home

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (2.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    I'm suprised no one here sees the obvious solution. Dried, ground, habenero powder rubbed into the carpet( around the bottom of the seats). quick way to put a $20,000 dollar police dog out of business for a few weeks. The big secret is in realizing that the semantics of the petty band of alpha male primates in D.C have very little effect on actual reality. Hail Eris!

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:48:24 AM EST
    Given that random drunk checks are already considered "concededly lawful traffic stop[s]", how long until we have roadblocks to stop cars so that a dog can sniff them?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#2)
    by wishful on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    Does this surprise anyone who is paying attention?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:41:52 AM EST
    No surprises here.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    It didn't surprise me at all - it seems consistent with recent trends. Responding to JustPaul - I'm not worried about that for now; widespread roadblock traffic stops cost too much in terms of police resources and political support (people quickly tire of long lines of traffic). I know we like to think of civil liberties as being protected only by legal rules, but that is not the case: simple economics guard some of our civil liberties, too, because the state really does have finite resources. There's also the fact that I don't carry drugs in my car, so dog sniffs around my parked vehicle do not pose much of a threat to me. It's hard for many of us to get passionate about protecting people's liberty to pursue illegal activities. And if none of us really have drugs in our trunks, it is even LESS likely that the police would bother expending resources on dog-sniff traffic stops.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#5)
    by wishful on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    Ahhh, yessss. The "if you don't have anything to hide, why would you care if you are searched, interrogated, sniffed, asked for your papers, etc.etc". I almost forgot that one.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    Dru, All true, but I don't drive drunk or carry open containers of alcohol in my car either. This fact doesn't stop the police from making the drive home from a late night movie a much longer than necessary chore. And since they are already doing such drunk checks, I don't think adding a few K-9 units is going to be much of an economic deterrent.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    I too was afraid they were going to do that. The whole idea is a 4th Amendment abomination. I wrote recently about how scientists now can get medical information from canine sniffs.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    For those who believe thay are safe from encursions upon your civil liberties because you haven't done anything wrong, if the fact that the varying methods of training (there are no nationwide standards yet) produces differing success rate of canines 'alerts' doesn't concern you, perhaps the premise that the presence of a dog implies an automatic assumption of wrongdoing on the part of every motorist by police ought to. As it ought to concern everybody, holding or not.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    "There's also the fact that I don't carry drugs in my car, so dog sniffs around my parked vehicle do not pose much of a threat to me." Actually, the notion that drug dogs only 'alert' on real drugs is rapidly being exposed as just plain wrong. And once they've 'alerted' on you, it's katie bar the door. Oh, not YOUR door, mind you, they're already inside that one, rummaging through ... what? What are you worried about? Then there's the inevitable pressure on the handler to find something, anything, to charge you with to avoid having to fill out a report with the embarrassing 'wrong alert' notes. You may rest assured that they don't get bad points when they find some other retro excuse for having honed in on your auto.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    My favorite response to the 'if you don't have anything then you won't mind us looking' BS, is 'then you won't mind me looking around your house.' I haven't found a single cop willing to take me up on the trade. It's funny, folks do like their privacy, even when they are behaving.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    Well, a dog sniffing around your car is a far cry from a cop entering your house and look around. I think people on both side completely loses any sense of degreeness. I have no problem with dog sniffing around my car, as long as it does not take too long but I don't want anyone in my house looking around without an invitation. I don't think that is a abnormal position of the issue.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    I think that Durham only did something like 40 random stops last year. Is that a lot or a little? -C

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    the line people, where does the line exist. if a right is conceded it is never returned, thus my oppostion to Pat I/II not that I am against the "security provided", but how that security is achieve. "...any man that reliquenches any of his personal freedoms for safety/security, deserves neither..." somebody said that and I am in full agreement. as americans we have forgotten "freedom ain't free" and "there is inherent in life some reasonable amount of danger".

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:29:32 AM EST
    Woof!

