Sick the dogs on them!

[PointBender]

fun times!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...OE=click-refer

Court OKs dog sniff during traffic stop
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday during traffic stops, ruling that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be carrying narcotics.
In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous.

Caballes argued the Fourth Amendment protects motorists from searches such as dog sniffing, but Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed, reasoning that the privacy intrusion was minimal.

"The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement," Stevens wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg bemoaned what she called the broadening of police search powers, saying the use of drug dogs will make routine traffic stops more "adversarial." She was joined in her dissent in part by Justice David H. Souter.

"Injecting such animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial and (in at least some cases) longer," she wrote.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist did not participate in consideration of the case.

The case is Illinois vs. Caballes, 03-923.

[transparentaura]

Why is it whenever a court rules in favor of limiting government intrusion into the private lives of citizens they are called "activist judges" But courts granting government broader powers are not similarly charged? Was the intention of the constitution to protect the rights of citizens or government. I thought it was citizens. Is this the kind of country the framers of the constitution envisioned? I don't believe so. I see every ruling that increases government power at the expense of privacy as judicial activism. People always say that if you are not doing anything wrong there is no reason to worry. But the flaws in that argument are obvious and many.

Originally Posted by transparentaura

Why is it whenever a court rules in favor of limiting government intrusion into the private lives of citizens they are called "activist judges" But courts granting government broader powers are not similarly charged? Was the intention of the constitution to protect the rights of citizens or government. I thought it was citizens. Is this the kind of country the framers of the constitution envisioned? I don't believe so. I see every ruling that increases government power at the expense of privacy as judicial activism. People always say that if you are not doing anything wrong there is no reason to worry. But the flaws in that argument are obvious and many.

this was a 6-2 decision..... that makes the law discussed pretty well settled...

there was no "increase" in power - merely an affirmation that the tactic used was permissible.

I generally dislike any ruling that infringes even slightly on privacy so I'm not happy about this........

[zerojunkie]

sweet we can put more non-violent drug offenders in jail now.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

sweet we can put more non-violent drug offenders in jail now.

why bother solving real crimes when you can send poor kids to jail for marijuanna


x 1000000000