Supreme Court Upholds "Quick" Dog Sniff of Vehicle
---
The Supreme Court has handed down an utterly terrifying holding today further undermining the Fourth Amendment in the name of the "War on Drugs."
The case, Illinois v. Caballes, concerned a routine traffic stop for speeding. While the officer was writing the ticket, another officer with a drug-sniffing dog arrived. The dog alerted to the trunk, where marijuana was found (how much marijuana is unclear, but the sentence was twelve years imprisonment and a fine over $250,000, so I'm guessing "lots").
In upholding the dog sniff, Justice Stevens relied on the fact that the motorist was not detained any extra time during the stop (i.e., the canine patrol arrived while the speeding ticket was still being issued). In other words, as long as the motorist is not delayed or otherwise "inconvenienced," there is no Fourth Amendment violation.
The implications of Caballes are utterly staggering. As both Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg observe in their dissents, there can now be no question that random, suspicionless drug-sniffing dog sweeps of unoccupied vehicles in parking lots or garages and on curbsides would almost certainly be completely permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
The total elevation of the sniffing dog above the human being is now nearly complete. Only one basic dignity has yet to be eradicated -- the dog sniff of a person has not yet been sanctioned. Yet.
With nauseating decisions like Caballes being handed down with 6-2 majorities, it's probably only a matter of time.
PDF of the decision (23 pages; probably suitable for non-lawyers) here or via How Appealing. Meanwhile, Grits for Breakfast has an impressive linkfest on Caballes.
Related Posts:
Maryland's Idiot Judges: Police Dogs "Part of the Family"
A Search & Seizure Double-Play
Hair-Shaving and the Fourth Amendment
Tipping and the Bill of Rights
The case, Illinois v. Caballes, concerned a routine traffic stop for speeding. While the officer was writing the ticket, another officer with a drug-sniffing dog arrived. The dog alerted to the trunk, where marijuana was found (how much marijuana is unclear, but the sentence was twelve years imprisonment and a fine over $250,000, so I'm guessing "lots").
In upholding the dog sniff, Justice Stevens relied on the fact that the motorist was not detained any extra time during the stop (i.e., the canine patrol arrived while the speeding ticket was still being issued). In other words, as long as the motorist is not delayed or otherwise "inconvenienced," there is no Fourth Amendment violation.
The implications of Caballes are utterly staggering. As both Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg observe in their dissents, there can now be no question that random, suspicionless drug-sniffing dog sweeps of unoccupied vehicles in parking lots or garages and on curbsides would almost certainly be completely permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
The total elevation of the sniffing dog above the human being is now nearly complete. Only one basic dignity has yet to be eradicated -- the dog sniff of a person has not yet been sanctioned. Yet.
With nauseating decisions like Caballes being handed down with 6-2 majorities, it's probably only a matter of time.
PDF of the decision (23 pages; probably suitable for non-lawyers) here or via How Appealing. Meanwhile, Grits for Breakfast has an impressive linkfest on Caballes.
Related Posts:
Maryland's Idiot Judges: Police Dogs "Part of the Family"
A Search & Seizure Double-Play
Hair-Shaving and the Fourth Amendment
Tipping and the Bill of Rights
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- A Sad Addition to the Dictionary
- Court Finds Unlimited Police Power to Plant GPS on Vehicles
- A Man's Home is His Castle......
- Another Bad Fourth Amendment Ruling
- Supreme Court Upholds "Quick" Dog Sniff of Vehicle
- Maryland's Idiot Judges: Police Dogs "Part of the Family"
- Hair-Shaving and the Fourth Amendment
Posted by KipEsquire on
24 January 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