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:30:26 AM EST
    So when will the dogs start eat the people in the cars? will that make our freedom loving government happy? And lets all hear it for bush and gang members! after all he would make a great gang leader and what a real guy he and his wife are! got it? we don't need any bill of rights, after all we do live in a third world non nation. and hell soon none of you will have jobs or homes. so go, go bush and gang.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#16)
    by wishful on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    Hypothetical question: A dog sniffs a drug in your car, and it is because you have cash that has been recently in direct contact with, for example cocain, (prior to your possession of said cash). You don't have anything to hide. So do you now have to prove your innocence? Can they confiscate your cash, even temporarily, as evidence? Someone mentioned opposition only if it takes too much time. How much time is too much? How long will it take to prove innocence in this case? What if this leads to a search of your home based on the positive, though erroneous, dog car sniff? How much are you willing to pay your lawyer to prove your innocence? Can you prove your innocence? Should you have to prove your innocence? What if, while unbeknownst to you, your teenage son's friend had mj in your house, and some fell to your floor unseen, and a dog has a positive sniff in your son's room? Sure, they won't find actual drugs, but do they have enough evidence in this positive home search to cost you even more time in proving your innocence? Etc.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    Posted by wishful at January 24, 2005 12:33 PM those are the concerns of a rational caring citizen. need i continue???

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    sounds like a lot more druggies will be forced off the road by staying sober while driving or going to jail. Sounds like my teenagers who are new drivers will have alot of dangerous druggies off the road.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#19)
    by wishful on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    PeaNut, Not hypothetical: An old woman, my mother (76) with no record, and a long history (76 yrs) of being nothing but a law-abiding citizen, was denied access to prison visits with her son. To be perfectly clear, she bore no responsibility or association with her son's crimes. The reason for the denial was a false reading of drugs on her, three times. There is no method to appeal and present the truth. It turns out that she does go to church bingos (that is legal here). The money at the bingos was tainted with cocain. This was proven by independent investigators she hired for her own peace of mind, because she has no idea why she was being labeled by our government as a drug dealer who needed to be guarded against as a contraband smuggling grandma. Like I said, that was of no import to the state, as they have no way of letting her communicate with them. Communication is only in one direction--they decided she could no longer visit her son. Period. Is it so crazy to imagine this scenario could be extrapolated to other innocent citizens? If so, why?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    Skybox, it also means that when your teenagers are stopped they may need to deal with dogs sniffing their person and they may get a few rides downtown for further questioning when the dogs give a positive alert, rightfully or not.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    It makes me wish I was a chemist/agitator. I'd like to develop a synthetic marijuana scent I could spray on all the cars in the parking lot.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:43:26 PM EST
    "It's hard for many of us to get passionate about protecting people's liberty to pursue illegal activities." Yeah? Well HOW LONG do the police get to hold YOU on your way home, while they get the canine unit there? Two hours? Five hours? As long as it takes to vote in Ohio (twelve hours +)? How about when you kid is crying, or sitting on a curb in front of the school in the dark, waiting? You rightists are SUCH crybabies on EVERYTHING, if it affects you. But you talk tough until that point. And SO stupid about what it will all end up being, if the people trashing the Constitution (especially those FIVE FAKE JUSTICES get finished. Don't forget to 'tip' the officer so you don't have to wait, 'mKay? Cause the blacks and Latinos will be waiting for hours just like in the good old days of PPJ Crow. And if they happen to shoot you because you 'went for your gun,' don't come crying to us.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    Fred Dawes: watch out! those dogs are being trained to sniff out people who haven't paid their taxes, too. A special IRS covert op called CTDI for Canine Taxpayer Delinquency Investigation. They will use beagles especially bred using canine steroids so they are as big as Irish wolfhounds but still had the same keen sense of smell.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    Of course, I could probably just brew a little hemp tea and spray it on all the cars in the parking lot.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    blu - You don't have to be smart to be subversive, just clever. Go get some wolf p*ss from the local hunting store and spray it on the rubber outside your car. Plan to spand some time at the stop afterwards. -C

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Impossible to take you seriously when the site you linked to states that: "Consistent with identical laws in all fifty states, Florida requires that its slate of Electoral College delegates be awarded to the presidential candidate getting the most popular votes statewide." Tell that to Maine and Nebraska. Second of all they aren't fake justices, just justices with whom you don't agree. Wrong, perhaps. Idiotic, probably. Fake, not.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    How long before the government develops a machine that has a sensory unit that can replace the dog? I'm guessing soon.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    When you're in Bushland, nothing violates the fourth amendment. The New Democrat

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    What a Blessing! Now I believe this same method of searching for dangerous drugs should be applied to apartment buildings, hotel rooms, even homes, if the people seem suspicious. Drug dealers who are caught should be executed. That will teach the criminals and terrorists who try to get our children hooked on drugs that they better go elsewhere, because their filth won't be tolerated in the USA!

