Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop

[Rose Siding]

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

In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous.
...
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned what she called the broadening of police search powers, saying the use of drug dogs will make routine traffic stops more "adversarial." She was joined in her dissent in part by Justice David H. Souter.

"Injecting such animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial and (in at least some cases) longer," she wrote.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-drug-dogs,0,4143074.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[MADem]

1. They tend to keep those dogs hungry

A kid who worked for me had a drug dog go into his backpack, and come out eating his sandwich, during a facility sweep. I required that the handler buy the kid lunch.

The police state is here...

[GiovanniC]

2. I'm So Old (25) That I Can Remember When There Was a Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. Yeah, that's dead now...

The supreme court has enthusiastically embraced the war on drugs, forfeiture laws, random searches, etc. The scary part will be when Gonzalez is confirmed to the court. I hope the dems fight that, I really do.

[happyslug]

93. The Fourth Amendment still exists

But remember it only prohibits "Unreasonable Searches and seizures" and in today's war on Terra, police ONLY conduct Reasonable Searches and Seizures. The new rule on the Fourth is if the Police do it is it Reasonable and thus NOT a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Do worry, that is the logic of this decision, sooner or later you will see a court decision basically saying that. The Bill of Rights will NOT ever be abolished, it will be re-defined into meaning nothing.

[bvar22]

101. The Fourth Amandment? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Didn't you get the memo?

Just like the Geneva Convention, the 4th is now "QUAINT" and no longer applies to anyone the bush*/republican government doesn't want it to apply to.

Terra!....Terra!...Terra!
Booga.. Booga... Booga!
The bad guys are gonna get ya!

[AuntiBush]

118. They Amended

all of the Amendments, and Re-ratified the old one, too.

Cya Freedom... :(

[Straight Shooter]

3. Can't wait to see the results of stopping someone with 3 dogs in the car.

All the dogs will go nuts, unless they are extremely well-trained.

For many other reasons, this is a very bad idea. They will need more dogs, they will train them faster, less efficiently, make more mistakes. And I also think it's cruel because many people are frightened of aggressive-appearing dogs, no matter what the circumstances. I'm reminded of the use of the military dogs at Abu Ghraib ...

I just wish high-level law enforcement would concentrate on the source of drugs coming into this country and the complex criminal network which is behind it, instead of the schmucks who end up as users or dealers.

[sweetheart]

83. hardly their intent

The police are there to shake down the poor person. The rich person
has alternate means of transport, is chaufferred, is in a heicopter
away from police invasion.

If they wanted to end the big drugs dealers, they need only legallize
it and then they will all be bankrupt overnight as legal suppliers will
be much much cheaper... and without a shot fired, or a citizen
imprisoned, the whole problem can be over in an instant.

Rather the police and the government are in bed with these big dealers
and that is why they keep the laws bent on attacking the regular
citizens. The complex cirminal network is in DC, your state capital
and your police force. The drugs dealers are just like mushrooms,
as there is a MASSIVE demand, and they are merely providing a public
service.... if you take one out, another will pop up in thier place.

All the faux-war on drug users is about is taking away peoples voting
rights, falsely criminalizing people and invading peoples privacy and
homes with an evil police state... but certainly not about ending
drugs addiction problems. Get your propaganda right. If they wanted
to end the big drug dealers, it can be done in a new york second, but
they really don't want to do that, and you should rather be asking
why? Perhaps the drugs warriors themselves are the sick insttutional
criminals... and in this regard, the public should be aware.

[jdj]

86. yes, this bothers me, I have my dogs in the car sometimes.

I have a dog who is somewhat slow. He is not stupid, it's like he has down sydrome and is a permanent child. He can't learn simple commands at all, and the few he knows he will only do occasionally. He was jumped on once in a dog park by two dogs, and unfortunately because of that incident now whenever he feels threated by another dog he growls and barks without at first trying to feel out the situation. This has put him at risk for aggression from other dogs more than once, including the time he snarled at a rottweiler mastiff mix that weighed over 200 pounds. He is just trying to protect himself, but doesn't know how to go through the process of "meeting" another dog, because I honestly beleive he thinks he is a person. When I used to take him to the dog park he would go sit on the bench with the people, he showed no interest whatsoever in playing with the other dogs.

I cringe to think about what could happen to him in this situation. It gives me more of an incentive to go out and get doggy seatbelts like I have been meaning to, and just hope police dogs are as highly trained as they are said to be.

[Lizzie Borden]

99. I think that could be really interesting.

I have a trained retired 'police' dog. He definately thinks the car is his property to guard.

[NuttyFluffers]

4. time to sprinkle black pepper all over the car?

:shrug:

not that i have anything to hide, i just hate being pushed around and denied my rights. poor search and seizure amendment, founding fathers would be appalled.

[TahitiNut]

6. Cayenne pepper.

GMTA.

[NuttyFluffers]

15. unfortunately it'll irritate skin too much.

black pepper is better. less skin irritant (i gotta sit in the car for hours, y'know), but still knocks a dog's nose out for a month. gets all inflamed and runny...

learned this trick from lakota woman book about the second wounded knee 'battle.' y'know the one where a gagillion feds descended upon it and a few walled up american indians during the 60s and the AIM movement's heyday. several amer. indian vietnam vets learned this trick and brought it back. you walk a pace, then take a piss, track into the piss (gets the dogs nice and excited. they start snorting deeply then), walk a bit, then put a nice big pile of black pepper into the latest track left with the shoe that stepped in piss. blam, dog's outta commission for a month. has sneezing fits for around a week. one of the major reasons that they lasted so long. they could get supplies in and out without too much tracking of the traffickers. feds started to get real pissed :evilgrin:

i just feel a schillings industrial sized black pepper bottle just spilling forth on my car floor coming... oh no, whatever shall i do?...

[Rush1184]

25. Learn somthing new every day!!!

What do they do when they find out about the pepper? Would that not arouse more suspicion?

[NuttyFluffers]

128. what would they say about pepper? grocery accident?

:7

though the searches involve outside the car, i think. it'd be hard to justify covering your wheel wells and bumpers in ground black pepper paste every few weeks. but who knows who'll wanna try? :evilgrin:

[immoderate]

156. The dog would be to polite to bring it up.

--IMM

[elehhhhna]

5. Cool! Abu Ghraib style dog-handling, coming soon to an

intersection near you!

[PaganPreacher]

7. "Drug Dog Sniffs Driver's Crotch, No Drugs Found."

Bound to happen....



The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[coyote]

8. This happened to me once.....

Driving into Indiana during a Phoenix to Boston move in a UHAUL. Pulled over doing 73 in a 65 and apparently weaving over the median. After doing a run on my registration, a second copper comes in his cruiser with a dog and asks me if he can smell the van. Being young and naive of my rights and having nothing to hide, I said sure.

Well after a couple of minutes, they tell me that the dog smells drugs in the van. So they toss me in the back of the cruiser and then search and walk all over my furniture and make a mess of my driving area. The dude comes back and says that perhaps the guy who helped me move the furniture on the van was smoking weed because the dog is never wrong. They gave me a warning and I was off.

I wonder how royally fucked I would have been had they found drugs....considering it was a UHAUL, who knows what previous customers had in the car.

After that experience, I told myself that I would never consent to a search again.

[mongo]

20. "the dog is never wrong"

Yeah, sure. The dog was probably picking up on clues from his handler that the handler wanted the dog to alert. The dogs get positive reinforcement for this behavior.

What a fucking load of crap. I just hope that I am never confronted by a police dog, because if I am attacked by a dog, it would be dead in a heartbeat - which is a felony.

[jdj]

87. I just saw a clip on some home video show of a police dog

biting a reporter in the face. They were doing a feature on police dogs, and the camera is rolling, the reporter kneels down beside the handler cop and goes to pet the police dog and wham! the dog jumps up and bites him, lower jaw connects with the guys cheekbone and the upper teeth dig in on the man's eyebrow.

