U.S. Supreme Court to Decide on Legality of Drug Dog Searches

[HippieMama]

Hey ya Mass

Excellent thread!

As suggested in another thread, depending of course on the outcome of the vote, IF they vote YES to dog searches....we need to all send a little MJ
to the Supreme Court in protest... I think I would even be so bold as to buy a special card to accompany my gift....

 

[OXOSSI]

.

.

Doggie or a kitty could save your ass. I read something years ago how germans were using pigs for sniffing. supposedly their olfactory system is more sensitive than dog's. Farmers use them to find mushrooms underground.

 

[KingRalph]

truffle hunters indeed oxossi.

when coming back from canada a few years ago (after a good 4 trips back n forth in a few days gettin waved by), over the niagara falls bridge, my friend is nervous round any authority so bein skittery they searched us of course based on nothing. well my friend had a dugout one hitter he just bought, still unused with the "for tobacco only" label on it still, and i, cigarette papers in my back pocket. they gave us shit, i gave it to em right back, wasn't havin any of that nonsense, i'll be damned if i'll be intimidated by someone on the wrong side of the situation. well my friend is different and had had enough so i gave in and had to break the dugout with a hammer (?wtf?) my first swing i missed wildly and chipped their floor. wankers. "miss again and we'll detain you". cops woulda just been mad they wasted their time with "paraphernalia". it's MY country. i hate abuse of power or even snobbishness from false authority. no one has authority over me. go mets.

 

[GreatLakes THC]

... no one has authority over me. go mets.

...lol...

GreatLakes THC

 

[OXOSSI]

.

.

I am usually very humble with cops, having grown up in an eastern european country. And most times if ur polite, it pays back. But with assholes its a different story. I was pulled over once in a friends car. Was with my brother at the time - he was giving me driving lessons, but that night he had a "gut feeling" so he took the wheel having the licence.
They went through the trunk and the glove compartment like crazy. Do u have drugs or guns or my favorite "anything that I am not supposed to know about" well duhhh! After a while I sarcastically asked the cop: "Find anything officer" Maaan, did that piss him off! He got in my face and gave me the whole marine treatment, I can take u in right now...bla bla bla...was so funny.
But it would all have been different if I was driving...
Final note...be nice. If ur clean and have no record and they treat you like shit, first ask for their name and badge number calmly.

 

[SuperToker]

Hey ya Mass

Excellent thread!

As suggested in another thread, depending of course on the outcome of the vote, IF they vote YES to dog searches....we need to all send a little MJ
to the Supreme Court in protest... I think I would even be so bold as to buy a special card to accompany my gift....

welcome to winter 2005, the supreme court left for summer vacation months ago, and has already released the opinion of the court on this case.

 

[I.M. Boggled]

Justices Decide Legal Stop Allows Use Of Drug Dog Search Within Reason
Crime Control Digest,
Jan 28, 2005

The Supreme Court decided police could conduct a canine drug search without reasonable suspicion during a legal traffic stop providing the search is conducted within a reasonable time.

The high court cautioned that police must use a highly trained dog that would not give out false signals, resulting in an intrusive search that would violate the 4th Amendment.

Further, the court said, the use of a canine during a legitimate stop for a traffic violation cannot prolong the episode.

"In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner" Justice John Paul Stevens said in the 6-2 majority opinion.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not participate because of illness.

"Official conduct that does not 'compromise any legitimate interest in privacy' is not a search subject to the 4th Amendment," the high court said.

"We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate,' and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband 'compromises no legitimate privacy interest,' " the high court said.

An Illinois State Trooper stopped a car for speeding. As he was writing a warning ticket, a second officer with a drug canine arrived on the scene and conducted an external search of the vehicle. The dog alerted and police found $256,000 worth of marijuana in the trunk. The entire incident lasted less than 10 minutes.

When the Illinois Supreme Court decided in 2003 the search was unconstitutional, the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed.

"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the 4th Amendment," the U.S. Supreme Court said.

The question before the court was:
"Whether the 4th Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop."

The court said it rendered the opinion with the assumption the officer conducting the dog sniff had no information except that the driver had been stopped for speeding.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissenting opinions said the decision clears the way for police to use drug canines to conduct sniff searches in any public space without reasonable cause.

"Every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population," Ginsburg wrote.

Souter asked whether it could lead to "suspicionless and indiscriminate sweeps of cars in parking garages and pedestrians on sidewalks."
He said he hoped the ruling was written narrowly enough that it would not.

Inf.: Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923, Sup. Ct., Jan. 24.

 

[inflorescence]

We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate

A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the 4th Amendment.

But medical MJ is a contraband that is LEGAL to possess and since the dogs are STATE agents, not federal agents then under state law I have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the MMJ is legitimate, so that pretty much shoots the whole supreme courts theory out the window.
What a buncha dumbasses.

 

[Pythagllio]

This was a Federal decision. MMJ exception would only apply in mmj states so California Supremes might decide that for Cali residents.

 

[inflorescence]

This was a Federal decision. MMJ exception would only apply in mmj states so California Supremes might decide that for Cali residents.

But dogs are state agents only, not federal agents, so according to bill lockyer, CA's AG, state agents must follow state law, even if it conflicts with federal law.

Not only do I have a federal 4th amendment right to privacy but don't states have their own constitutions that mirror fed law, so I would also have a state 4th amendment right to privacy.

IOW, the fed supreme court is ruling that fed law always trumps state law, but if that is the case then why is CA allowed to have MMJ and violate fed law?

 

[GOT_BUD?]

IOW, the fed supreme court is ruling that fed law always trumps state law, but if that is the case then why is CA allowed to have MMJ and violate fed law?

They're not. Why do you think all the clubs in Kali are getting busted by the Feds? It's usually not local PD that's doing the busting. They're usually just there to help with traffic while the Feds do their shit.

 

[Pythagllio]

inflorescence, the case decided was in Illinois, and they don't have med pot so I don't understand why you're flogging CA.

If California people try to enforce fed law that's a violation of the state constitution.

 

[inflorescence]

I live in CA, and If I'm pulled over, if the cops want to f' with me the first thing they will do is call in a dog, wether they have reasonable suspicion or not.
My point is, AFAIK, the CA supreme court hasn't decided this issue and seem to me to be adhering to this fed law decision, which I think is wrong IMO as stated.