|
US: Justices Hear Case On Drug-detection Dogs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1602/a01.html
Newshawk: chip
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2004 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Charles Lane
JUSTICES HEAR CASE ON DRUG-DETECTION DOGS
High Court Is Asked to Decide on Legality of Such Searches During Traffic
Stops
Nothing seemed unusual on the afternoon six years ago when Illinois state
trooper Daniel Gillette pulled Roy Caballes over for driving six miles per
hour faster than the posted speed limit of 65.
Gillette indicated he would let Caballes off with a warning. But as
Gillette went through some paperwork, a second trooper arrived with a
drug-detection dog and began to stroll around Caballes's car.
The dog reacted to the scent of drugs in the trunk, and the troopers opened
it to find a shipment of marijuana. Caballes was convicted of drug
trafficking and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. To be
decided is whether using a drug-detection dog on a car pulled over for a
traffic offense is an invasion of privacy for which police need a specific
justification, or merely an aspect of modern law enforcement no more
intrusive than the sniffer dogs that routinely patrol airports and bus
stations.
At trial, police said Caballes's dress and demeanor fit the profile of a
drug dealer. But Caballes objected that the use of the dog amounted to an
unconstitutional search of his property.
Last year, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out Caballes's conviction. The
court ruled 4 to 3 that Gillette had extended the traffic stop based on
"nothing more than a vague hunch" that Caballes was involved in a drug
crime, and that, without that unlawful delay, there could have been no
sniffing of the car.
Civil libertarians say that the court must prevent police from turning every
routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. A contrary ruling, said
Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union,
would be "an invitation to racial profiling."
The state of Illinois, supported by the Bush administration, appealed the
case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It argued that the justices made clear in
previous cases that dog sniffs are not searches and that they require no
special justification.
In 1983, the court ruled that airport authorities did not need a warrant to
have dogs sniff luggage in a public section of an airport. It called the
sniff "much less intrusive than a typical search." And in 2000, the court
observed in a nonbinding portion of an opinion that similar logic could
apply to the use of a dog to sniff a car's exterior.
"Dog sniffs are very unique," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan told
the justices yesterday. "They are only going to reveal the presence or
absence of contraband, and this court has held that there is no privacy
interest in contraband."
Dog sniffing is "a technique we want to encourage law enforcement to use,"
added Christopher A. Wray, an assistant attorney general representing the
Bush administration.
For the most part, the justices seemed sympathetic to this position.
"This court in two decisions . . . said that a sniff is not a search,"
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told Caballes's attorney, Ralph E. Meczyk. "Do
you want us to reverse that?"
Meczyk replied that the "legitimate purpose" of the traffic stop in the
Caballes case was "unrelated to the purpose of the dog sniff."
"Does it matter that in today's world on Capitol Hill we're concerned with
terrorist attacks?" O'Connor asked. "Can they search [with dogs] for
explosives in parked cars?"
Meczyk said such a search would be justified by "public safety," but the
search of Caballes's car "invaded a private space that in this case . .
Caballes had a privacy interest in."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer pressed Meczyk to explain whether "there would be
anything wrong with the officer himself taking a sniff," if, for example,
the authorities were trying to investigate a hypothetical "great Limburger
cheese robbery."
"I'm not saying you couldn't draw the line," Breyer added. "But it is a
pretty tough one."
Still, the state encountered skepticism from some members of the court.
Those justices seemed concerned that if the court approved the more or less
random use of sniffer dogs, as in the Caballes case, that there might be no
way to limit their use.
Justice David H. Souter raised the specter of police with dogs "going
through every municipal garage or going up to every home and ringing the
bell."
"We're opening up rather a large vista for dog intrusion," he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that "dogs can be frightening and
humiliating."
"There is some association between the idea that I have a right to be let
alone by the government and not having a large dog circle my car," she said.
Madigan replied that any such risk was mitigated by the fact that the public
encounters dogs regularly.
For the sixth straight oral argument session, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist did not appear yesterday, but Justice John Paul Stevens announced
that Rehnquist will vote on the case.
The case is Illinois v. Caballes, No. 03-923. A decision is expected by
July.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
MAP posted-by: Derek
******************
Mark
Sign on my front door
___________________________
Notice posted.
This is not a peanut free zone!
The use of adult beverages, tobacco products, sugar,
salt, caffeine, high fat foods and firearms (when necessary)
is encouraged on these premises.
Jack-booted government thugs without warrants
will be shot upon entry.
Have a nice day :-)
____________________________
|
| |
| |
|
