Should police be permitted to use a drug-sniffing dog to roam the hallways of an apartment or condominium complex to search for contraband without getting a warrant from a judge? That is the question confronted by the state supreme court this week in a case called State v. Dennis Kono. Hiding underneath that are several other considerations of importance: should the police's power to search a person's residence be any different depending on whether the residence is an apartment, condominium or free-standing house; and should the search for contraband outweigh any Fourth Amendment rights we have as citizens? [continues 1199 words]
Should police be permitted to use a drug-sniffing dog to roam the hallways of an apartment or condominium complex to search for contraband without getting a warrant from a judge? That is the question confronted by the state supreme court this week in a case called State v. Dennis Kono. Hiding underneath that are several other considerations of importance: should the police's power to search a person's residence be any different depending on whether the residence is an apartment, condominium or free-standing house; and should the search for contraband outweigh any Fourth Amendment rights we have as citizens? [continues 1195 words]
It may be a little easier for police officers in Illinois to find drugs after the Illinois Supreme Court this week OK'd drug sniff "set-ups" in one of a handful of decisions. The opinion in People v. Bartelt centers on a 2006 traffic stop in Quincy. Police officers said Cheryl Bartelt was suspected of buying methamphetamine. Officers pulled over her car, and called for a drug-sniffing dog. As they waited for the dog, officers told Bartelt to roll up the windows of her car and to then turn on her car's fans. Once the dog arrived, it alerted officers to the presence of drugs. The police searched Bartelt's car, found methamphetamine and arrested her for possession of methamphetamine, according to court records. [continues 730 words]
Legal and Logistic Questions Remain About the Device. The Missouri Highway Patrol has been quietly testing a new scanning device that can detect the presence of meth with only the click of a button. To law enforcement, it could be the future of crime-fighting technology. To meth dealers and manufacturers, this might signal the turning point in the war against one of the country's greatest drug scourges. But before police can begin widespread use of the scanner, it has to overcome several hurdles. [continues 1956 words]
State Justices Vote 4-3 In Favor Of Constitutionality In a narrow decision, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that police can use drug-sniffing dogs to search vehicles during routine traffic stops. By a 4-3 vote, the court decided that the drug-trafficking arrest of a driver stopped in 1998 for speeding on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County did not violate his constitutional rights. The man was charged with the drug offense after a police canine detected marijuana in his car while an officer was writing the traffic ticket. [continues 1329 words]
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. A deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court gave police broad authority Thursday to use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect cars in routine traffic stops, a move critics call an erosion of personal liberty. The Illinois attorney general's office, however, applauded the ruling for giving police more freedom to use "an invaluable tool." The court's 4-3 majority ruled that a dog sniffing the exterior of a car does not constitute an unreasonable search. "A dog sniff will not reveal the contents of diaries or love letters; it will not reveal the individual's choice of reading materials, whether religious, political or pornographic; it will not reveal sexual orientation or marital infidelity," Justice Rita Garman wrote. [continues 305 words]
SPRINGFIELD - The Illinois Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling Thursday and upheld the conviction of a man arrested after a drug-sniffing dog alerted police to marijuana in his vehicle during a routine traffic stop. By a 4-3 vote, justices decided that Roy Caballes's rights of privacy and protection from an unreasonable search were not violated during his 1998 arrest on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County. In 2003, the state Supreme Court ruled that Caballes's rights had been violated and overturned his conviction. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that ruling and sent his case back to the state Supreme Court for further action. [continues 96 words]
SPRINGFIELD - A deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court gave police broad authority Thursday to use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect cars during routine traffic stops, a move critics call an erosion of personal liberty. The Illinois attorney general's office, however, applauded the ruling for giving police more freedom to use "an invaluable tool." The court's 4-3 majority found that a dog sniffing the exterior of a car does not constitute an unreasonable search. "A dog sniff will not reveal the contents of diaries or love letters; it will not reveal the individual's choice of reading materials, whether religious, political or pornographic; it will not reveal sexual orientation or marital infidelity," Justice Rita Garman wrote. [continues 442 words]
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - A deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court gave police broad authority Thursday to use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect cars during routine traffic stops, a move critics call an erosion of personal liberty. The Illinois attorney general's office, however, applauded the ruling for giving police more freedom to use "an invaluable tool." The court's 4-3 majority found that a dog sniffing the exterior of a car does not constitute an unreasonable search. "A dog sniff will not reveal the contents of diaries or love letters; it will not reveal the individual's choice of reading materials, whether religious, political or pornographic; it will not reveal sexual orientation or marital infidelity," Justice Rita Garman wrote. [continues 283 words]