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#30)
    by BigTex on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:08:45 PM EST
    Dru are you th' same Dur that is teachin' environmental law at South Texas?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    Blu: Catalog Number P7309-1KG - An artificial marijuana scent used to train dogs. Price for 1 kilo is $338 from Sigma Chemical Company, St. Louis. www.sigma-aldrich.com. Also available in the 100 gram size for about $45 They also have scents for cocaine, LSD, heroin and dead bodies.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    “An artificial marijuana scent used to train dogs.” I would love to get a load of this into high school text books. My god, the fun I could have, mail it around to folks. Send it through the post office in a torn up package….

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    Cliff, By your response I'm guessing you agree that a false/positive circumstance can be created? By the way, who bottles wolf p*ss, and how and most importantly, why?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:22:50 PM EST
    The thing that gets me most about this decision is the real-world cluelessnesses of the justices. Where "any palpable reason to pull a motorist over" + "nervousness" = probable cause for a drug dog sniff, that's pretty intrusive and lame. Think of how much stronger this case would have been if the facts were: 'that Cabelas started to flee in a high speed chase when a cop tailed him on the interstate' or the 'vehicle seemed to be suspiciously riding low, like it was overweighed'. Something like real probable cause. No. In the case at bar, Cabelas was going just **6 miles** over the speed limit on an interstate. In most places, that won't justify a stop and tickets have been thrown out for that mild infraction. But Cabelas is just a pretext stop, like a license plate light out or not particularly inculpatory reasons such as "nervouusness" or "wearing a suit" or "profile" or even going 65 and conspicuously NOT breaking the speed limit, all of which have been used to justify probable cause in previous drug cases. It's like those profiling things that are so broad, everyone fits in to them. Walks fast, walks slow, pays cash, etc. And lest not forget that the big drug dog deal seems to, percentage wise, ensnare just more otherwise law abiding Americans who prefer the demonized, politically-incorrect cannabis in the concededly tired, over the top version of the perennial war on drugs. Some 735,000 hapless souls were ensared in the criminal justice system in the U.S. just last year for pot, setting yet another record. Cabellas will insure that the mills of justice will grind tens of thousands more as police and their K9 squads shoot more hapless fish in a barrel to make their quotas, while more serious crime is ignored. Like that Jam Criuse earlier this month in Jacksonville, where 12 people and including someone's well-regarded dentist from Kokomo can get dragged through the mud for wanting to have a little fun on vacation. And all of the kids who get harassed at a border point permanent checkpoint on I-87 southbound near Exit 29 in upstate NY (federal law allows customs and immigration police to operate freely within 100 mi. of an international border) by a drug dog permanently stationed there. The drug busts are turned over to the NY State Police at the checkpoint...and the County Public Defender's budget has also been busted and the courts clogged as a result. A sick punch line about priorities: there have been two spectacular crashes with a bus and a truck in which at least 4 people have died and many injured at that checkpoint, yet Homeland Security insists it will stay. Another sick punch line: the checkpoint is justified by 9/11 and the wah on terra, but did you know that according to this National Research Council report on K9 training, a dog can EITHER be trained to scent on drugs **or** explosives, BUT NOT BOTH! Don't believe me? Here's proof: K9 Units in Public Transportation: A Guide for Decision Makers, at p. 65 of 144.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#35)
    by Beck on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:27:47 PM EST
    It looks like you use wolf urine to train your dog where to pee. PredatorPee.com

