Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop

It really makes me uncomfortable when the Supreme Court starts making rulings that your privacy is not really yours.

In a ruling filed yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that drug sniffing dogs may be used during routine traffic stops even if there is no suspicion of otherwise illegal activities. The silly reasoning of the Court can best be summarized by this quote from Justice Stevens:

“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 Fourth Amendment,”

Imagine what this will mean for the future. No matter what the reason for the stop, you’ll have a dog sniffing at your car because the Supreme Court just said that because you have no right to posess marijuana, you have no right to privacy if you do.

They’ve basically just authorized drug searches of every person stopped for blowing a stop sign.

How long do you think it’ll be before beat officers start walking around with drug sniffing dogs and start randomly searching people on the street and justifying it with this ruling and the premise that since you don’t have a right to have marijuana in the first place, you have no right to any privacy about carrying it on your person?

Think it’s way out?

Why? They’ve already decided basically that very same thing for cars!

The standard used to be plain sight. Now the standard is whatever a dog can sniff. One by one we’re getting to the point where people are just going to be randomly checked whenver a police officer gets the bug up his butt to do so, and checkpoints will be set up at major roads in the effort of curtailing the scourge of drug trafficking?

Think it can’t happen here?

Well who knew in 2005 we’d have the Supreme Court validating intrusions of privacy by the police in the interest of the public good even though the person being searched was not perceptibly guilty of any crime.

It’s only a matter of time, and if you think it can’t happen here, think again.

(source)

This entry was posted in In The News, Scary. Bookmark the permalink.
  • abcd

    Easy Now…………….If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about. If you are running drugs up the Jersey turnpike then you have a serious deterrent. The only people who should be worried about this are the people who are already breaking the law.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Oh? And what’s to stop police from eventually walking down the street with dogs and sniffing pedestrians?

    The whole “I’ve got nothing to hide so I’ll give up some freedom” thing is just flat out stupid. I don’t want dogs sniffing around my car if I get pulled over for a brakelight. If you’re okay with that, fine. Volunteer to have your car searched whenever your pulled over.

    “Hey officer, while you have me here, wanna search my car?”

    Remember, this isn’t some profiling issue, or something similar. This applies to being pulled over for a regular traffic stop, so the next time you get pulled over, be prepared to be violated because, well hey, you’ve got nothing to hide, right?

  • pam

    Sorry Vinny, but I don’t see where there were rights violated here. The man was stopped and the cop got lucky on the drug bust.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Well, as the Supreme Court basically said, they no longer need probable cause to search a vehicle with a drug sniffing dog anymore. The logic is that since you have no right to have marijuana, you have no constitutional right to privacy if you have it.

    What that means is that if they feel like searching you, they can, and if they find anything, well that invalidates your right to not be searched.

    The rule used to be plain sight. Now the rule is plain sense of smell of a dog. Pretty soon, people will be walking through X-Ray machines on a regular basis because, well hey, if you aren’t hiding something you have nothing to worry about.

    They had no right to search this man. Period. They had no probable cause, and what he was carrying was not in plain sight. The Supreme Court just said that’s fine. I have a real problem with it.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com The Other Mike S

    As you noted, the SC has basically said, “if you’re breaking the law, you have no right to privacy”. There are already handheld sensors that are used to detect various leaking gasses or other compounds. Now all we need to do is outfit them to detect Meth or pot, hook up a cop to walk through crowded streets and pop everyone that makes the meter move.

    And we already have the No Probable Cause Checkpoints – they’re called DUI Checkpoints. Clearly, these will now be expanded to include drug possession checks.

    People are so scared that drugs/alcohol/vice of choice are ruining their towns, they are willing to give up their most precious rights, and that’s the right to privacy, liberty and freedom. These people are making – no ASKING – the government to make America a concentration camp. Nanny will gladly comply.

    ABCD, please tell me you’re a troll.

