http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/court_search_dc


I can't believe they said that's a legal search. This really pisses me off. Except for the two disenters...they know what's right.

Thats nuts and just plain wrong.

Why exactly is this stupid? You do know that cause is much different the minute you get behind the wheel of your car. As it should be since your operating what is in essence a potentially deadly weapon.

It's pretty obvious how distinctly more acute a dog's sense of smell is versus a human's senses, but think of it like this. If a cop without a dog were to walk up to a motorist's window and saw a nickel bag hanging out from under the passenger seat, would that be probable cause for a search? Now, it's off limits for cops to 'elevate' their senses...in a sense, by having his 'partner' walk up to the window with him? On every routine stop?

The way I see it is if he see's it, then its in plain view so he can search the car. But if its not in plain view and the person has done no wrong then no reason to search them. Atleasts thats how I understand the law. Basically preventing illegal searches and harrasment from happening. Just covering your rights to be innocent unless doing something wrong. With a dog there they can say, well my 'partner' thought it smelled something so they search you. That type of deal is what I understand the reason behind the law. Shrug, of course I could be wrong.

Face it, we live in a police state,


do what your told or go to jail.

Rules are different when you get in your car.

:sadwavey: civil rights :(

:sadwavey: civil rights :(

What civil rights have been lost with this decision?
The transportation of 282 pounds of Mary Jane is not a right protected by the Constitution.

What civil rights have been lost with this decision?
The transportation of 282 pounds of Mary Jane is not a right protected by the Constitution.

Unlawful search and seizure.

Souter said he would rule that using the dog for the purpose of determining the presence of marijuana in the car's trunk was a search unauthorized in connection with the speeding stop and unjustified on any other ground.

Ginsburg agreed and said she would hold the police violated Caballes's rights when they conducted the dog sniff without cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Because he was hispanic most likely was the reason he was subjected to a dog search. Furthermore I once drove through Dallas/Fort Worth with a uhaul trailer hitched on and my hispanic friend accompanying me back to Michigan. We got pulled over for crossing the center line with the trailer once. The police proceded to ask to search the uhaul cause they thought I was transporting Illegals. I wonder why they thought that? Cause I am a white guy driving with a hispanic guy. I told the officer to go right ahead. He did and found jack all while I was laughing in the cab of the truck.

I know up in Montana there are a few towns that have K-9 officers called for almost all traffic stops, and probably 80-90% of traffic citations seem to wind up with a posession of paraphernalia or small amounts of controlled substances charge on top of it.

I had hope that the Supreme court would have stopped this nonsense, but no- instead they only reinforced the police state.

"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" protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Stevens concluded.

Why didn't you quote Justice Stevens' majority opinion?
Since the Supreme Court has ruled, it is not an unlawful search; it's Constitutional.

Because he was hispanic most likely was the reason he was subjected to a dog search.

What a racist statement!
How do you know he's Hispanic?
Didn't you "profile" his last name to arrive at this?

If your stupid enough to carry drugs in your car or any other illegal substance I'm glad they would use dogs to catch it.

If your against this then are you also against the terrorist watch list for airlines. Isn't that the biggest form of profiling ever?

What a racist statement!
How do you know he's Hispanic?
Didn't you "profile" his last name to arrive at this?

Oh please. That is a pretty weak argument. The difference between myself profiling his name for sake of argument and the law doing it to incarcerate him is that he loses his freedom whereas I cause him no harm. I admit I speculated on his ethnicity. Sorry if I offended anyone.... ;)

While I don't condone the traffiking of illegal substances, I do think that this is going to set a precedence for other searches, and that is what I am most worried about. The issue isn't so much as the use of the dog to sniff for drugs as whether the officer deliberately extended the traffic stop that was legitimate at the beginning into a detention for the sole purpose of having a drug dog sniff for drugs. There is law stating that once the officer has finished with the purpose of the stop that he/her has to let said individual go on their way. My problem with this is that he was going to let the guy go and then another officer came by with the drug dog and began sniffing around. I don't believe that to be a legal search.

I didn't quote majority opinion because I don't believe it to be right. That's what your here for. ;) And just because they ruled on it doesn't mean that in 5 or 10 years they won't revisit it in a different, but similar case and turn in a different ruling. I seem to remember a few from my history classes....

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

or

Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

So just because they ruled doesn't make it set in stone.

*crosses fingers and hopes for some good justices to get nominated some day*

And just because they ruled on it doesn't mean that in 5 or 10 years they won't revisit it in a different, but similar case and turn in a different ruling. I seem to remember a few from my history classes....


*crosses fingers and hopes for some good justices to get nominated some day*

Man, you must've really gone to a good high school. Not only did you learn about some neat laws, you learned them so well that you know enough to dismiss any possible credibility 6 supreme court justices might have.