The good thing is that these dogs cost thousands to train, so with Bush cutting money right and left they probably won't be able to afford many of them.

It's tragic the ones they have,the local girl scout troop has to raise money for them to have bullet proof vests, because the local police can't ever afford the.

I have to say, I am a HUGE fan of Popsicle the drug-sniffing super dog, the pit bull that was found in an abandoned freezer as a puppy after having been used as bait in pit-bull fights. He works border patrol, and he kicks ass.

[immoderate]

100. the dog is often wrong

I recall 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl did a piece on drug dogs. Apparently, a guy got off because examining the dog's record, they found he was only right 30% of the time. That's more like "improbable" cause. Evidence was excluded.

This decision reverses that.

--IMM

[rockedthevoteinMA]

108. Saw that one too... cannot find any info on it though.

Thanks IMModerate.

[prayin4rain]

9. What a nightmare this country is becoming. So sad. n/t

[tabasco]

11. Land Of The Free

What has happened to my country?!?

Searching with no reasonable suspicion. We have no rights.

[Rush1184]

36. Happened to me two summers ago...

not to mention the court upheld it as it is a small town, and the judges were all related to the police. The constitution does not mean shit to some people anymore. It seems the government only sees it as a hindrance to their work that criminals hide behind.

[fooj]

12. oh lovely...chalk it up to another SUPREME injustice!

Stand up, America! Let your voices be heard!

[rockedthevoteinMA]

13. Last year 60 Minutes (can't remember if it was regular or 2)

did a special on how the drug sniffing dogs are extremely inaccurate. They stated the certification process for them is completely unreliable. How wonderful to know that The SCOTUS decided to rule in favor of this. :eyes:

[NashVegas]

16. Notorious Old R & R Legend

About the Rolling Stones. I think it was Bull Wyman. Supposedly they were going through customs somewhere in the Caribbean, and one of the members put a box of Milk-Bones in his luggage as a joke. Doggies went nuts tearing the bag apart.

[yellowcanine]

23. Had a friend who was going through customs on the Mexican border with a

baby. She tried to warn the agent not to stick his bare hand into the bag with the dirty diapers (dark ages of cloth diapers) but when he persisted, she thought, "Oh, what the heck - it's his problem." Heh.

[KareBear]

14. You want scary? Read these reactions...

Ok, I posted this article clip on a popular Track/Street Racing forum. You'd think the people that would be most liberal on things would be people who street race right? Wrong. Listen to the voices of the youth of America here. The last comment is the scariest of them all.

"i dont have weed/coke in my car so i have no need to be scared of some dogs sniffing my car, unless they try to get to my slim jims"

"well, if you're not doing anything wrong, I mean really not doing anything wrong... then most likely you'll never even notice it... I've said for the longest time, that they need to do sobriety checks EVERY! weekend, on the normal roads <clip>

So IMO if you're not doin anything wrong what's a matter with a dog sniffing around the outside of your car...."

"I think its a good idea. Maybe it will cause less people to do drugs while driving, OH NO"

"You have no expectation of privacy while in a public area. Amendment four does not apply. Sorry"

"hasn't that happened to black people since forever.?

ok seriously... I can't foresee cops pulling EVERYONE out of their cars and having the dogs sniff them, seems like way to much work imo... but I'm sure they would have the dogs walk around the car and if the dog sniffed something then they would be pulled out, but then the cop would have cause to...

I think people flip out a little too easy about My right this my right that... This country lets people get away with, and encourages people to do things that a majority of other countries get down on.

Personally anyone that thinks they might have their rights infringed on here, needs to move to china for a year or so....

I mean god damn where else in the world can some white trash inbred corn cob smokin guy from such a backwoods state as arkansas grow up to be president.."

"98.9 percent of police do their job within the letter of the law, it's the 1.1 percent that liberal fucks, jump all over as being brutal, or using their badge as a shield against the law, or some of bs.. the problem with what libbies do is they generally take those types of things too far, and then the 98.9 percent of cops that are legit, get an even worse name... and it's just a downward spirial till laws like this have to come about....

me'h... I've read it in here before... but if someone doesn't like this country,... I got 10 bucks on a train ticket for ya.."

"Cops can search with a dog now if they have probable cause, but you gotta wait while the K-9 unit comes around. Not EVERY frickin cop is gonna have a German Shepherd in the back seat, just waiting to search your car beecause you have a fartcan. It isn't going to be any different than it is now."

"People bitch and complain about rights being violated etc. Hell, half the reason the OK city bombing happened, and 9/11 happened is because we didnt voilate peoples rights enough. Those 10 rights were written hundreds of years ago. Times change."

[KareBear]

17. Can't believe noone found these as shocking as I did...

[phusion]

56. I did. Oh my god!

:cry:

[Straight Shooter]

18. These are the first people to yell when THEIR rights are violated

I wonder if they have a problem with Oxy Rush and his assistance by the ACLU on his claim that his medical records are private, irrespective that he's committed several felonies.

And, you notice, they still bring up Clinton? What an obsessive compulsive bunch. And the name-calling, too, it must be part of their genetic make-up. As the bumper sticker says: Stupid people should not breed.

[KareBear]

19. Yah I thought the Clinton rip was funny when..

all I did was post about the loss of rights.

Me- "We're loosing rights!"
Them- "umm, umm, CLINTON GOT A BJ! DON'T FORGET THAT!"

[Rush1184]

37. speechless...

excuses me while I bang my head against somthing hard.

[shanti]

66. racial profiling redux

:-(

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

146. Did that last person get a DU account? (nt)

[Southern Dem 2005]

21. Seems ok to me

I don't see the problem. First, if you get pulled over you were likely doing something wrong (racial profiling is a different discussion). So, assuming you were pulled over for a valid reason, what is wrong with allowing a drug sniffing dog to "search" the car? What kind of privacy right is being violated? Other than righteous indignation, can anyone tell me why they oppose this ruling (in concrete terms)?

[yellowcanine]

22. A little thing in the constitution called "due process" that's all.

[Southern Dem 2005]

26. Wrong

This decision has nothing to do with "due process," which is a 5th Amendment concept. This decision is about right to privacy and unreasonable serches and seizures under the 4th Amendment. Additionally, even if it does relate to due process, how does such a search violate due process? The only way this decision arguably violates due process is that a search by a drug-sniffing dog might indicate a presumption of guilt. However, I don't think this is the case.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. You seem to know the Constitution enough.

You're correct, it's the 4th Amendment rather than the 5th. Which makes you thinking this is OK all the more baffling.

[Southern Dem 2005]

31. I simply don't think it is that big of an issue

While I don't want drug sniffing dogs searching my car I (1) don't have drugs in my car so even if they searched they won't find anything and (2) the intrusion seems pretty minimal and no one has made an argument that it isn't.

[wuushew]

33. when do you think the 4th amendment applies?

listening to NPR a quote from the ruling said something like "there is no right to privacy where drugs are concerned". Isn't this the purpose in of itself of the 4th? The police can't go looking for other crimes other than what are self-evident?

Your logic seems to be if searches bother you don't pocess drugs. My problem is that type of thinking puts us on the slippery slope to Patriot Act II,III, IV. Never trust law enforcement, they love to pull people over especially in the pursuit of revenue generation which is used as a substitution for public funding.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. Do you know what "probable cause" is?

In a nutshell: No reasonable grounds for suspicion, no right to search.

[Southern Dem 2005]

43. True

but the search doesn't implicate "due process," because there is no constitutional violation taking place. The only thing that will be revealed by a search by a drug sniffing dog is the existence or absence of illegal drugs in your car. It doesn't reveal anything else about you. How can you have a privacy interest in possessing illegal drugs?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. You just said you disagree with "probable cause".

And therefore with the Constitution (4th Am). Just like the judges. You're in good company. NOT.

