"Probable Cause?" Supreme Court has done it again!

very Interesting.  Did you see who was in dissent?  Seems the Liberals on the court are the ones that trashed the 4th amendment, and the conservatives voted to uphold it.  A shame Rehnquist did not vote.  Given that o'Connor voted against it, I am sure he would have as well.

http://www.usscplus.com/current/cases/PDF/9950020.pdf

Lemme see here....
They have went after the First Amendment, now the Fourth AmendmentLink

Notice the Second Amendment is unscathed.

Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc



There is only one reason it's still around. Because us gun owners and the NRA were willing to stick our necks out. And up until Last year (AWB sunset) it wasn't intact. And just an FYI I stuck my neck out for the first too.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier.

What is the difference between this and profiling?  They ruled against profiling, yet let this one stand.  I dont get the logic.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier. What is the difference between this and profiling? They ruled against profiling, yet let this one stand. I dont get the logic.

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs.

The case, decided by the court on January 24th, had nothing to do with the Information Superhighway, but rather an ordinary interstate highway in Illinois. Roy Caballes was pulled over by the Illinois State Police for speeding. While one officer was writing him a ticket, another officer in another patrol car came by with a drug sniffing dog.

Me either Guy, that's what bugs me the most here i think. I personally don't look at the court strictly as "liberals vs conservative" judges anymore. For years ther have been some unbalanced and strange rulings from all sides.

For the record, i'm all for the 2nd amendment.

Just more Judges legislating from the bench.. one of my real gripes. They are suppossed to interpit law, NOT make law.

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs.

Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out?  I mean if it was a family of 4, mom, dad, brother sister, would he have serached it?  There are many forms of prejudice and profiling.

For the record, I am glad he was nailed.  But I still worry that if I am on my way to pick up my sons, and get stopped, what will they try to do to me?  I live on the I95 corridor, and I doubt I fit a profile other than I am traveling on it.  But this makes me think they can stop me and IF I refuse a search, Like Gid just wrote about, they can harrass me for a long time, even tho I am innocent.

This is too Big Brother for me.

Me either Guy, that's what bugs me the most here i think. I personally don't look at the court strictly as "liberals vs conservative" judges anymore. For years ther have been some unbalanced and strange rulings from all sides. For the record, i'm all for the 2nd amendment.

Just goes to show that politics makes strange bedfellows!  No disagreement here.

Just more Judges legislating from the bench.. one of my real gripes. They are suppossed to interpit law, NOT make law.

Yea, but now it is on both sides of the spectrum!  maybe now we can get some consensus on abolishing it?

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs. Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out?

You evidently *missed* what I said. If the drugs are not wrapped properly (IE:sealed). The dog doesn't even have to get out of the car. All it requires is an partially open window on the police car for him to alert. Besides the fact the article doesn't state wether or not the dog actually got out.

Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out? I mean if it was a family of 4, mom, dad, brother sister, would he have serached it? There are many forms of prejudice and profiling.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct.

and you know for sure the k9 unit wasnt operating in tandem with the unit that made the stop? or whether those dogs to which you attribute such complete objectivity aren't, in fact, responding to something other than scent...say, just for giggles, a desire to please their masters?

using dogs to check shipping containers, buildings, luggage being loaded on a plane is a whole different thing than using it in the more highly subjective atmosphere of a traffic stop.

very Interesting. Did you see who was in dissent? Seems the Liberals on the court are the ones that trashed the 4th amendment, and the conservatives voted to uphold it. A shame Rehnquist did not vote. Given that o'Connor voted against it, I am sure he would have as well.

Dr Guy, you need to read that again. The dissenting justices were Ginsberg and Souter. The passing opinion of the court was that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that the case was an unwarrented search was vacated and remanded.

Dr Guy, you need to read that again. The dissenting justices were Ginsberg and Souter. The passing opinion of the court was that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that the case was an unwarrented search was vacated and remanded.

You are right, but it still sucks. Besides. Stevens is not conservative. It sounded like a set up to me.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct. and you know for sure the k9 unit wasnt operating in tandem with the unit that made the stop? or whether those dogs to which you attribute such complete objectivity aren't, in fact, responding to something other than scent...say, just for giggles, a desire to please their masters? using dogs to check shipping containers, buildings, luggage being loaded on a plane is a whole different thing than using it in the more highly subjective atmosphere of a traffic stop.