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    I say we require SWAT teams strip search at gunpoint every person appearing in public to rid the world of all the druggies for the benefit of skybox's teenagers.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    Is there any requirement for something like continuing ed for judges? Jackl has an excellent point about real-world cluelessness. Maybe judges would benefit from guided tours of real people in real situations related to their decisions. Just like GHWBush not having a clue about the price of bread and milk when he was running to be president of all the people.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    blu that would keep our police from doing important things like being the eyes and ears in the war against Islamo-Fascism. people see comments like this and say better get far away from the left as possible. people on the right say that people on the left ,dont want change they want anarchy.At least you have defending druggies as your big issue in these troubled times.After you disable our brave police you can circulate a plan to disable our brave soldiers defending us from the vile throatcutters.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    Opening up yourself to a search of ANY KIND leaves you susceptible to them finding SOMETHING. There are scenario's where this could be bad, especially if your country is currently disregarding all forms of freedom and being run by a religious neo-fascist.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    Having grown up in the Deep South, I don't like this at all. The police have no business searching my vehicle unless I've done something illegal, and then I'll be watching them like a hawk, because I wouldn't doubt for a minute some rouge flatfoot would try to plant some evidence on me. Let me be fair, though. I've never had any problem with any law enforcement officer, regardless of where I was or what was happening. But, unfortunately, there is a legacy of police harrassment in the South. Among those who are willing to uphold the law are those who are willing to skew it for their own means. Pretty soon, they'll be searching my groceries to make sure I'm not buying pecan pies.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:06:12 PM EST
    Kindergarten law enforcement gone amuk. Inconvenience all of society (and waste a lot of money) because a few people can't handle their vices.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#42)
    by wishful on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:30:49 PM EST
    PeaNut says: those are the concerns of a rational caring citizen. need i continue??? Your comment is very condescending and insulting. I responded with the detaild circumstances that prompted my original comment. It is unfortunate that you see no need to either revise or recommit to your derision. That is a disappointment.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#43)
    by Doctor G on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    justpaul -- We already have stop-n-sniff roadblocks. I was driving north through New Mexico las year and the entire Interstate was being diverted past a police dog.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    It's not about drugs its about getting you use to control and use to being searched each time you walk out your door.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:59:28 PM EST
    "Posted by BocaJeff: "Tell that to Maine and Nebraska." Wow!! Don't forget POLAND. Too bad that has NOTHING to do with the SCOTUS violating the obvious intent of the Hayes-Tilden law, and the Constitution separation of powers' clause. "Second of all they aren't fake justices, just justices with whom you don't agree." No, they are justices who have disgraced the bench, themselves, and the United States. Funny that you think MY opinion is the issue. This is a matter of law...of the oath a judge takes. In a lesser case, that judge would be disbarred. A justice? The very name is Scalia's antithesis, from his own act. The oath our soldiers take does not include being sent to an unnecessary, illegal war, where they will be underequiped, and ridden into the ground by some of the worst civilian and military command in our nation's history. It DOES, however, contain the recognition that a free country like ours has INTERNAL enemies. And, no, not the nonviolent protesters who want justice (the application of the laws, and our Constitutional right to self-government). The internal enemy is those people who violate their own oaths to advance their corrupt political goals, including singularly the turning of the POTUS into an appointee. Our needless military deaths are on every single one of those five heads, and yours too. These justices might want to check the Constitution to see that our foreign policy is made in the Senate, not by the Executive, who contrary to Bush's ignorance or stupidity, is not to interpret the laws, or manufacture threats and wars, but to execute the will of the people. And after two stolen federal elections, the entire bench is at fault for not acting. 80% of US voters, it's said, entrust their vote without a paper trail. Those are illegal conditions for voting, and the SCOTUS is living in shame.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#46)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:16:55 AM EST