And no,m I don't have a privacy interest in possessing illegal drugs. I have a privacy interest in PRIVACY, period.

"there is no constitutional violation taking place. The only thing that will be revealed by a search by a drug sniffing dog is the existence or absence of illegal drugs in your car. It doesn't reveal anything else about you."

Do I laugh or cry?

[Southern Dem 2005]

57. Your individual privacy interest only goes so far

but that aside, what about this search is "unreasonable?" I don't think I said anything about probable cause. The case definitely did NOT say the police could search without probable cause. The case seems to indicate that if the police pull you over for breaking the law part of that process can include a dog search.

[Qutzupalotl]

112. It's a search. Without cause.

That's unreasonable.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line?

[Warren Stupidity]

114. actually the case does indeed go straight to 'probable cause'

The ruling is yet another example of the bizarro world the United States has entered into:

Stevens said Caballes did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy for contraband in the trunk of his car. He said that was different from the expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private.

So basically Justice Stevens is saying that the 4th doesn't apply if its violation uncovers evidence of a crime. OK. Scratch the 4th. What's left?

[Horse with no Name]

42. You said that the dogs won't find "anything"

Small question.
Do you carry money in your wallet?
Are you aware of money's "other" uses...ie being rolled up to snort cocaine, etc?
Do you feel that there aren't traces of that on your hands or clothes when you handle money?
Do you go to the grocery store?
Do you carry grocery bags in your car to get them home?
How do you know that the kid carrying out your groceries isn't a meth cook and have residual all over his hands when he handles your stuff?
If you have children--are you 100% certain they or their friends aren't doing drugs and didn't leave something behind in your car?
Do you lock your car door every single time you get out? Can you be certain that someone didn't slip something under your seat for a joke?
This gives "probable cause" and could ultimately put you on some type of government watch list if these things are detected in your car and it is not far fetched to think that they might.
There are people in our prison system who are innocent--not just the ones trying to beat raps--but completely innocent and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Can you be 100% certain that someone matching your description wasn't being targeted as a drug lord--then they pull you over and find traces of drugs?
Personally--I would rather it never be allowed to get that far.
Random drug searches using dogs should not be allowed to happen and yes they can infringe on our constitutional rights.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

45. good list HWNN

One more Southern Dem 2005 - Do you buy your cars brand new? Or do you buy them used? How do you know whomever owned it prior to you didn't have drugs in it? :shrug:

[Southern Dem 2005]

55. Look, you can't make up a list of worst-case scenarios

to support your argument. This type of argument can be made for every law in existence. Everything on this list is pretty far-fetched and even if they occurred would likely be cleared up pretty quickly. What about random searches at airports? Those are similar to the dog searches. Are those ok? There is the possibility that they will discover some of the same things in your list.

[Horse with no Name]

91. To be honest with you--yes

Most of these things might be able to be cleared up with a few thousand bucks and a few headaches, but hey who cares?
You cannot compare a search at an airport or any other public place with this invasion of privacy. It is apples and oranges. You do not have the expectation of privacy in an airport. Everyone knows that.
But you do have the expectation of privacy in your home and car.
You have to understand the greatest threat isn't the threat of someone searching your car. It is the premise that they do it on.
What is the next step? Our homes?
If you stand down from small injustices it just creates an easier path for larger injustices and then pretty soon our complete illusion of privacy is over.
That's why you fight for these types of privacy invasions.

[4_Legs_Good]

61. How, though is this different from driving through neighborhoods

with smell-o-scopes to detect houses with Marijuana fumes?

I definitely smell police state. If this is how we want to end marijuana use in the USA, then it'll probably work, but you know I'd prefer to end the reign of rampaging cowboys slaughering 100,000's of Iraqis with my tax $.

david

[CTLawGuy]

153. I'm guessing..

Southern Dem, that you are not a black or latino/a person....

[yellowcanine]

35. Part of "due process" is "probable cause" before there is a search

Using a dog constitutes a search. A person has a reasonable expectation that his privacy will not be invaded by being sniffed by a dog when he is in his car on the highway (the fact that he has been stopped for speeding is irrelevant - the act of speeding does not create reasonable suspicion that there are illegal drugs in the car - most people who are stopped for speeding are not carrying illegal drugs). If the police officer smells or sees drugs or drug paraphenelia - that is different - he then has probable cause to conduct a full search - with or without the consent of the driver or passengers. By your interpretation anybody who is stopped for any reason (even a burnt out taillight) could be subject to having their car searched by a police officer. That clearly is unconstitutional.

[bvar22]

47. How about unlawful detainment...

...while waiting 45 mins for the fucking dog to trash my car?

Maybe I just don't want dog snot on my seats????
I have broken no laws!

If you don't think that this type of ruling represents a growing encroachment of citizen's rights, and a slow but steady movement toward a Police State, you have a short (or maybe selective) memory.

[Southern Dem 2005]

60. Did you read the decision?

This case does NOT allow dogs to search inside your car--it allows searches outside the car. The decision also said the search has to be conducted within the reasonable time frame of any traffic stop.

In this case, the stop and search took approximately 10 minutes. The Court said "A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained."

[bvar22]

68. If I'm 10 minutes late for work, I can lose my job!

10 minutes spent for nothing more than the whim of a cop who may be having a bad day is "too gaddamed much", and absolutely threatens my RIGHT to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...".

There are MANY times I don't have 10 minutes (very low ball) to waste on the police without suffering a loss in my personal life! Especially IF I HAVE BROKEN NO LAWS!!!!!

[Southern Dem 2005]

71. YOU...ARE...MISSING...THE...POINT

the police CANNOT pull you over UNLESS you have already broken some law. If they pull you over for breaking a law THEN they can use the dog to search the OUTSIDE of your car SO LONG AS they can do so in the same amount of time it takes for a "normal" traffic stop.

[bvar22]

90. "UNLESS you have already broken some law.."

"the police CANNOT pull you over UNLESS you have already broken some law."

LOL
Yeah...Right
on planet Donald Duck!!

It is you who are soooo missing the point!

[Southern Dem 2005]

95. The point of this discussion isn't

abuse of police power, its about whether this ruling is acceptable. If you want to discuss abuse of police power then we can do so.

[bvar22]

97. No thank you.

The MORE power there is to abuse, the MORE it will be abused!

Trust me!

[Horse with no Name]

94. Something really bothers me

You "claim" you are from Georgia.
The South has the worst reputation (rightfully so)for Rambo cops that are crooked, yet your posts reflect much differently than the reality of the South. Makes me suspicious, but however, let me go on.
I wonder if you have ever driven through Lousiana?
Do you know proper etiquette while driving in rural Lousiana with out of state tags is to carry large sums of cash with you so WHEN they stop you--you aren't detained very long?
I've been pulled over for the light burnt out over my license plate (that wasn't), flashing high beams on a dark road to someone who was blinding me (it was a cop with high beams on), no front license plate, etc etc. And yet in 42 years I have never had a moving violation. I drive over 50,000 miles a year and let me tell you--if they want to stop you they will--with or without cause.

[Southern Dem 2005]

96. I agree that they will stop you if they want to

but that doesn't change the whether this law is valid or not. And yes, I do live in Georgia, and I have lived in North Carolina, Virginia, Montana, and California as well. While I have met some asshole cops I have never met one who was crooked (or acted crooked when he pulled me over). I have driven through Louisiana without problem.

[tabasco]

124. Riiiiiight.

Yep, those cops sure are friendly good ol' boys. I sure enjoy chatting with them when they pull me over. Got any more fairy tales for us?

No reasonable suspicion to conduct a dog search at the exterior of your vehicle. This is a search without ANY cause. Burn the Constitution. It's worthless thanks to the utter failure "war on drugs" and idiots that don't have a clue how freedoms are gradually reduced until they are gone.