Seriously though: People need to understand one crucial thing, and that is that the constitution does not enact whatever protections we might like. That said, the idea that somehow there's a right to keep a car on a public highway free from any sort of police inspection is ridiculous. Would you be against the police in washington, DC, having sniffing dogs to check for bombs? And if a bomb sniffing dog happened to alert on a random car, should it be illegal to search that car?

Seems to me the only way to say no to the drug search, and yes to the bomb search, is to assume that selling drugs has some kind of protection that carrying bombs does not. Does that sound like good law to you?

Seriously though: People need to understand one crucial thing, and that is that the constitution does not enact whatever protections we might like. That said, the idea that somehow there's a right to keep a car on a public highway free from any sort of police inspection is ridiculous. Would you be against the police in washington, DC, having sniffing dogs to check for bombs? And if a bomb sniffing dog happened to alert on a random car, should it be illegal to search that car?

Seems to me the only way to say no to the drug search, and yes to the bomb search, is to assume that selling drugs has some kind of protection that carrying bombs does not. Does that sound like good law to you?

No, but what I do have a problem with and this is what you have a hard time grasping is that he was pulled over for speeding. 6 over I believe and after the officer said that he was going to let him go with a warning another officer happened by with the drug dog. At the point where the first officer was going to let him go with a warning he should have been let go. The difference between searching random cars in a parking lot or something like that is that you are not singling out one person for search.

Look the guy was a bad guy and he had drugs (alot of drugs)and he got caught. I have no bad feelings about this. He got what he deserved but, the problem lies in their methods. The people this is going to hurt are going to be the casual smokers and everyday people that do no harm to society that happen to have a roach or small amount with them. Everyone knows someone like this that is a normal everyday person. These people go to work, pay taxes and are red blooded american citizens just like the rest of us. They do you no harm when they get high on marijuana.

I just heard this morning that Tommy Chong just got out of jail not to long ago. He was in jail for 10 months for having an ounce of weed and a few bongs and stuff in his home which the police raided. Gimme a break. Is this the drug war that we are fighting? The drug war is the biggest joke I have ever heard of. A close second is the War on an idea (ie. terrorism)

The people this is going to hurt are going to be the casual smokers and everyday people that do no harm to society that happen to have a roach or small amount with them. Everyone knows someone like this that is a normal everyday person. These people go to work, pay taxes and are red blooded american citizens just like the rest of us. They do you no harm when they get high on marijuana.

I just heard this morning that Tommy Chong just got out of jail not to long ago. He was in jail for 10 months for having an ounce of weed and a few bongs and stuff in his home which the police raided. Gimme a break. Is this the drug war that we are fighting? The drug war is the biggest joke I have ever heard of. A close second is the War on an idea (ie. terrorism)

I totally agree that the war on drugs is the dumbest waste of money (second to iraq). If people want to OD on drugs and ruin thier lives then let them.

But I do believe that drugs in cars should be treated just like beer and liqour in cars. It shouldn't be there.

The whole point is that the guy shouldn't have been searched on a normal traffic stop for speeding. If he was high, and the car smelled like weed, and he was driving erradically then fine, get the dogs out. But this decision tells cops they can have dogs sniff your car every time they stop you, even if it's just for an out tail light or something. That's whack. What if you're on a road trip, and you brought an 1/8th for when you get where you're going. You're driving sober, but a little fast. You get pulled over. The next thing you know you're arrested for having pot even though you're clearly not trafficing or dealing and you're driving sober. That's whack. It'd be like if cops gave out tickets for having unopened 12 packs in your trunk.

Drugs are bad, 'mkay?

Drugs are bad, 'mkay?


According to the gov't and health care officials, just narcotics are bad...drugs are neccesary for everybody to live a normal life. Everyone go get your zanex, plavix, paxil, viagra, prozac perscriptions today...but don't smoke a joint, it'll kill you and support terrorists!!!!!

I hate to say this but if you didn't have an illegal substance in your car (which you know is illegal) you don't have anything to worry about.

If you know your speeding you know you have a chance to get pulled over, if you know your have illegal drugs in your car you know you have a chance to get caught. If you want to take the risk then deal with the search.

Yeah, and if you don't run catless or have JDM headlights you don't have anything to worry about either...but stupid laws shouldn't be enforced randomely like this.

Yeah, and if you don't run catless or have JDM headlights you don't have anything to worry about either...but stupid laws shouldn't be enforced randomely like this.

But I'm not whining about my constitutional rights to break the law. If I get caught then I know that I f'd up. I'm not going to say they shouldn't have checked.

Thats just Stupid.

So Eric, are you not opposed to having your entire life filmed by police outside of your own home? If you never break the law, you shouldn't have a problem with that. But most people do, because it violates our privacy. The argument that you should be ready to be caught if you do illegal things is horrible.