I don't for certain they weren't any more than you know they were! The article doesn't say one way or the other. And your comment shows just how much you *don't* know about their training! These dogs do NOT alert just for grins and or giggles. Maybe you should read up on their training *before* you say anything about it.

I don't know if I agree with the judges rationale, but I don't see anything wrong with the dog search. For the dog to smell the drugs is equavalent to the officer viewing something in plain sight in the car. The dog is smelling air outside the vehicle which gives direct evidence to illegal activity. The same as if the officer smelled smoke from a joint when he was talking with the driver is enough for probable cause.

The major problem is that our justice system combines the wrongdoing of the cops and the "soccermom" where there were two seperate actions taking place.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with allowing a known drugdealer (murderer, rapist, or mattress label remover) to go free, because of the wrongdoing of some officials? In most cases, the officials who messed up the case get no retribution, and in niether case is justice done.

I say, hold the police or court personnel and citizens caught breaking the law responsible for their own actions. "Technicalities" have nothing to do with whether the person is guilty or not guilty, so why should it affect the verdict of the case??

I know this specific case was basically a victimless crime, but the "soccermom" was breaking the law, and knew it. Charge the police with infringement of her rights, and punish accordingly, but quit acting as if one wrong doing had anything to do with the other.

I also think cops and court personnel would take a less cavalier attitude towards our Constitutional rights if breaking them could bring punishment on themselves, instead of a pretty meaningless overturning of the lower court decision.

I don't for certain they weren't any more than you know they were! The article doesn't say one way or the other.

the article suggests that's what happened. more importantly, the writ of certiorari* describes the situation in greater and undisputed detail: the cop who stopped the guy got on the radio to run a check on the motorist...the k9 unit heard the call and immediately headed towards the location. neither officer claimed any reason to suspect the guy was anything but a traffic violator, but the k9 handler walked his dog around the car. coincidence? i don't believe so. you're welcome to your take on the events, naive as it may be.

your comment shows just how much you *don't* know about their training! These dogs do NOT alert just for grins and or giggles. Maybe you should read up on their training *before* you say anything about it.

justice stevens' opinion (in concurrence with scalia, thomas, kennedy, oconnor and breyer) turns on the question of whether the motorist was detained for an unreasonable length of time (so whether the k9 unit headed to the location immediately is very germane) and whether a search subsequent to a k9 alert is likely to make public otherwise legal but private matters. for example, flying over a neighboorhood with an ir sensor might as easily reveal the presence of an indoor hottub as a growroom--thus rendering that strategy a violation of the 4th amendment.

justice souter's dissent disputes--among other things--the issue youve raised by wisely questioning whether dogs are infallible. if the pope--who is, as far as i know the only human to assert infallibility, and then only in a very limited sense--isnt universally accorded that power, it seems just a bit ridiculous to unquestioningly accept it of dogs, no matter how rigorously trained they may be, especially in light of a good deal of evidence to the contrary.

(just for the record, as regards your informing me what i *do* or *don't* know about drug dog training: you're out of line--not more than a week or two ago, this same issue was discussed and i provided some stats regarding the percentage of false-positive alerts while also noting there is NO accepted standard for certifying a dog has been adequately trained)

furthermore, while you--and the prevailing justices--who seem so eager to divest yourselves (and me) of my rights may not see a danger in your acceptance of 'the dog is always right' (and let's say for argument's sake that is the case), you must surely be aware that a number of studies have concluded a significant portion of the us currency in circulation is sufficiently contaminated with traces of illegal drugs so as to be electronically detectable. if machines can sense that presence, im guessing dogs can as well. so all of us are at risk of being alerted upon by drug dogs simply by the fact of having money in our wallets.

* it's really not that difficult to locate supreme court decisions and read them for yourself in order to offer an informed rather than an *enlightened* argument (if you're gonna accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of that error, it would behoove you to make the effort to avoid doing it yourself). simply google the names of both parties--in this case caballes v illinois--and follow the hits.

