PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog




morfeeis
04-21-2015, 10:16 AM
In a 6-3 decision issued today in the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Nebraska police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle.

According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”


http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/21/supreme-court-says-police-violated-4th-a

surf
04-21-2015, 10:51 AM
During the January 2015 oral argument in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor previewed the Court’s skepticism towards the police officer’s approach. “We can't keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor declared. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It's purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.”yay. we won one. not sure what these other f#cks in black are thinking. Thomas? what happened to you?

presence
04-21-2015, 11:01 AM
but... the dog told me it was ok!

morfeeis
04-21-2015, 11:17 AM
but... the dog told me it was ok!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4065&stc=1

Cissy
04-21-2015, 02:52 PM
Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog


Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment With Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog

FYP.

orenbus
04-21-2015, 02:56 PM
So does this mean any traffic stop for a simple moving violation can't result in the use of a drug sniffing dog? Or was there no reasonable suspicion to begin with and they just decided to bring out the dog?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-21-2015, 05:59 PM
Thomas? what happened to you?

He has self-loathing.

tod evans
04-21-2015, 06:45 PM
I don't read this as a good decision, instead I read it as a blueprint for drug-dog usage.

Those clowns in gowns aren't up there to protect stoners their livelihood depends on the continuation of the status quo...

PaulConventionWV
04-21-2015, 07:10 PM
So does this mean any traffic stop for a simple moving violation can't result in the use of a drug sniffing dog? Or was there no reasonable suspicion to begin with and they just decided to bring out the dog?

I think it just means they need reasonable suspicion to use the dog because they're not supposed to detain you beyond what is necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop if there is no reasonable suspicion.

Anti Federalist
04-21-2015, 07:49 PM
I think it just means they need reasonable suspicion to use the dog because they're not supposed to detain you beyond what is necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop if there is no reasonable suspicion.

Yes, that is the way I read it as well.

In this case, they held the car and occupants for almost half an hour, for no reason, waiting for the drug dog.

invisible
04-21-2015, 09:30 PM
Now they'll simply take 30 minutes to run your license, while waiting for the K9 unit to just pass by through some odd coincidence.

orenbus
04-21-2015, 09:37 PM
I think it just means they need reasonable suspicion to use the dog because they're not supposed to detain you beyond what is necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop if there is no reasonable suspicion.

What?! And this had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to explain it to them? I thought the part about needing to have reasonable suspicion was obvious even to the cops, talk about a new level of idiocy by law enforcement, that has to be embarrassing for them.

Weston White
04-22-2015, 12:04 AM
Yes, that is the way I read it as well.

In this case, they held the car and occupants for almost half an hour, for no reason, waiting for the drug dog.

The K9 was there the entire time, but the officer wanted a fill unit, due to the driver not providing consent for a search of the vehicle. Noting while “an officer...may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” Ginsburg held, “a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.”

However, this fact has already been known, police may only detain you for about 15 to 20-minutes, which may be extended only a short duration more in certain cases, such as obtaining a warrant that is pretty much approached, but needs a signature, obtaining an infield identification for a serious crime that has recently taken place, or to confirm a warrant that appears to still be valid, etc. However, it is not acceptable for the police to keep you there for no known reason other than to execute a fishing expedition or to harass you or whatever.

The only thing better would have been if the Court found that something more probative must first be present to initiate K9 searches; ergo, the standard should be higher than merely a dog signaling its master for its subsequent findings to carry the burden as valid evidence of a crime. The use of K9' should be considered a search in itself, representative of an extension of the officer's own senses in conducting searches, as their own abilities for sight, smell, or touch.

PaulConventionWV
04-22-2015, 09:01 AM
Yes, that is the way I read it as well.

In this case, they held the car and occupants for almost half an hour, for no reason, waiting for the drug dog.

That would explain it. I would pissed if they did that to me. Am I detained or not, officer? Did I get a speeding ticket or not, officer? What's that? You want me to wait for half an hour so a dog can smell my car??!!

PaulConventionWV
04-22-2015, 09:04 AM
What?! And this had to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to explain it to them? I thought the part about needing to have reasonable suspicion was obvious even to the cops, talk about a new level of idiocy by law enforcement, that has to be embarrassing for them.

Apparently, it wasn't the part about reasonable suspicion that was under question. They've always been allowed to use drug dogs without any suspicion. The problem was apparently that they made the driver wait 30 minutes before the drug dog showed up even though there was no reasonable suspicion. If there had been reasonable suspicion, it supposedly would've been okay, but they made the driver wait for no reason after already completing the purpose of the stop just on the basis of a hunch, probably a stereotype.

aGameOfThrones
04-23-2015, 10:42 AM
I knew I read another SCOTUS Dog case. Illinois v. Caballes (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10622335546539670066&q=illinois+v+caballes&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47)

Created4
04-26-2015, 09:37 AM
Good write up here:

Supreme Court to DoJ: Fourth Amendment Is Not a "Useless Piece of Paper" (http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/supreme-court-to-doj-fourth-amendment-is-not-a-useless-piece-of-paper)
A big win for personal liberty and the Bill of Rights


Any news that the Fourth Amendment is still being actively enforced by the courts is good news. At oral argument in Rodriguez v. United States, a case involving drug-sniffing dogs, Justice Sotomayor urged that if the arguments made by the Justice Department's lawyer were accepted, the Fourth Amendment would become "a useless piece of paper."

On Monday, in an engaged opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court rejected those arguments and breathed some life into an essential check on government power.

So Sotomayor and Ginsburg stand up for liberty (adamantly at that!) and do the right thing, while "conversatives" Alito and Thomas dissented. Without the "liberals," this would not have turned out well....