Police may not extend traffic stop to conduct a drug sniff

[Tilted]

I haven't gotten around to making a thread about noteworthy upcoming Supreme Court cases this year as I had the last couple of years. But we've already gotten a few noteworthy decisions, including the decision that we got this morning in Rodriguez v United States. It was a rare win for the Fourth Amendment and represents a minor curtailment of the runaway government powers which our courts have, for the most part, tolerated to too great a degree. Far too often our courts, to include the Supreme Court, have chosen deference to government power - often, in the form of law enforcement practices - over reverence for our Constitution and the individual protections written into it. But today we can celebrate a victory - small, and likely symbolic more so than real-world meaningful, though it may be.

Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court finding that, absent reasonable suspicion, extending a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff amounts to an unreasonable seizure and is thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined her to make the 6-3 majority. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

I'll add more comments, if they seem appropriate, after I've had time to read all of the opinions.

 

[Hijinx]

Trying to define reasonable suspicion to the traffic cop is another argument altogether.

I smell weed will be reasonable suspicion.
As will almost anything they can think of up to and including profiling.

This could hurt a lot of real cocaine and heroin busts if the cops really play it as written.

 

[PsyOps]

6-3. Don't see that very often. But I'm bothered about 'reasonable suspicion'. That's pretty loose if you ask me. Any cop could claim reasonable suspicion.

"I could have sworn I smelled pot."

 

[stgislander]

If you're not transporting any illegal drugs in your vehicle, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[MMDad]

I haven't gotten around to making a thread about noteworthy upcoming Supreme Court cases this year as I had the last couple of years. But we've already gotten a few noteworthy decisions, including the decision that we got this morning in Rodriguez v United States. It was a rare win for the Fourth Amendment and represents a minor curtailment of the runaway government powers which our courts have, for the most part, tolerated to too great a degree. Far too often our courts, to include the Supreme Court, have chosen deference to government power - often, in the form of law enforcement practices - over reverence for our Constitution and the individual protections written into it. But today we can celebrate a victory - small, and likely symbolic more so than real-world meaningful, though it may be.

Justice Ginsburg wrote for the Court finding that, absent reasonable suspicion, extending a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff amounts to an unreasonable seizure and is thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined her to make the 6-3 majority. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

I'll add more comments, if they seem appropriate, after I've had time to read all of the opinions.

I know that is pretty much the way for MD cases that make it to the Court of Appeals if you read the cases (which I'm sure you do). I agree with this - it takes more than a hunch, and they can't delay you any longer than it takes to process whatever got you stopped in the first place.

 

[MMDad]

6-3. Don't see that very often. But I'm bothered about 'reasonable suspicion'. That's pretty loose if you ask me. Any cop could claim reasonable suspicion.

"I could have sworn I smelled pot."

Reasonable suspicion isn't as loosely defined as you are implying. It has to be more than a hunch. They have to convince the judge that the suspicion was actually reasonable.

And as far as the "I smelled pot" excuse, they actually don't tend to abuse that. Imagine if they used that excuse, get a dog out there, it alerts, and the search. Their search reveals no pot, but they get 10 kilos of coke. Guess what - they can't use that. The guy walks because your initial suspicion was bogus.

 

[Lurk]

"Dang! My Brethalyzer is on the fritz. We'll have to wait for another trooper to bring his. This won't take too long, there's a K-9 unit a couple miles from here."

 

[MMDad]

"Dang! My Brethalyzer is on the fritz. We'll have to wait for another trooper to bring his. This won't take too long, there's a K-9 unit a couple miles from here."

Cases get thrown out for that kind of thing all the time. Believe it or not, the system actually works most of the time.

 

[General Lee]

Nothing has really changed with this. There has already been case law that allows extending a traffic stop to allow a K9 sniff if the officer believes drug activity is occurring, but he/she needs to be careful with that. Nonetheless, it is allowed. Don't have time to research the case but its there.

And....Ginsburg wrote...."absent reasonable suspicion, extending a traffic stop"...........

 

[General Lee]

And as far as the "I smelled pot" excuse, they actually don't tend to abuse that. Imagine if they used that excuse, get a dog out there, it alerts, and the search. Their search reveals no pot, but they get 10 kilos of coke. Guess what - they can't use that. The guy walks because your initial suspicion was bogus.

That is false. You don't think criminals that smoke pot may not participate in other drug activity? An officer could easily smell pot (although a dog isn't needed at that point, because he already has probable cause exists now because of smelling it on his own) You analogy is like saying, the officer smelled pot, conducted a search and a illegal handgun was found. They toss the handgun charge because the even though the odor of pot was present from recently smoking it none was found. :/

 

[GURPS]

http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/07/17/is-it-in-your-ass




Anal Probes Run Amok: Drug-Sniffing Dogs Must Be Stopped.


Although presented as impartial and infallible, it turns out that such dogs are not only often poorly trained, they are frequently wrong.

Cops, explains Andy Falco, a former K-9 handler and officer for the Anaheim Police Department in California, "will often motivate their dog or cue their dog to alert when there's absolutely nothing there." A 2011 analysis by the Chicago Tribune of police departments in the greater Chicago area found that vehicle searches initiated after dogs alerted failed to turn up drugs or drug paraphernalia 56 percent of the time. Other studies find false positives as high as 74 percent and 80 percent.