I say, hold the police or court personnel and citizens caught breaking the law responsible for their own actions. "Technicalities" have nothing to do with whether the person is guilty or not guilty, so why should it affect the verdict of the case?? I know this specific case was basically a victimless crime, but the "soccermom" was breaking the law, and knew it. Charge the police with infringement of her rights, and punish accordingly, but quit acting as if one wrong doing had anything to do with the other. I also think cops and court personnel would take a less cavalier attitude towards our Constitutional rights if breaking them could bring punishment on themselves, instead of a pretty meaningless overturning of the lower court decision.

while it seems reasonable at first glance, this type of approach is almost sure to backfire. if street cops feel they might be fined or punished everytime there's a technical foul, they'd be fools to do act in any but the most clear-cut 'textbook' situations no?

if, however, commanders are held personally responsible for the actions, it might make a difference. i've lived in places where law enforcement was as often engaged in breaking the law as enforcing it...as well as others where the cops were professionals and comported themselves as such. im almost positive the diffeence is the command.

there are a few law enforcement personnel who blog at ju. one, in particular, altho i havent seen anything from him recently, once described how he performed his duties in conformance with the constitution. he may not have agreed with court guidelines and interpretations, but he was very aware of the fact that he wasnt being paid to enforce the law to his satisfaction but according to the law. he seemed to take very well deserved pride in his performance. (i can't recall the two of us agreeing on anything except our mutual respect for the constitution--just in case yall get the wrong idea here LOL)

the manner in which this is generally handled--invalidating convictions and suppressing evidence--is certainly flawed and not solely because two wrongs dont make a right. too often it makes cops cynical and can easily lead to even more egregious abuses of their oath.

tolerance of prosecutorial and judicial malfeasance contributes a great deal to the problem as well. when prosecutors and judges overlook obvious inconsistencies (whether intentionally or out of ignorance), they should definitely be held personally responsible.

I don't for certain they weren't any more than you know they were! The article doesn't say one way or the other. the article suggests that's what happened. more importantly, the writ of certiorari* describes the situation in greater and undisputed detail: the cop who stopped the guy got on the radio to run a check on the motorist...the k9 unit heard the call and immediately headed towards the location. neither officer claimed any reason to suspect the guy was anything but a traffic violator, but the k9 handler walked his dog around the car. coincidence? i don't believe so. you're welcome to your take on the events, naive as it may be. your comment shows just how much you *don't* know about their training! These dogs do NOT alert just for grins and or giggles. Maybe you should read up on their training *before* you say anything about it. justice stevens' opinion (in concurrence with scalia, thomas, kennedy, oconnor and breyer) turns on the question of whether the motorist was detained for an unreasonable length of time (so whether the k9 unit headed to the location immediately is very germane) and whether a search subsequent to a k9 alert is likely to make public otherwise legal but private matters. for example, flying over a neighboorhood with an ir sensor might as easily reveal the presence of an indoor hottub as a growroom--thus rendering that strategy a violation of the 4th amendment. justice souter's dissent disputes--among other things--the issue youve raised by wisely questioning whether dogs are infallible. if the pope--who is, as far as i know the only human to assert infallibility, and then only in a very limited sense--isnt universally accorded that power, it seems just a bit ridiculous to unquestioningly accept it of dogs, no matter how rigorously trained they may be, especially in light of a good deal of evidence to the contrary. (just for the record, as regards your informing me what i *do* or *don't* know about drug dog training: you're out of line--not more than a week or two ago, this same issue was discussed and i provided some stats regarding the percentage of false-positive alerts while also noting there is NO accepted standard for certifying a dog has been adequately trained) furthermore, while you--and the prevailing justices--who seem so eager to divest yourselves (and me) of my rights may not see a danger in your acceptance of 'the dog is always right' (and let's say for argument's sake that is the case), you must surely be aware that a number of studies have concluded a significant portion of the us currency in circulation is sufficiently contaminated with traces of illegal drugs so as to be electronically detectable. if machines can sense that presence, im guessing dogs can as well. so all of us are at risk of being alerted upon by drug dogs simply by the fact of having money in our wallets. * it's really not that difficult to locate supreme court decisions and read them for yourself in order to offer an informed rather than an *enlightened* argument (if you're gonna accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you of that error, it would behoove you to make the effort to avoid doing it yourself). simply google the names of both parties--in this case caballes v illinois--and follow the hits.