Do you know how an officer tells that a dog is alerting? It is very subjective and - in a court of law - would come down to the officer's word against the defendant (whether the dog alerted or not). In other words, they can search your car for any traffic stop with a dog "alert." But that's ok with you.

I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of the law like OxyRush. You may learn the value of civil liberties.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

141. I doubt they do that to fat white middle-aged males driving SUVs

covered in W04 stickers. If you catch my drift.

[immoderate]

102. Not true.

Police can use many excuses to pull you over. Not all illegal, however there are so many laws they can usually find cover. For example some states had laws reqiring both hands on the steering wheel.

--IMM

[Nevilledog]

111. You are oh so wrong.

Your beliefs about the system are not based on the truth, they are based on an idealized reality. How do I know? I've been an attorney specializing in criminal defense for 15 years. You are supposing that police officers always tell the truth. Hate to burst your bubble, but that's not true.

There are many reasons police officers do not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but these are the ones I see most often: 1) They have a superiority complex and they believe they alone are qualified to be judge and jury. If they think you're guilty they will only follow up on things that support your guilt, while ignoring or dismissing facts that support the contrary, 2) The good old CYA excuse. They lie to cover their mistakes... something they didn't do right, or didn't do at all. I think this is the most common. What has always bothered me the most is seeing the young officers being taught that it's okay to blur the lines, or fudge certain facts so long as you're following your gut. Screw their guts. How about looking at the facts.... oh, but I digress.

You're also supposing that the police somehow are able to see the public at large as innocent until proven guilty... that's also a myth. You probably fall in that large group of people who think "the police don't arrest innocent people."

I have had a significant number of cases involving improper conduct on behalf of numerous law enforcement agencies and their search procedures. As someone mentioned above, police dogs are not infallible, and in fact some (certainly wouldn't generalize and say all) are trained or handled in a way to give false positives in order to give a police officer PROBABLE CAUSE so they can justify getting their mitts on your property.

Many people base their acquiescence to police infringement on a purely selfish rationale, i.e. I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I care how people who ARE doing something wrong are treated? That is so short-sighted, and dangerous. What you don't hear enough about are the people who are pulled over, detained, subjected to terror, embarrassment, inconvenience, because the police are on a fishing trip trying to find wrong-doing. When they don't, they say, "Whoops!", but they won't apologize. You think that's okay?

Here's the sad part though... people don't care about their rights until they're in a position to try and fight for them. Everyone hates attorneys until they need one. Nobody thinks that cops would lie, until they're personally subjected to it. Nobody gets it until it affects them personally. And most importantly... waiting until YOU need to assert your rights is too late.... nobody gives a shit what you have to say then, because after all, the police don't arrest innocent people.

[tabasco]

125. I'm a lawyer too.

I don't do criminal anymore, but I have seen police lie in court many times.

[Nevilledog]

126. Society wears blinders when it comes to police

I've tried cases in big cities (Phoenix) and more rural areas (Prescott) and juries in cities are much more cynical about police, but not immune. In the rural area the average age of a juror is about 60, white, retired. In 12 years in Prescott I've had ONE, count em... ONE minority on a jury.

[Southern Dem 2005]

135. Well

actually, I'm a lawyer too, and I've worked in public defender offices in Virgina. And while there are cops who lie (just like every other profession) I never thought that it was a problem with a large majority of them. Additionally, most of the people we dealt with in the public defenders office would admit they were guilty. The majority of them weren't being railroaded.

[PA Democrat]

150. I have some swamp land I'd like to sell you n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

27. What kind of right?

How about the Fourth Amendment? Remember that one? It is from the "Bill of RIGHTS" from a document called the CONSTITUTION.

I personally know a friend who has been pulled over and let the drug dogs into his car thinking they had nothing to hide. The cops and the dogs proceeded to tear out all the upholstery and stuffing out of the car's seats, essentially ruining my friend's car. They then informed him that he had no drugs and he was free to go. The cops then sped off into the night, leaving my friend with a ruined car in the middle of the interstate.

I certainly hope something like this happens to you on your short back to Freeperland.

Actually, I would prefer that the cops burst into your house in the middle of the night and hold you and your family hostage on the front lawn while your house is ransacked, and the police take what they feel like.

You surely won't have a problem with that, will you? Seeing as how you have nothing to hide?

[Southern Dem 2005]

29. Wrong again

While I sympathize with your friends plight (although I find it hard to believe), it doesn't change the fact that this is a well-reasoned decision written by Justice Stevens, probably the most liberal member of the Court. And like the others, you don't indicate HOW this decision violates the 4th Amendment. Oh, I appreciate you wishing ill on my family. That promotes well-reasoned disagreements.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

44. It is "unreasonable search and seizure"

which is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Or do you consider it "reasonable" that you can now be stopped, detained, and searched by animals if you're going a mile or two over the limit?

I don't care how "liberal" Stevens is, it is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. It does not uphold the spirit of the law or the founding fathers' intentions. That amendment was specifically included to prevent the police/military from stopping and harassing people going about their business and from searching and ransacking their property. Isn't this what the police have just been given the power to do?

And as for as your disbelief of my friend's story: I find it hard to believe that Bush won a second term, but he apparently did.

[Southern Dem 2005]

48. much better argument

[Tyrone Slothrop]

46. Wishing ill on your family?

I thought that this sort of thing was okay since you have nothing to hide?

I said nothing about physical harm to your family.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. HA! I wish I would have written that!

:yourock:

[bvar22]

62. Touche'

Brilliant stroke. Absolutely FATAL.
Executed with precision and elegance.

You, sir, have my respect!

[PA Democrat]

151. You find it hard to believe

or it doesn't fit your misguided perception of reality? My SO has practiced criminal law for over 20 years and it is much more common than you would think.

[jdj]

92. well, we just did this in my torts class.

The govt is liable for what officers and investigators do, so your friend should have brought a suit.

This is why you pay attention and get badge numbers. In any event, he could have called the precinct, and found out pretty easily who the officers were. An attorney could have gotten him some remedy.

[geniph]

64. Two words:

"slippery slope."

First it's okay to give you a piss test at work. Then it's okay to have drug dogs sniff your bags at the airport. Kids' lockers at schools are subject to unscheduled search and seizure. Then the drug dogs can sniff your car. What's next - not being able to keep them out of your home? Being considered guilty before proven innocent?

Some see us as alarmists, yes, but I see this as allowing the camel's head in the tent. Pretty soon, you're gonna have a whole camel in there and not be able to figure out how the hell to get it out again. And for what? This miserable, stupid, Puritanically brain-dead idea that you can and should stop people from getting high.

I'm all for the officers making judgements as to whether or not drivers are impaired by the use of drugs or alcohol. However, if they have a joint in their backpack, and their driving is not impaired, seriously, WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[sweetheart]

75. And what if i've got some of my personal stash with me?

Say i'm off to the cinema, and plan to smoke my doobie before heading
in to enjoy a film with some popcorn... and some cop pulls me over.

If its a traffic concern, then fine, let it be a traffic law... but
this is all a bit out of line. I'm no criminal, and the police are just
being invasive with something that is none of their business.

I don't know what these dogs do, so i can't speak to whether they
sniff out small quantities or are only bent on large amounts.

The funniest i once had, was a cop had pulled me over, searched my car
and found a sandwich baggie in the back seat with bread crumbs in it..
and he told his partner "AHHAA!" druugs... and the two of them were
sniffing my bread crumbs. They looked really stupid.

Frankly, i've my dogs in the back of the car most of the time, so this
sort of thing will only lead to my dog pack getting really really
excited and barking at the other dog... so i'll be busy trying to calm
the pack.

[PA Democrat]

144. So only "guilty" people get pulled over by police?

Think again. I got pulled over because my registration sticker on my license plate had expired. I had valid and entirely legal temporary registration paperwork, but just hadn't received the sticker yet. What crime had I committed? What if there was drug residue inside the car from the former owner?

