevant in pretext claims, as long as there was an objective basis for the stop. What about a subjective basis for a dog sniff when there is no objective basis? A reasonableness inquiry is not foreclosed by Caballes. Also, remember that a pretext claim based on racial discrimination founded on an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment or a similar state constitutional provision has a lower burden of proof than pretext under the Fourth Amendment.
Orrin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy says the opinion is particularly disturbing with respect to ramifications for computer searches and seizures.
Grits for Breakfast critizes the decision.
************************
Original Post:
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Fourth Amendment is not violated by police using drug dogs to find drugs during lawful traffic stops.
The case is Illinois v. Cabales.o. 03-923. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion. [Via ScotusBlog]
| < Farewell Party Held for John Ashcroft | Five Dem Activists Charged With Slashing Tires of GOP Workers > |