SPRINGFIELD -- A deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court gave police broad authority Thursday to use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect cars during routine traffic stops, a move critics call an erosion of personal liberty. The Illinois attorney general's office, however, applauded the ruling for giving police more freedom to use "an invaluable tool." The court's 4-3 majority found that a dog sniffing the exterior of a car does not constitute an unreasonable search. Click for larger view. "A dog sniff will not reveal the contents of diaries or love letters; it will not reveal the individual's choice of reading materials, whether religious, political or pornographic; it will not reveal sexual orientation or marital infidelity," Justice Rita Garman wrote. [continues 522 words]
Previous Ruling Said Privacy Rights Violated By Unreasonable Search SPRINGFIELD - In a narrow decision, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that police can use drug-sniffing dogs to search vehicles during routine traffic stops. By a 4-3 vote, the court decided that the drug trafficking arrest of a driver stopped in 1998 for speeding on Interstate 80 in LaSalle County did not violate his constitutional rights. The man was charged with the drug offense after a police canine detected marijuana in his car while an officer was writing the traffic ticket. [continues 984 words]
"Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and the embarrassment of the law abiding population," according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a U.S Supreme court justice since 1993, who voted against a ridiculous ruling. Wonder what we're talking about? As of January 24, a police officer may search your vehicle without probable cause due to a Supreme Court ruling. The ruling was made by a 6-2 vote with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a justice since 1972, abstaining. Rehnquist took no part in the ruling because of illness. [continues 409 words]
"Reasonable belief" that drugs are in someone's car would be needed, not "ear-piercing or dreadlocks," for police in Illinois to use drug-sniffing dogs under a bill filed Monday by Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago). The measure is a response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision based on an Illinois case. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued in favor of the dogs' use before the high court, which agreed with her in overruling an Illinois Supreme Court decision. [continues 365 words]
Opponents Worry About Privacy, Intrusive Searches If you're pulled over with an illegal drug in your car, hiding it somewhere and keeping cool might be enough to fool a police officer. Probably not the drug dog, though. In a 6-2 decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that if a police dog sniffs something questionable in a car during a traffic stop, police can search it, even if the stop is for something as simple as a broken taillight. [continues 697 words]
Your editorial on the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Caballes rightfully concludes that unwarranted dog searches at traffic stops impedes upon Fourth Amendment rights ("Trampling the 4th: Dogs unleashed," Jan. 29). Even if the traffic stop in question was better justified, there was no impaired driving or other justification for a drug search. Unfortunately, unwarranted drug searches are not even applied indiscriminately -- people of color will certainly be disproportionately exposed to unwarranted drug searches. Don Konecny Oakland, Calif. [end]
Supreme Court Oversees Steady Erosion of Rights. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the government shall not conduct "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court has steadily redefined "reasonable" to mean just about whatever the cops think it means. A ruling handed down by the court this week is in keeping with that tradition. In a 6-2 decision, the court held that after having stopped a motorist for a traffic violation, officers may walk around the car with a drug-sniffing dog, even in the absence of any suspicion of illegal activity. And if the dog indicates the presence of drugs, the police may then search the vehicle. [continues 285 words]
NIAGARA FALLS -- Niagara County cops are casting a curious eye toward a recent Supreme Court decision that appears to give them broader powers to search vehicles during traffic stops. The ruling said drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists, even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be carrying narcotics. "We've done that before, where we had a suspicion that the driver may have been transporting drugs," Falls Police Superintendent John Chella said. "I know Customs is doing it on the bridge when they have a back-up. They take the dog out and just let it walk along the cars and see if it alerts." [continues 197 words]
Decision Authorizes Drug Canine Use in Routine Searches A speeding ticket will be the least of some drivers' problems in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Drug dogs can now be used during any lawful traffic stop even if the officer has no suspicions that illegal drugs are present. The Jan. 24 ruling stemmed from the case of an Illinois man who was stopped for speeding but was convicted for marijuana found during the traffic stop. Roy Caballes' ticket was being written when another officer arrived with a drug dog that barked at the trunk of his car. [continues 370 words]
Perhaps it's not the stuff of massive outrage. But a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued Monday - which allows drug-sniffing dogs to sniff a car during a routine traffic stop - represents another small erosion of privacy and personal freedom. Freedoms are generally lost little by little, often by giving authorities just a little more latitude in difficult or ambivalent circumstances. We fear Illinois v. Caballes, which reversed the Illinois Supreme Court, will come to be seen as another small step in the slow but steady erosion of privacy. [continues 283 words]
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing police officers to employ drug-sniffing dogs for routine traffic stops without the driver's consent has Fairbanks-area law enforcement agencies wondering how it will affect them. Local agencies, however, say they have no immediate plans to exercise the new power. A privacy clause in the Alaska Constitution could negate it, said some law enforcement officers, attorneys and civil rights advocates. "Why not get a search warrant?" said Keith Mallard, an Alaska State Trooper lieutenant who heads the agency's K-9 program. "Going through that extra step is not that big of a deal." [continues 345 words]