    Obviously, if someone changes lanes without signalling, they're on PCP.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:02:41 AM EST
    And what happens when the motorist turns out to be someone with a dog phobia? I knew someone who was attacked by a dog as a child and was so freaked by it he'd avoid people walking toy breeds. You think he wouldn't lose it if confronted with a big drug-sniffing dog sticking his schnozz in the guy's crotch? As the saying goes, America can be free - or drug free. It won't be both. This latest ruling provides even more foundation for that viewpoint.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 05:38:28 AM EST
    Why is it that these kinds of things are always argued on Fourth Amendment grounds (unreasonable search and seizure) and not Fifth Amendment grounds (cannot be forced to testify against oneself)? Granted, this particular situation with a dog sniffing around the car can be argued to not be requiring anything of the person stopped, but roadside sobriety tests and forced breathalyzer and blood tests on DUI suspects does seem to be requiring the defendant to prove they are not guilty of the offense. Can any of the lawyers explain?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:12:51 AM EST
    I am very concerned about high tech invasive searches that to my mind are 4th amendment violations. I continue to have hope that one of the branches of the government may right the foundering ship of state. We live in dark times.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:40:38 AM EST
    Justpaul, Interesting. The courts have already said blood/breath tests are minimally intrusive searches and once the cop has probable cause to believe a driver is intoxicated, like the dude can't walk, the test does not violate the 4th. (In CA and other states, you can refuse, but that in itself is an offense, I think, and results in suspension. Just as the AG is WI, Peg Lautenschlager.) Anyway, as you cleverly suggest, I know I saw case law where they argued the test violated the 5th right against self incrimination. This failed, I believe because the court determined a blood test is no more testimonial than, say, a fingerprint. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall this. So why not try this with a dog sniff? Well, it's no more testimonial than the blood test. But I'd give it a shot if I had the right case until someone says so. But there's another reason you'd want to attack the dog sniff on 4th, not 5th amendment grounds. If the sniff were a search that violated the 4th, all evidence arising from that violation would be suppressed -- i.e., the dope they found in the trunk. Which is really the only evidence the prosecution wants to get in. The cop will testify he searched the trunk and found dope, and whether he had probable cause is not relevant at trial, so there's no need for the cop to talk about the dog sniff. But the defense really wants to exclude the dope, not the sniff part. In a DUI, otoh, if the test and results were testimonial and excludable under the 5th, well, that would devastate the prosecution case. So I think that's why folks have argued the 5th in the DUI but not in dog sniff cases. For what it's worth.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:43:07 AM EST
    er, Just ask the AG in WI.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:23:50 AM EST
    sounds like a lot more druggies will be forced off the road by staying sober while driving or going to jail. Sounds like my teenagers who are new drivers will have alot of dangerous druggies off the road
    . What a dolt. Don't you realize that transporting something is not the same as using it. If you're driving home from the store with a six-pack, does that mean your drunk?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    Good, i like the idea of dogs sniffing, bc in my town the chances of catching a teen with drugs is pretty damn high, and the person driving the car usually is too. Hell, im in college and i drive, i wouldnt mind gettin pulled over and drug snifed, if its the law and the officer feels its necessary then im willing to let him. If it means some other person is gonna get caught by the dog at some point then its worth it. F**k drugs, F**k the people that do em, and F**k anyone that trys to keep em from being found