I'm not going to say they shouldn't have checked.


Most peole on this forum who get caught with illegal mods DO say the cops shouldn't have checked.

More to the point is this: if you believe something is illegal that SHOULDN'T be illegal (like the way most of us feel about running catless and some of us feel about pot), and by breaking the law you're not endangering anyone but yourself, why should the cops have the right and ability to catch you so easily. I mean...if you get in an accident because you're high, and you have lbs of weed on you, then no s*** bring in a dog and catch em. But like I explained earlier, if you happen to have pot in the car when you get stopped for a traffic violation and you're driving sober you shouldn't go down for it.

But I'm wrong because the Supreme Court said so...whatever.

It all boils down to the ridiculous war on drugs and the war on marijuana in general. If the damn Neo-Cons didn't think they knew what was best for everyone and didn't try to coerce everyone into thinking and acting to the "standard" then we wouldn't have this problem. There are people in this country who are dying or in severe pain and their pain would be lessened greatly by medical marijuana use but the federal government has the right to say that these people cannot use this "drug" that may make their quality of life better? This has always baffled me the most.

Why is it that alot of free societies have already legalized or at least decriminalized the use of marijuana and we are so far behind?

Because America is run by cowboys and puritans. Legal guns and illegal drugs. Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't offend the sensibilities of the old-farts in office and their wives.

OK..you're drifting a tad here.
Pot should be legal, treated just like booze.
But it's not.
So is driving around with almost three hundred pounds of weed.

300 pounds!
Goddamn, that's a lot of weed!

Sorry, I digressed.
****, I can't remember what I was gonna say...

OK..you're drifting a tad here.
Pot should be legal, treated just like booze.
But it's not.
So is driving around with almost three hundred pounds of weed.

300 pounds!
Goddamn, that's a lot of weed!

Sorry, I digressed.
****, I can't remember what I was gonna say...

That is alot of tweeds!

Most peole on this forum who get caught with illegal mods DO say the cops shouldn't have checked.

Good for "most" of the people.

Your comparing having your whole life filmed to a dog sniffing a car for illegal substances? Lets put the spin magic away and live in reality.

Your comparing having your whole life filmed to a dog sniffing a car for illegal substances?


If the dog sniffs at any given time when you're driving, it's the same thing. Basically the decision legalized random searches of anybody's car. If you don't see that, you trust the government too much.

I DO live in reality. That's why I know that the war on drugs is a completely made up government tool that has no basis in real life. The whole idea that substances can be illegal is relatively new, and it's proven to be a failure of an idea.

If the dog sniffs at any given time when you're driving, it's the same thing. Basically the decision legalized random searches of anybody's car. If you don't see that, you trust the government too much.

I have a hard time comparing a dog walking around my car making sure I don't have any drugs to having to get out of my car and having everything inside checked out with a fine tooth comb. I would have no problem having my car sniffed during a traffic stop. But it they wanted to go inside then that's a violation of my rights. And believe me I don't trust our current government with pretty much anything.

I DO live in reality. That's why I know that the war on drugs is a completely made up government tool that has no basis in real life. The whole idea that substances can be illegal is relatively new, and it's proven to be a failure of an idea.

I also feel that the "War" on drugs is another crock of crap. It just like outlawing moonshine (funny word). But until drugs are legal, like they should be, then police should do everything within our rights to sniff them out (pun intended).

I have a hard time comparing a dog walking around my car making sure I don't have any drugs to having to get out of my car and having everything inside checked out with a fine tooth comb. I would have no problem having my car sniffed during a traffic stop. But it they wanted to go inside then that's a violation of my rights. And believe me I don't trust our current government with pretty much anything.


I guess our opinions are just different on this one. A dog's sense of smell is so acute that I really don't see a difference between a manual search and a dog sniffing search. Oh well.

The transportation of 282 pounds of Mary Jane is not a right protected by the Constitution.

Please show me the part in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate what kind of plants you carry in your trunk?

Please show me the part in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate what kind of plants you carry in your trunk?




Word

Please show me the part in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate what kind of plants you carry in your trunk?

You know you can make that argument for almost every law that we know of right?

Where in the constitution does it say you can't speed? Where is the constitution does it say you can't urinate in public?

What's your point?

I think Eric got you on that one Funked and MVWRX. ;) But I do see this as a illegal search method. And it scares me what they will be doing next if continue on with this trend.

I think Eric got you on that one Funked and MVWRX. ;) But I do see this as a illegal search method. And it scares me what they will be doing next if continue on with this trend.

I agree...where do we draw the line.
Really, is pot that big of a threat?

Im not even worried about the pot issue. Im more worried about when they install little black boxes that tell the cops when we are speeding a little over. And stuff like that, which takes away our rights.