[PA Democrat]

149. What kind of "privacy" is being violated?

Please tell me you are kidding. Let me tell you exactly HOW your privacy and much more can be violated with a true story.

The son of a family friend, we'll call him Joe, offered a ride home to a coworker. Joe was white and his coworker was black and lived in a neighborhood where there was a lot of drug trafficking. Undercover cops were involved in some type of sting operation and saw a white guy in a car handing something to a black guy in a black neighborhood (it was a box of baked goods the guy was taking home to his family).

Joe was dragged out of the car at gunpoint, had his head slammed into the hood of his car so hard that it left a huge dent and Joe was injured in the process. The cops sliced open the upholstery, and totally destroyed the interior of his car. They even broke Joe's son's toys looking for drugs. Joe and his buddy were both physically searched and were completely clean. No drugs were found in the car, on these 2 guys. None , zip, nada.

So you wouldn't object to an over-zealous cop doing this to you? Even though, OOPS! the dog was wrong?

[superconnected]

24. I have a huge problem with this

They add more and more police state methods because of people who don't see a problem with it.

[Southern Dem 2005]

28. Please explain!

How is this a "police state method?" If someone would make a reasoned argument stating why this is a bad decision I might be convinced. However, saying something is a "police state method" or that it "violates due process" is simply a conclusory assertion with no supporting arguments or facts. First, what is a "police state method?" This is why liberals lose arguments. You can't just throw around nice sounding phrases without supporting your argument. How does this decision violate due process, institute police state methods, limit your individual rights, etc? As far as I can determine this decision allows cops to identify and arrest drug traffickers/users with minimal interference.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

39. So you view the war on drugs as successful?

n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. A dog is an artificial extension of senses, like an X-Ray google.

From your reasoning, any kind of device that allows detection of illegal activities from the outside is a-OK. It is?

You still haven't answered WHERE the 4th amendment would apply.

[phrenzy]

78. delete

[rockedthevoteinMA]

41. This is a bad decision because

1. It is a VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2. The drug sniffing dogs have a VERY sketchy certification process - a large percentage of them are found to be incapable of doing their jobs correctly.

3. Perhaps this does help cops to identify and arrest drug traffickers, but at the same time, they don't need a reason to pull me over, search my car. So what if I don't have any drugs? Haven't you ever heard of corrupt police officers? We have plenty where I live.

[Southern Dem 2005]

51. Good argument as well

I agree that there are plenty of corrupt police officers. However, this doesn't mean we need to hamstring the "good" police officers and prevent them from doing what they are supposed to do. I'm not that familiar with the certification for drug sniffing dogs so I'll have to take you at your word. As far as pulling you over, in the case the cops pulled the guy over because he was speeding and searched his car because he was acting "nervous." While this seems like a sketchy reason it is at least "a reason." This decision means that if the cops have a reason to pull you over then it looks like they can search the EXTERIOR of your car using a drug sniffing dog. They would still need a reason (or your permission) to go inside your car and they still need a reason to pull you over in the first place.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

53. The unsaid thing:

However, this doesn't mean we need to hamstring the "good" police officers and prevent them from doing what they are supposed to do... with that archaic, useless "Bill of Rights" thing. What's wrong with a police state? I want security! Freedom be damned!

[ninkasi]

80. More erosion of our civil rights

Too many innocent people have been imprisoned by this lunatic "war on drugs", and this is just another example. Remember Tulia, Tx, what happened when laws are relaxed and the police are free to manufacture evidence?

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002304.html

Texas prosecutors today agreed to throw out the convictions of 38 people, nearly all of them black, who faced drug charges based on the uncorroborated testimony of a former white undercover police officer.



In a stunning reversal, the state agreed with defense lawyers that the former officer, Thomas Coleman, was an unreliable witness even though his testimony was the only evidence used to convict the defendants, some of whom are serving sentences of 90 years or more.

Asked if the convictions represented a travesty of justice, the state's special prosecutor, Rod Hobson, hesitated a moment and then said, "Yes."

I wonder if the people who have served time for crimes they didn't do would agree that "if you haven't done anything wrong, there's nothing to be afraid of?"

edited to add link

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. More unsaid things...

"If you haven't done anything wrong, there's nothing to be afraid of..." if you're white and affluent, which I am, and if you're not, tough shit.

[lyonn]

158. end justifies the means, really?

How long have you been an attorney? You have an awfully unrealistic view of cops, their possible motives to say nothing of giving one the right to search at their discretion. Where are the citizen's rights? You violating a traffic law shouldn't subject you to a search without reason to believe you have drugs. Here's a silly thought, but, if that's a good law then all cops should have a dog at all times. Let's search all stops with dogs. Not just the ones that don't look right, etc. I'm not saying all cops are bad or even many of them. Hey, they are ordinary people that have to deal with some bad situations. They just don't need that kind of power. My son was a cop for about 5 years. He had some stories. My husbands and old attorney and when our son would ask him the law on certain situations our son said many times said that wasn't the rules the dept. went by. Hey, it just life, we do need rules, to protect the innocent.

[superconnected]

52. yeah, you didn't sound like a liberal.

I'm not guilty until proven innocent. This is another way of checking me.

I don't do drugs, but I still do not want a dog sniffing me or my car.
If it sniffs me in the wrong place, animal lover as I am, I'm going to clock the dog.

In spring I'm allergic to dogs and cats because of some grasses they get into. Is that medical enough for you.

But really, if you don't have a problem with added searches, how liberal are you?

[Southern Dem 2005]

67. I would have a problem with added searches

if they violated my rights. However, how does a dog sniffing around the OUTSIDE of my car while a cop writes me a ticket violate any rights or even inconvenience me? I'm liberal on just about everything but it doesn't mean I automatically reject all police practices.

[FredScuttle]

98. "I'm liberal on just about everything"???

Is that why you posted above "This is why liberals lose arguments", my fellow "liberal"?

[Warren Stupidity]

115. indeed

so far southern democrat2005 appears to be a liberal on just about nothing. 35 posts ain't much to go by, and I'm not exactly an old timer either, but I wonder exactly what positions sd holds that are liberal or progressive?

[chiburb]

119. You don't have to be an "old-timer"...

Your Spidey-Sense is probably tingling for a reason. Trust it.

[Southern Dem 2005]

133. Do you have a point to make?

[superconnected]

58. .

gee southerndem 2005 went from 17 posts to 26 in only a few minutes.

He seems to be posting madly...

Is it to get his posts up?

[Southern Dem 2005]

63. No,

Its because this is an interesting subject, unlike most of the conspiracy theory stuff people post.

[immoderate]

105. Look at the big picture.

There are those in government that want control. There are those who want to allow freedom.

Liberal types are a lot more likely to smoke pot. That is why we have this crazy drug prohibition that really got life in the Nixon administration. Millions are in jail because of pot and I bet most of them are not Republicans.

It's easy to see that all this drug shit works against liberals.

--IMM

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

138. Now you made him happy! (nt)

[yinkaafrica]

54. What if you suffer from dog phobia (cynophobia )?

I know cynophobics who are seized by a panic death grip
over an approaching Chihuahua.
What happens when you freak out because this big fuckin'
dog has you 'trapped' in your car?
This is fucked up.

[4_Legs_Good]

59. Gah! I actually thought we'd win this one.

Wow, did Stvens write the opinion too?

Oh dear!

david

[phusion]

65. This is devastating...

Look how far we have come. How sad...

Imagine "drug checkpoints", set up much like DWI checkpoints (or in my city, insurance checkpoints), where cops have roadblocks setup with a half dozen dogs screening motorists. Why not? They no longer need a reason...

Check the post above about responses from a car racing web board. You'll see why our country is heading this way. It's a drastic change in our national mindset and it's destined to destroy our Constitution.