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:27:48 AM EST
    thank you paul.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#55)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:51:04 AM EST
    I hope Desperado is a non-drinking college student, because doing otherwise would, judging from his comments, be anatomically impossible.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#56)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    By the way, pot is not the drug you need to worry about drivers using. When they bring alcohol-sniffing dogs and arrest anyone with a beer anywhere in their car, then we'll talk. I wonder why conservatives don't support that idea...

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#58)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    I think it’s cute skybox thinks her teenagers wont be the ones getting high and driving around while in possession of drugs.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#59)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    Ummm, because possession of alcohol is, uh, legal.... Besides I don't want driver's who are high or drunk driving on the same roads as me or my family.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#60)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    Followup questions for conservatives: Has alcohol always been legal to possess? Has marijuana always been illegal to possess?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#61)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    As usual, I sure wish that one day Thomas Jefferson would get to talk to all the "right-wingers" who would have us believe that all laws were created for, and still serve, valid purposes. I'd sure he'd accept the notion that Congress, of all things, is infallible. Yeah...

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Scar, I think everyone is aware that alcohol was illegal at one time (in fact, it still is illegal to sell in many areas) and that marijuana, like cocaine, heroin, and just about every other "controlled" substance was once upon a time legal. Sadly, our three-martini-lunch legislators of both parties made many of these illegal and they have no intention of making them legal again anytime soon. It's hardly a conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat thing.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    Besides I don't want driver's who are high or drunk driving on the same roads as me or my family.
    I didn't know drug dogs have the ability to determine whether someone is intoxicated. Desperado, Does that include people who use Advil? Why do you hate the rights supposedly granted to all of us via the Bill of Rights?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    kdog Do you drive while high?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    You go, Desperado! While you're at it, why don't you waive your rights regarding cavity searches! I bet you'd have nooooo problem having some cop reach up your ass -- and everyone else's too -- because YOU don't want smoke grass, so noone should. yeah, yeah, I know. It's ILLEGAL. Just keep saying that like a robot, ignoring the fact that it's ILLEGAL because the skyboxes and desperados of the world want the government to dictate to everyone based upon their own values. They really really are good conservative republicans and want smaller, less controlling government. Except on this one little issue.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    Posted by skybox at January 24, 2005 06:00 PM At least you have defending druggies as your big issue in these troubled times.After you disable our brave police you can circulate a plan to disable our brave soldiers defending us from the vile throatcutters. Posted by Desperado at January 25, 2005 09:24 AM Good, i like the idea of dogs sniffing... dudes ya'll are way the f**K out there!!! Posted by wishful at January 24, 2005 07:30 PM PeaNut says: those are the concerns of a rational caring citizen. need i continue??? Your comment is very condescending and insulting. I responded with the detaild circumstances that prompted my original comment. It is unfortunate that you see no need to either revise or recommit to your derision. That is a disappointment. felt no need to. reread it this way Yes, those are the concerns of a caring citizen. Should I continue... as in adding further scenerios where this could occur. I would read that post as being in line/agreement with your original post.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#67)
    by wishful on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    PeaNut, I mistakenly took your comment for sarcasm. It's so hard for me to tell some times. I see that you were being straightforward. Sorry.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    et al - A disclaimer. I think this is a bad ruling. I always thought you need probable cause, and a judge agreeing with you before you can search. Now: kdog - As someone who doesn't care what people smoke or snort or shoot or drink, as long as they don't endanger others. And someone who has commented we need to rationalize our drug laws. Given the truly bad things that happen when caught with drugs, and given that everyone tells me marijuana is not addictive, so there is no complusion involved. Why do ADULT people mess with it? It's like playing in traffic. Do it long enough and bad things happen. (Note the "adult." With kids I can just put it down to "stupid things some kids do.")

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:29:54 PM EST
    I think some adults mess with pot in their pursuit of happiness. I can't see the harm in it. I would prefer that people drive sober, no car phones, near or under the speed limit, so don't get me started on public safety. MJ is almost certainly not the most dangerous element out there on I5 tonight. This is a terrible decision for a multitude of reasons, maybe the privacy issue foremost.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:05:10 AM EST
    CA - Okay, I think you said they enjoy getting high Given that mere possession will get you arrested and your life totally messed up, and if marijuanna is not addictive, why would a rational person mess with it? I don't understand the cost - benefit factor. Would it be more accurate to say that it is as addictive as alcohol? i.e. Some can use it with no addiction, and some will become potoholics?

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:30:33 AM EST
    Experts in the drug testing field overwhelmingly agree that 1) nobody has ever died from an overdose of marijuana and 2)people under the influence of marijuana tend to drive just fine. I'd rather have a stoned pothead on the road with me than a drunk. I know, references. It's early, I have to go teach class, but if anyone is interested I'll pull thme up for you.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:16:53 AM EST
    I once met a woman who trains drug-sniffing dogs for Heathrow airport. She said that anyone wanting to smuggle marijuana through Heathrow should hire a Rastafarian. The dogs alert on them, and produce so many false positives, that the cops have stopped searching them. Drug dogs are not 100% reliable, and false alerts are quite common. Anyone who doesn't object to this ruling, may change their mind after their care is dismantled by the police after a false alert. Dog Trainer in NY

