Stupid, Stupid Supreme Court
 

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


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 :(

[QUOTE=SilverScoober02]:sadwavey: civil rights :([/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Oaf]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.[/QUOTE]

Unlawful search and seizure.

[Quote=Justice's Souter and Ginsburg]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 [b]in connection with the speeding stop[/b] 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 [b]without cause[/b] to suspect wrongdoing. [/QUOTE]

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.

[b]"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[/b].

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

[quote=SilverScoober02]Because he was hispanic most likely was the reason he was subjected to a dog search.[/quote]

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?

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

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....

[i]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.[/i]

or

[i]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.”[/i]

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*

[QUOTE=SilverScoober02] 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*[/QUOTE]

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?