:cry:

[Southern Dem 2005]

69. Actually, they do need a reason

The decision said the cops must have a reason to pull you over in the first place. Also, Supreme Court already said that drug checkpoints are illegal in the case City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000).

[phusion]

76. No.

They have a reason to write you a ticket for speeding. They have no REASON to search your car for drugs.

When they start searching your person for jaywalking, maybe you'll get it.

[jayfish]

103. How About Spitting On The Sidewalk?

Is that a good enough reason to release the hounds? How about a person who doesn't shovel off their sidewalk (a CI where I live)? Should the police be able to walk their dogs around that persons house and then search based on the dog alerting? You really are missing the big picture here.

Jay

EDIT: Sorry phusion, I did not see that you already covered jaywalking.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. actually the decision does not require

that the police stop you. They could for example walk their drug sniffer down the sidewalk past parked cars, or inside a parking lot, and proceed to use the dog alert as probable cause for a search.

This also opens the door to all sorts of other 'non-intrusive' intrusions, it need not be a dog. There is lots of high tech gear out there that can look inside your house, listen to your conversations, etc. none of it covered by wiretap laws, and all of it available to the police. But I suppose as long as the information gathered through these techniques is only used against people that they catch committing crimes, no harm done, eh?

When the police collect information about you, any information, it goes into a record, a file, a dossier. Even if it is not used directly against you in a criminal proceeding, it becomes part of their database. You okay with that too?

[Xithras]

70. What, exactly, is the problem with this?

Aside from kneejerk antigovernment reactions, that is?

The fourth amendment to the constitution states that persons shall be secure "against unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not prohibit the police from doing searches, but limits their scope. When getting pulled over by the police, for example, they do not have the right to tear your car apart to search it for drugs, but they DO have the right to look through the windows and potentially arrest you if there are drugs or drug paraphenalia visible. Why? Because when you're in public and place things behind clear glass, they are considered to be "readily visible" and you cannot prove a reasonable expectation of privacy. Without a privacy violation, the search will never be deemed unreasonable.

Your smell is much the same way. A police officer is free to take a whiff of a driver to smell for alcohol or marijuana because those odors are willingly being given off in a public place and are drifting away from the detainee, so one cannot reasonably call them "private".

This drug sniffing dog ruling is simply an extension of that last example, only instead of using a human nose, you're using an animals nose. It's still picking up the same thing...the odors of chemicals wafting off of a person or vehicle into an open public space. There should be no expectation of privacy in public, and I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that one SHOULD exist.

If the ruling said that the dog could enter the vehicle or stick its head beneath the detainees clothing, then we could argue that privacy had been breached and an unreasonable search had taken place, but I see nothing in either the ruling or the article that indicates this to be the case.

[Southern Dem 2005]

72. Glad somebody agrees. And a well-reasoned argument as well.

[sendero]

73. I don't know about you..

.... but I don't want to be arrested because a dog decides to bark.

The whole problem here is not the outside search, it is the search by an animal that can be trained to do anything the police want it to do.

Capiche?

[Southern Dem 2005]

74. I don't get your point

are you saying that since these dogs could be trained to falsely identify cars as possessing drugs that it shouldn't be allowed? If so, that sounds kind of paranoid to me. It assumes all the police forces across the nation are out convict innocent people.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

77. The dogs get shady certifications...

"“There is a question whether all dogs are equal,” Justice R. Fred Lewis said.

The case is the latest in a series of challenges to drug-sniffing dogs, which are used increasingly in law enforcement and border controls.

There are no national standards by which to judge canine competence. The U.S. Customs Services, for example, requires 100 percent accuracy to certify dogs for agency use. Other groups, including the U.S. Police Canine Association, require a 70 percent accuracy rating for certification.

“This is not a game,” said Justice Harry Anstead. “This is about the state invading someone else’s privacy.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6818759/

Would you like to get that dog that's only 70% accurate?

[Xithras]

81. That's actually more accurate than a human nose.

Are you saying that police officers shouldn't be able to detain drivers who reek of alcohol because their noses might be smelling incorrectly?

Look, we're not talking about charging someone because a dog (or a cop) thinks he's smelled something. We're talking about whether the police have the right to investigate a potential criminal action when there's evidence suggesting a 70% possibility that a crime has occured/is occuring. I'll agree with you that the USPCA needs to increase their requirements and put it at at least 80%-90%, but 70% is sufficient to warrant further investigation.

[immoderate]

106. Seventy percent does not apply to the field

The Sixty Minutes story last year found that dogs that were 90% acurate in testing were 30% acurate in the field. The testing procedures are not valid.

--IMM

[sweetheart]

82. You said it yourself

"Police forces across the nation are out (to) convict innocent people."

I am free to take whatever drugs i want to in my body. It is my first
amendment freedom of freedom of religion. The police are wrong and
enforcing evil laws that would then say that someone exercising their
freedom of religion was actually not "innocent".

So then you force citizens like me in to the underground, where we see
the police and "the man" as the wicked enemy of my civil rights... and
why i'm "the enemy" in the war on drugs. So hmmm, when a police
person comes around to screw over my life and take away my civil right
to freedom of private practice of religion, THEY are not innocent
and the whole paradigm is topsy turvey... the police are the criminals
and the citizen protecting their privacy is the innocent.

[Xithras]

85. You're looking at it from a skewed perspective.

It is the duty of the police to enforce the laws of the United States, the state of their jurisdiction, and their local laws. They are not empowered to judge, nor to convict or release those they suspect of committing crimes. They have no right to make laws up as they go, or to overturn and ignore the ones they may not personally agree with.

I agree that the War On (some) Drugs is screwed and needs to end, but you should not expect the police to change the laws for you. The WoD needs to be attacked in the state and federal governments, not on the street where a hard working police officer is simply trying to do his job and enforce the laws as they are written. To attack the police as the "enemy" because they are simply trying to enforce a law written by fatcats thousands of miles away is unfair and misguided.

[sweetheart]

89. They should have thought about that when they started the drugs war

I've no problem with the police personally, but as they are, as you say
charged with enforcing fascist laws that i cannot overturn, then i am
charged with defending my civil rights through all means possible.
In this regard, simply being pleasant with the police is my policy,
but i am very cordial and offer no search rights. Bad police have
pulled too many guns on me, and i give no free tickets to police.

The lawmakers really should consider what kind of position they put the
police in when they create a wrong-headed war on drugs users. People
who are otherwise law abiding, tax paying good citizens suddently are
made the enemy, and the police as well become the enemy. It is the
fact on the ground... and i never attack police... i merely avoid
them, smile gratuitously and act like a jesus nut when i'm around them.

As well it helps to drive a nicer car, as inevitably police pull over
certain vehicles more than others... and richer cars DO have something
to do with it. Pulling over a limo is a risk for a police officer as
you can't tell whether maybe the police chief or a judge is in the
back... whereas a dumpy old car, unlikely. Police, just like burglars,
are deterred by certain signs that could threaten their careers.

[immoderate]

107. Hence the constitution

One of the reasons for the $th Amendment is to protect us from this War on Drugs craziness. Now we've lost that protection.

--IMM

[phrenzy]

79. Let's X-RAY Cars!

Ok, would it be ok that, while writing the ticket - the cops 'simply' probe the car with an x-ray to see if there is anything 'bad' in your car?

After all, you might have a bomb! And, well, shit even if you don't - we saw something that looked like it might be a bag of weed. Now we have our probable cause - yipee!

My problem with crap like this has always been a matter of PROPORTIONAL response.

I HATE how laws meant to protect the public from REAL crime are used as a means to just increase the prision population with non-violent drug offenders.

It's like patriot act laws. As time goes on they are going to be used to bust people for anything and everything and you KNOW that.

It's like, a law is voted in on the premise that we have to be able to search 'suspected terrorists' houses for 'bomb making material' or some shit.