    Pam, you’re OK that his car was searched without ANY probable cause? Really? The cop didn’t get lucky, he conducted an illegal search in direct violation of the constitution, and got the SC to OK it.

  • abcd

    Easy Now…………….If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about. If you are running drugs up the Jersey turnpike then you have a serious deterrent. The only people who should be worried about this are the people who are already breaking the law.

  • abcd

    Easy Now…………….If you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about. If you are running drugs up the Jersey turnpike then you have a serious deterrent. The only people who should be worried about this are the people who are already breaking the law.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Oh? And what’s to stop police from eventually walking down the street with dogs and sniffing pedestrians?

    The whole “I’ve got nothing to hide so I’ll give up some freedom” thing is just flat out stupid. I don’t want dogs sniffing around my car if I get pulled over for a brakelight. If you’re okay with that, fine. Volunteer to have your car searched whenever your pulled over.

    “Hey officer, while you have me here, wanna search my car?”

    Remember, this isn’t some profiling issue, or something similar. This applies to being pulled over for a regular traffic stop, so the next time you get pulled over, be prepared to be violated because, well hey, you’ve got nothing to hide, right?

  • pam

    Sorry Vinny, but I don’t see where there were rights violated here. The man was stopped and the cop got lucky on the drug bust.

  • pam

    Sorry Vinny, but I don’t see where there were rights violated here. The man was stopped and the cop got lucky on the drug bust.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Well, as the Supreme Court basically said, they no longer need probable cause to search a vehicle with a drug sniffing dog anymore. The logic is that since you have no right to have marijuana, you have no constitutional right to privacy if you have it.

    What that means is that if they feel like searching you, they can, and if they find anything, well that invalidates your right to not be searched.

    The rule used to be plain sight. Now the rule is plain sense of smell of a dog. Pretty soon, people will be walking through X-Ray machines on a regular basis because, well hey, if you aren’t hiding something you have nothing to worry about.

    They had no right to search this man. Period. They had no probable cause, and what he was carrying was not in plain sight. The Supreme Court just said that’s fine. I have a real problem with it.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com/ The Other Mike S

    As you noted, the SC has basically said, “if you’re breaking the law, you have no right to privacy”. There are already handheld sensors that are used to detect various leaking gasses or other compounds. Now all we need to do is outfit them to detect Meth or pot, hook up a cop to walk through crowded streets and pop everyone that makes the meter move.

    And we already have the No Probable Cause Checkpoints – they’re called DUI Checkpoints. Clearly, these will now be expanded to include drug possession checks.

    People are so scared that drugs/alcohol/vice of choice are ruining their towns, they are willing to give up their most precious rights, and that’s the right to privacy, liberty and freedom. These people are making – no ASKING – the government to make America a concentration camp. Nanny will gladly comply.

    ABCD, please tell me you’re a troll.

    Pam, you’re OK that his car was searched without ANY probable cause? Really? The cop didn’t get lucky, he conducted an illegal search in direct violation of the constitution, and got the SC to OK it.

  • http://nonannystate.blogspot.com/ The Other Mike S

    As you noted, the SC has basically said, “if you’re breaking the law, you have no right to privacy”. There are already handheld sensors that are used to detect various leaking gasses or other compounds. Now all we need to do is outfit them to detect Meth or pot, hook up a cop to walk through crowded streets and pop everyone that makes the meter move.

    And we already have the No Probable Cause Checkpoints – they’re called DUI Checkpoints. Clearly, these will now be expanded to include drug possession checks.

    People are so scared that drugs/alcohol/vice of choice are ruining their towns, they are willing to give up their most precious rights, and that’s the right to privacy, liberty and freedom. These people are making – no ASKING – the government to make America a concentration camp. Nanny will gladly comply.

    ABCD, please tell me you’re a troll.

    Pam, you’re OK that his car was searched without ANY probable cause? Really? The cop didn’t get lucky, he conducted an illegal search in direct violation of the constitution, and got the SC to OK it.