Yet in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as police say the dog is trained or accurate, "a court can presume that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search" people, vehicles, and property.

"If [police] have a dog that will alert on cue," says Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, who has written extensively on the issue, "that's a very useful tool to have to search people you have other grounds to think are suspicious." Sullum stresses that there are no uniform or reliable certification standards for training drug-sniffing dogs.

 

[MMDad]

That is false. You don't think criminals that smoke pot may not participate in other drug activity? An officer could easily smell pot (although a dog isn't needed at that point, because he already has probable cause exists now because of smelling it on his own) You analogy is like saying, the officer smelled pot, conducted a search and a illegal handgun was found. They toss the handgun charge because the even though the odor of pot was present from recently smoking it none was found. :/

Try a little reading comprehension. You are arguing the opposite of what I said. I am saying that they don't falsely claim to smell pot just to get a dog sniff. That will get a case thrown out.

 

[PsyOps]

Reasonable suspicion isn't as loosely defined as you are implying. It has to be more than a hunch. They have to convince the judge that the suspicion was actually reasonable.

And as far as the "I smelled pot" excuse, they actually don't tend to abuse that. Imagine if they used that excuse, get a dog out there, it alerts, and the search. Their search reveals no pot, but they get 10 kilos of coke. Guess what - they can't use that. The guy walks because your initial suspicion was bogus.

I’m not buying this at all. That’s like saying if they smell pot and find a loaded concealed handgun that the person wasn’t authorized to carry, the cops won’t pursue that? If they smell pot and find coke/illegal weapons/narcotics/child porn… you’re going to jail.

Given the SCOTUS had to entertain this in the first place says there was a problem with abuse. You even implied it… A routine traffic stop requires cops calling out the K9s? It still leads to the same thing. I happen to think running K9s around your car constitutes a search; but I’m sure folks will say I’m stretching it.

In any event, ‘reasonable suspicion’ in routine traffic stops can be a judgment call by the cop and doesn’t require a heavy burden of proof on the spot. The caveat is, the cop better find something otherwise he’ll have to answer for it. If it were me and I had nothing, I’d make sure of it.

 

[PsyOps]

Try a little reading comprehension. You are arguing the opposite of what I said. I am saying that they don't falsely claim to smell pot just to get a dog sniff. That will get a case thrown out.

But this is not about getting it thrown out because of lack of evidence. The SCOTUS decision is saying it should never get to the point of being 'thrown out'.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

The most amazing part of this story is that three justices sided with the police.

There's still a bit of ambiguity on this in my mind. The maximum length of the traffic stop should take no longer than it takes to conduct the business related to the purpose of the stop. That still smells ripe for abuse. And believe me, if there's anyone who knows how to abuse laws (ostensibly "legally") it's the cops. They are allowed to lie and are generally not honest brokers.

 

[PsyOps]

The most amazing part of this story is that three justices sided with the police.

There's still a bit of ambiguity on this in my mind. The maximum length of the traffic stop should take no longer than it takes to conduct the business related to the purpose of the stop. That still smells ripe for abuse. And believe me, if there's anyone who knows how to abuse laws (ostensibly "legally") it's the cops. They are allowed to lie and are generally not honest brokers.

And this plays into what I've been feeling for quite some time now... we are all presumed guilty of something until we prove we are innocent. This is a really uncomfortable feeling.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

And this plays into what I've been feeling for quite some time now... we are all presumed guilty of something until we prove we are innocent. This is a really uncomfortable feeling.

Read _Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent_ by Harvey Silverglate.

 

[MMDad]

I’m not buying this at all. That’s like saying if they smell pot and find a loaded concealed handgun that the person wasn’t authorized to carry, the cops won’t pursue that? If they smell pot and find coke/illegal weapons/narcotics/child porn… you’re going to jail.

That is not what I said. Your "I could have sworn I smelled pot" implies that they would falsely claim that anytime they want to do a search.

If they claim to have smelled pot, yet they find nothing to substantiate that, then their "smelled pot" story would not be credible and the search could be deemed unreasonable. That would mean that anything found in that search is not admissible. Anything.

 

[MMDad]

But this is not about getting it thrown out because of lack of evidence. The SCOTUS decision is saying it should never get to the point of being 'thrown out'.

No kidding. Of course we want the cops to only present perfect cases to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor to only present perfect cases to the court. Of course, then we wouldn't need appeals courts, would we?

So, what do you think is supposed to happen if the evidence isn't perfect? Here's a clue - the evidence is presented to the judge, who makes a ruling on admissibility. That means the judge either allows the evidence or not, and can throw it out if it violates the rights of the accused.

 

[MMDad]

Given the SCOTUS had to entertain this in the first place says there was a problem with abuse. You even implied it… A routine traffic stop requires cops calling out the K9s? It still leads to the same thing. I happen to think running K9s around your car constitutes a search; but I’m sure folks will say I’m stretching it.

Of course it's a search. SCOTUS has made that very clear. It is not about what is and isn't a search, it's about what is and isn't reasonable. Reasonable searches are perfectly legal. We are only protected from unreasonable searches:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"