Well since I helped a border patrol agent train his drug dog I think I just might know something about their training and how they work. Can you say the same?

the writ of certiorari* describes the situation in greater and undisputed detail:

And just where did you get this pertinent piece of information?

Well since I helped a border patrol agent train his drug dog I think I just might know something about their training and how they work. Can you say the same?

the issue wasnt whether you think you know something bout drug dogs, but whether you think i do.

obviously one doesnt need to engage in actual training to be able to evaluate statistics demonstrating the actual effectiveness of such training--just as one neednt actually smash one's car into a wall to evaluate the force of impact or the likely extent of damage to a driver who feels compelled to do so.

absent any credentials you may possess qualifying you to engage in such training, your contribution--or that of any other non-professional--to the training process makes me that much more skeptical about any claim to dog sniffing infallibility. (incidentally, none of the recognized training programs permits a handler to train his own dog; both handler and dog do engage in subsequent maintenance exercises, but only under the direction of a certified trainer.)

And just where did you get this pertinent piece of information?

the * following the 'i' in certiorari, leads to the footnote marked * at the bottom of my comment. if you'd followed that, youd see i provided you with a short description of the way in which to locate not only this specific ruling but court opinions in general. (hand a man a fish, and he eats tonite; teach him how to fish, etc. etc.)

i had intended to add a link as well, but it took me nearly 5 minutes of screwing around to get the damn comment posted (and then it was duplicated) and i forgot. youll find it here Link

if, however, commanders are held personally responsible for the actions, it might make a difference. i've lived in places where law enforcement was as often engaged in breaking the law as enforcing it...as well as others where the cops were professionals and comported themselves as such. im almost positive the diffeence is the command.

Too True, leadership is everything!!

the manner in which this is generally handled--invalidating convictions and suppressing evidence--is certainly flawed and not solely because two wrongs dont make a right. too often it makes cops cynical and can easily lead to even more egregious abuses of their oath.

I admit I don't know as much about policework as I'd like to, but I do know that when I worked the streets, if I violated a patient's rights, I was the one who would pay the price. The best way to ensure professional behavior is for leadership, the law, and the people, to expect it, and hold the substandard responsible for themselves. If the cops and other officers of the court have no fear of prosecution for unconstitutional behavior then why would we expect them to care if they did or didn't?

If the cops and other officers of the court have no fear of prosecution for unconstitutional behavior then why would we expect them to care if they did or didn't?

we put a lotta faith in the oath of office.

that's the presumption which attaches such weight to police testimony, and the reason sworn officers of the court are generally not personally liable* for damages resulting performing their sworn duties (unlike the justice department of federal government and its agencies, state and municipal entities may be sued for damages arising from a miscarriage of justice).

*police officers might otherwise need to carry the equivalent of malpractice insurance. i believe many municipalities do carry some sort of insurance (or are 'self-insured'). like i said, it would make more sense to hold the chief of police personally responsible for the actions of the rank and file; the city, for example, could pick up the premiums for his insurance. when a commander had proven ineffective, that cost would become prohibitive, effectively gettin him or her outta that line of work.

just for the record, as regards your informing me what i *do* or *don't* know about drug dog training: you're out of line--not more than a week or two ago, this same issue was discussed and i provided some stats regarding the percentage of false-positive alerts while also noting there is NO accepted standard for certifying a dog has been adequately trained)

Just for the record. Statistics are not fact that every dog will do that. And after reading your linked article, I find the stats listed to be quite varied.

Statistics are not fact that every dog will do that. And after reading your linked article, I find the stats listed to be quite varied.

well if dogs are infallible, there shouldnt be any variation. to quote you, if the dog alerts, someone is gonna be searched.

perhaps we should let dogs serve as judges too. that way we could dump the whole appeals process. you walk into court, if the dog barks, youre guilty. quick. efficient. indisputable.