Then basically the defitnition of 'terrorist' gets tweaked to being 'someone who wants to harm america' - which then gets intrepeted as 'liberal traitors who hate america'. It is determined that some liberals are radical and need to have their house torn apart to see if they are al qaeda sympathizers, then the cops find a couple of pot plants. The pot plants have NOTHING to do with the terrorism allegations, yet the guy gets thrown in Jail. That is simply not right.

It's one thing if the cops found a child-porn ring or something, but when they just find some drug paraphanellia and you get sent up - that is totall bullshit.

[bvar22]

88. Everybody just calm down...

...clam down....nice ..and ...calm....

Listen to... the calm.. voice of your ...loving protectors.
Thats right.

your loving servants have ...always...used dogs at traffic stops.....
trust us.....

...its really such a ...little thing...

we never make any mistakes.....

We only want to ...protect you....from the bad...guys.

....and you...know ...you...NEED US...to protect you....from the ....baaaaad evil DUers......
...and....you are not a bad evil DUer...are you?

You....can trust ...us....because...we...have...always known...what...is..best....for....you.

The...government ..is ...Your ..Best Friend...
the...government ..has ALWAYS..been your...Best Friend.

You...never....need...to...worry....
...just ...trust us...

your loving Big Brother...will...never...hurt...you...

Now...just drink...the...nice Kool-Aid......

[Rex]

104. Another part of the 4th Amendment dies.

Another brick in the wall.

[AlFrankenFan]

109. Totally stupid

We're wasting all our fucking time on druggies and overcrowding our prisons with people who use drugs for whatever purposes while Osama bin laden hasn't been found and you know what this country is fucked up sometimes...

[mitchum]

110. CAYENNE PEPPER WILL DISABLE THEIR NOSES FOR THE REST...

OF THE DAY. So, if there just happened to be some on your floormats...

It's a low down thing to use wonderful creatures like dogs in order to "fight" the BULLSHIT "drug war"

[mrbassman03]

160. Read above, I guess black pepper is much better...

Cayenne irritates the skin...

[bvar22]

113. I will go along with this ONLY under 2 conditions.

1)The dog can be sworn in and testify at legal hearings,

and more importantly,

2) The ONLY dogs that the police can use at traffic stops are Toy Poodles in Full French Clip.

ROFL...Can't you just SEE BUBBA, the Georgia State Patrol Canine Officer leading a Toy Poodle.

If the purpose is to investigate and not intimidate, the Police should have no objection to giving up the Attack Dogs in this situation!
Poodles are smart, have great noses, and one of the most trainable of all breeds.





Hey FooFoo,
Welcome to the Georgia State Police!

[genieroze]

127. I have a Toy Poodle, they are smart little dogs. They could use

a standard Poodle, they are pretty big.

[bvar22]

130. The point is to avoid any intimidation...

...of honest law abiding citizens.

Restrict the police to the Toy Poos.
Their nose is just as good!

[genieroze]

131. I would be to tempted to hug them. lol

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. You have a point. Why do they HAVE to use menacing-looking dogs? (nt)

[tlcandie]

116. What will happen when small FRIGHTENED children are in

the vehicle with possibly aggressive dogs (read story about report who wanted to pet police dog and got face chewed up) climbing all over them and snarling?????!!!!

What about others who aren't in the right frame of mind or are clueless that these are NOT PETS?!?!?!?!

EDIT: NOT IN CARS... okay... :eyes: What if they jump on my car and start scratching the damned paint on my car which I keep in pristine condition?!?!?! eh? THAT WILL PISS ME OFF ROYALLY!!

P.S. Just heard Florida is already doing this..it's called profiling! My housekeeper (white) said she was in a "questionable" neighborhood cleaning a bank and she walked out got into her car (they knew she had been in the bank) made her get out of her car (felt her over and under she says they wanted to cop-a-feel) and used dogs on her!! OMG!!!

[chiburb]

120. You're missing the saddest part of this...

This case was argued by Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, and a DEMOCRAT who's father is Chairman of the Illinois DEMOCRATIC Party. She has never argued ANY case at ANY level, and she chooses this one to start. She is also rumored to be running for Governor against Blago next time. Can anyone say DINO?
Besides, the "perp" was driving SIX miles over the speed limit, 71 in a 65 zone. NO Illinois State Trooper has pulled anyone over for less than 15-20 over. Something tells me this guy was targeted...

[left15]

121. Two important points

And I don't agree with either, just what I read in the opinion.

1. this is not considered a 4th ammendment issue, because a drug dog can not invade your privacy. The dog can only detect illegal drugs, and illegal drugs do not get any privacy protection.

2. The police can not "Call in a drug dog" they have to have the dog with them while stopping you for something else. As stated earlier, they can't set up drug dog check points, but they could set up seat belt or DWI checkpoints and have dogs there. DWI check are considered acceptable because they can eliminate an existing threat to other drivers. Also, as mentioned earlier, the police can walk down the sidewalk with their dogs, and check cars on the street or in lots next to the sidewalk, but they can't walk onto private propery to check cars.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. yes but those points are BOGUS

(1) has the implicit assumption that the 4th only applies if you are not engaged in illegal activities. Under this theory ANYTHING is permitted as long as the intention is to detect illegal activities and they find something. So the police can intrude away all over your person and possesions and if they find something they can arrest you and use their evidence in a bizarro-world ex post facto probable cause. The probable cause for the search and seizure is that after we did some searching and seizing we found illegal stuff.

(2) is a distinction without a difference. Now that it is ok to sniff away, drug doggies will show up everywhere. Many roadblocks for dui seatbelts etc will now just happen to have a drug dog or two hanging out. Also I think your assertion that they have to have the dog with them at the time rather than 'calling in the dogs' is unfounded.

(3) you forgot that this opens the door for many other 'non-intrusive' intrusions. It ain't just drug dogs, and as we have seen repeatedly, these things start under some banner of irreproachability - the War On (some) Drugs, the Holy War On Terror, whatever, and then they get used for anything and everything.

[left15]

155. I said i din't agree with either point.

1) The police can not "intrude away all over your person and possesions and if they find something they can arrest you and use their evidence in a bizarro-world ex post facto probable cause"

The SCOTUS opinion (not mine) said dogs were exempt from the 4th Ammendment because they only detected illegal items. Anything that could detect a legal item is NOT allowed, such as handling duffle bags on public busses, the court ruled that is not allowed, as "feeling" the bag was an invasion of privacy.

2.) I couldn't agree more, in fact, I was trying to make the point you did.

3.) Under this ruling, it is limited to drug dogs, or othwer means that can not identify legal items, so X-ray is out.

The other point I was trying to make, is that if you are parking in a privately owned lot, don't park next to the public sidewalk.

[slay]

123. Yay! I love our new police state with the road blocks and attack dogs!

This is a dangerous road we are traveling down giving away our freedom. Drug laws are already out of control, and now we have to deal with dogs at traffic stops? You are not free if you live in America. You are only free to do as you are told. :(

[Guaranteed]

129. I'd be okay with this if the dogs were infallible.

But I was listening to a report about this on NPR, and they had stories from people who'd been searched and even kept in jail for days after having done nothing wrong at all because of these dogs.

If they're 100% right, go ahead and use them. 70% right, I don't think so. You're violating Americans' right to privacy.

[Southern Dem 2005]

134. There is no right to privacy being violated here

How is this a violation of your right to privacy? The problem with (as I see it) is that I think you are overstating the right to privacy. I just don't see how there is any problem with this decision. Granted, it will be abused by some cops, but so are other existing laws and I don't here a big outcry for their repeal. Users on this board are acting like this law allows allows Gestapo-like tactics from police. It does not.

[Guaranteed]

136. No, I'm not. Those cops went through all their stuff.

Their privacy was invaded- wrongly- because those dogs aren't always right.