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 08:09:13 AM EST
    Why do ADULT people mess with it?
    I can only answer for myself, I "mess with it" to relax, and to socialize and share a few laughs with friends. Though I haven't "messed with it" for over a week due to a possible new job which requires my urine for inspection prior to hire. God Bless Goldenseal.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:50:03 PM EST
    "Posted by Poker Player: Given that mere possession will get you arrested and your life totally messed up, and if marijuanna is not addictive, why would a rational person mess with it?" Inalienable rights remain so regardless of government repression. Free people express their freedom AS freedom, not by waving flags. "I don't understand the cost - benefit factor." Good point. You are ignorant. But even the ignorant can do the cost-benefit analysis of the war on drugs viz-a-viz marijuana. Millions of dollars spent warehousing otherwise productive members of society for a 'morality' violation that harms no one. "Would it be more accurate to say that it is as addictive as alcohol? i.e. Some can use it with no addiction, and some will become potoholics?" No, that would not be accurate in the slightest, as any relative of a struggling alcoholic knows all too well. Alcohol has SEVERE impacts on health (it destroys the liver, causes diabetes, damages the stomach, and is a primary cause of gout). NONE of that is true of marijuana. Alcohol is also highly addictive, producing strong biochemical need, and a habituation that requires larger and larger doses. Marijuana has no such dose-dependent relationship, and no such biochemical addiction. A lot of people are genetically inclined toward alcoholism. Some persons who use marijuana probably should not, since it does impact motivation in some individuals. But that is not genetic, it is behavioral. Someone who sits in a bar for four hours a night is also wasting a lot of time. But the marijuanero is only wasting time, while the alcoholic is killing themself.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    Although farm-grown golden seal is available, wildcrafted is much more common, and golden seal is an endangered plant thoughout most of its range. A prolific, cheaper, non-endangered substitute, Oregon Grape, is available in any health food store. Whether or not either plant confuses a urine test results, I do not know. But the basic chemistry is the same.

    Re: High Court Okays Vehicle Dog Searches (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    Why this ruling is wrong: 1) It totally disregards prior precedent. Remember, the reasonableness inquiry of investigative stops has two parts: 1) whether the stop was justified at its inception and 2) whether it was rationally related in scope to the reason for the initial stop. So for Mr Caballes, once the minor speeding infraction was taken care of, the stop should have ended right there. He was stopped for speeding, after all. It shouldnt matter if the drug dog is in the car or needs to be called in -because the reason for the stop had nothing to do with drugs. Therefore, the use of the dog fundamentally changes the nature of the stop from one of speeding - to a full blown drug investigation. This is all done without probable cause - which we know cops (who write reports after the drugs are found) know how to manufacture (he seemed nervous, there was an air freshner in the car,etc...)This ruling sucks on so many levels. Another example of how the war on drugs has eroded basic civil liberties - - despite what the court says- people do have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of their vehicles. We have ushered in a new era of the reversal of innocent until proven guilty -now its guilty until proven innocent. This fits perfect into the already pervasive and court sanctioned use of pretextual stops and searches. Do you think the cops will use dogs on old ladies? What about a college kid in a tie-dye? Or any mexican, black, etc...anywhere near a "low income area?" God this country needs help.

    Toronto Furnished Apartments

    Really surprised, many with questions and answers are all unique from each other.
    Oops! I would say first about myself. I am a senior travel consultant for Toronto Suites, a provider of luxury furnished apartments and extended stay suites in Toronto, Canada. His specialties include household moving and relocation for those seeking corporate housing or short term furnished apartment rentals.

    I think the matter is serious, Use of narcotics dogs is an appropriate means through which educators can ensure the safety of the students and provide a friendly educational environment. Furthermore, school officials' interest in providing security is synonymous to that used at airports to ensure that planes do not contain illegal contraband or explosive materials.23 Likewise, restraints are in place that will keep the school officials or police from overstepping their constitutional powers as is evidenced by the requirement that the police cannot tip off school officials to circumvent the probable cause requirement. Use of trained narcotics dogs is an appropriate means through which the school can protect students while affording them ample privacy in the dignity of their persons.

    Toronto Furnished Apartments