[Southern Dem 2005]

140. Of course the dogs aren't always right

unfortunately, our justice system isn't always right. But its what we have and we don't do away with it because we make mistakes. Right now the drug dogs are what we have that we can use in an effort to get the drugs off the streets. I'd invite everyone who has posted about how drugs are harmless or who are belittling the "war on drugs" to visit neighborhoods with crack houses or take a trip to the local jail and find out how many people are incarcerated because of the effect drugs had on their lives. They aren't harmless. Just because some white guy in the 'burbs wants to smoke a little weed doesn't mean it doesn't effect someone else. People are being killed so that guy can have his pot.

[Guaranteed]

142. But if the dogs aren't reliable, those cops don't actually have

probable cause. That's the key.

Every time someone's car is searched, their privacy is being invaded. What matters is: do the police have probable cause to do so or not? Keep in mind that many times they are ONLY going on the dog's behavior, so their supposed probable cause is tied directly to the accuracy of the dog (and the accuracy of their interpretation of the dog's behavior). There are countless anecdotes, some right here in this thread, about these dogs alerting on cars that have no drugs in them. While I don't have numbers, it sounds to me as if they're not very reliable.

If a cop looks into your car and sees a baggie of weed sitting on the dashboard, THAT is probable cause- and it's near perfect. Hell, if a cop even smells weed, that could most definitely be argued to probable cause, whether drugs are subsequently found in the car or not. But, these dogs- the cops have no idea what's in the car, and the dogs themselves aren't accurate. There just isn't probable cause until those dogs are more reliable.

If there isn't probable cause, every time peoples' cars are searched simply on the dog's nose their 4th Amendment rights are being violated. And I take that seriously, no matter the "benefit" to society in violating Americans' rights.

[ernstbass]

145. People are being killed because some one wants their pot ?

Tha t's a bit over the top don't ya think? You said in a previous post that pot should probably be legalized! I worked for years in the oprobation system and jails are full of HARMLESS drug offenders while violent offenders waltz out of jail. the war on drugs is a total sham and we don't need to pour good money after bad by investing in drug sniffing dogs at traffic stops!

[Southern Dem 2005]

147. In none of my posts did I support drug legalization

There may be many harmless drug offenders in jail. That isn't the point. The people who are making money of the drugs are not harmless and many of them won't hesitate to kill someone to protect their source of cash. That means that while someone who is smoking marijuana may be "harmless" the people supplying it are often very dangerous.

[CTLawGuy]

154. this decision is wrong

I understand the concept of the plain smell exception. But that was based on human noses.

It says if a person is dumb enough to keep drugs where a person could smell them, then they must not have wanted them to be kept secret. If a police officer can smell them, then the person in the car could reasonably smell them too.

However, dogs are different. Dogs can smell things humans can't. Also, dogs cannot testify in court, and cannot say "I smell drugs". they can only bark and point.

Unless you believe dogs can be trained ONLY to bark at drugs, you must accept that they may bark for other reasons, such as there is another dog around, or the dog is hungry, or who knows what else. That leads the cops to have "probable cause" on false circumstances (like Bush). And then, they tear apart your car, or worse, for nothing.

Also, it was mentioned before, there is probably drug residue from things like money or from another person who was in the car, or whom you came in contact with earlier. The dogs could detect that, leading to another inconvenient, and ultimately fruitless search.

The purpose of the 4th amendment is to minimize these unnecessary searches.

[98geoduck]

132. Making Orwell prouder, day by day...

As if being on camera everywhere you go, now they're turing man's (and woman's) best friend on them.

By the way, I bought my truck from some doper looking republican neighbor. I wonder if he left anything in the carpet that will get me sniffed into court over. Ahh, what the hell, I don't have any better things to do with my time and money.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

139. I Wanna Be A Drug-Sniffing Dog

I wanna be a drug-sniffing dog
So I can snort coke all day long
Bite my master when it suits me
Get off on diminished capacity
I wanna be a customs man
Snoop through your stuff 'cause I can
Sneaky peaky pry through your private lives
Stroke your panties, jackin' off at lunch
Weh oh, Weh oh ho
Sure beats Alpo
It's the life
It's the stink
It's the attitude
I wanna be a San Francisco cop
So I can speed and run red lights
And sure as Rodney was a King
We got ways to make you sing
We can seize everything
Houses, cars, and life savings
Keep the loot for ourselves
Fake drug charge works every time
I wanna join the christian coalition
So I can molest my children
None suspect me 'cause I've been saved
'Til my stepdaughter drowns her kids in a lake
Weh oh, Weh oh ho
Spare rod, spoil the child
It's the life
It's the stink
Choose your masks

Lard-I Wanna Be A Drug-Sniffing Dog

[Magleetis]

143. This will be abused

Try driving across I-20 in Louisiana with out of state plates. Your chances of committing a traffic infraction are greatly increased. And when you do commit an infraction Fido will be there to greet you. It happens all the time in Louisiana. I have a friend who is a cop and he told me they profile.

Another friend of mine has PA plates on her car, she was pulled over one night on I-20 for driving too close to the white line? Her car was thoroughly searched. It just so happens that she is a Horn player and was returning from a Shreveport Symphony rehearsal. The cop harassed her and refused to believe that her $10K horn would not come totally apart so that it could be searched.

My point is that any power given to the police will be abused. If cops know they can sniff any car that they want they will pull you over even if you are doing nothing wrong.

A few years back they passed a law in LA that if you don't have insurance your car can be immediately impounded. They day after the law was passed there were road blocks where cops were checking insurance. If you could not produce proof of insurance your car was taken on the spot. Thank goodness for Cleo Fields who fought to get that practice stopped. The cops abusing their power is nothing new. I for one am for not giving them any more tools than they already have.

[bvar22]

148. It IS also a due process issue.

Detainment and in depth search (arrest) will be based on the expertise of the Government Professional at the scene.....a FU**ING DOG!!!!

Due Process is violated because the suspect is never allowed to confront his accuser under oath in a court of law. I DEMAND my RIGHT to confront my accusers!

I want my lawer to exercise the right to crossexamine the governments witness!!!

Swear in the DOG, and put him on the STAND!!


Actually, I realize that further detainment and searches (arrest) will be based on the Canine Handler's TRANSLATION of Doggy Speak. Until the Government can produce a Standard Dictionary of Doggy Speak that is universal, consistent, and objective, the only way to verify the Dog Handler's translation of Doggy Speak is to cross examine the FU**ING DOG!!!

[johnqdoe]

152. Guns instead of drugs

Suppose instead of sniffing for drugs, these dogs were trained to sniff for guns? When the dog gives the signal that a gun is present, the cop then has "probable cause" to determine if the gun is possessed legally, right? Hell, maybe where you live the gun is legal, but your driving through a place (NYC, WDC, Mass) that outlaws handgun possession. Just like when the dog alerts to drugs, the cop now has probably cause to do a full search, find out if you have any guns in your possession, etc, even though there are multiple, valid, reasonable, non-illegal reasons the dog alerted--like you LEGALLY owned the gun! (just like if the dog was searching for drugs--say you just gave a ride to your pot smoking buddy (who you don't know smokes)). And, even if the gun found is owned legally, couldn't failing to show it to the cops amount to illegally carrying a concealed firearm?

It seems to me this decision essentially allows the cops to search you for no reason whatsoever, other than they happen to have the necessary proximity to you. Why not just let the dogs loose to go up and down the street, sniffing pedestrians, outside cars, etc. Seems like the same to me. And you can be sure that police departments will make sure dogs are readily available whenever it is necessary, and to prevent any undue delay. First time someone gets busted for illegal possession of firearm under this precedent an I bet we see a move from the right to overturn it.

[benny05]

157. Gee, Like GHW Bush

When his dog Ranger used to take showers with him after their runs together. Lovely.

[pinniped]

159. Everyone will be driving in Wonder Woman style vehicles...

but our models won't be invisible.

The cops always want to know what's inside cars.