[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Supreme Court: Cops can’t hold suspects to wait for drug-sniffing dog
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 21, 2015
Author: Julian Hattem
Post Date: 2015-04-21 13:09:58 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 3310
Comments: 35

thehill.com

Supreme Court: Cops can’t hold suspects to wait for drug-sniffing dog

By Julian Hattem - 04/21/15 11:11 AM EDT

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.

ADVERTISEMENT The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived with a dog of his own.

After sniffing around the car, the dog detected drugs, and Rodriguez was indicted for possessing methamphetamine. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

According to the Supreme Court, though, that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.

“[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” Ginsburg ruled. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.

In his dissenting opinion, Thomas said that majority’s ruling makes “meaningless" the legal difference between “reasonable suspicion” — which does not authorize a search of someone’s property — and “probable cause," which does.

“Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, using the majority’s argument.

“But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation. Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.”

Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0)

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.

If they give them five minutes, next it'll be 10 minutes. Then 15. Then 20. Then 30, 60, etc.

The Supremes headed off all those cases at the pass with this one decision.

Never underestimate the Court's willingness to banish an entire category of cases from all their future dockets. It happens more than you would think.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-21   19:26:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TooConservative (#1)

If they give them five minutes, next it'll be 10 minutes. Then 15. Then 20. Then 30, 60, etc.

I think you've got it.. But I'm surprised that Thomas didn't. --- Normally, he's pretty eager to rein in law enforcement excesses.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-21   19:41:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: tpaine (#2)

I think the actual decision just remands the case back to the Eighth Circuit. So they may still try to finagle it some other way.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-21   19:57:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine (#0)

Don't worry - McGruff the Crime Dog has it all under control.

(He looks just like Columbo, doesn't he?)

Chuck_Wagon  posted on  2015-04-21   20:10:24 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#0)

I'd agree with the USSC if there was no articulable PC for the search.

My second observation is this, how many on this forum like to Squawk about living in a police state... some police state we are. One officer for every 300 people inside our borders and a USSC that upholds the USC. Between this ruling and Miranda, if you're smart, you can run kilos of cocaine daily.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-21   20:14:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)

Between this ruling and Miranda, if you're smart, you can run kilos of cocaine daily.

Seems to work for the CIA.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-04-21   20:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GrandIsland (#5)

My second observation is this, how many on this forum like to Squawk about living in a police state... some police state we are. One officer for every 300 people inside our borders -----

Are you counting all of the various agencies that have armed personnel with arresting powers? --- And the fact that we have more people imprisoned, per capita, than any other country? --- Face it -- we're well on the road to statism..

--- and a USSC that upholds the USC. Between this ruling and Miranda, if you're smart, you can run kilos of cocaine daily.

The USSC also upholds the unconstitutional war on drugs, which makes it profitable to run kilos of cocaine, in a black market. -- Go figure...

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-21   20:42:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#7)

And the fact that we have more people imprisoned, per capita, than any other country?

And who's fault is that? You fit right in with the Hollywood libtards. You should have been invited to give a speech at the Oscars.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-21   21:01:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: tpaine (#7)

unconstitutional war on drugs

Nowhere does a constitutional amendment state that "drugs" shall not be infringed.

The USSC doesn't agree with your anarchist world.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-21   21:04:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: GrandIsland (#9)

And the fact that we have more people imprisoned, per capita, than any other country?

And who's fault is that?

The assholes who support the unconstitutional war on drugs, of course.

Nowhere does a constitutional amendment state that "drugs" shall not be infringed.

You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible.

The USSC doesn't agree with your anarchist world.

They just agreed with part of my rational world, and it obviously upset part of yours. --- But feel free to whine on. It's amusing.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-21   21:55:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible.

Is that how it works with guns and speech?

lol

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   5:48:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine (#10)

They just agreed with part of my rational world, and it obviously upset part of yours. --- But feel free to whine on. It's amusing.

I posted earlier that I agree with the ruling. Just because I don't agree with meth vending machines in schools doesn't mean I'm against this ruling. Try and keep up.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   5:53:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)

You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible.

Is that how it works with guns and speech? --- lol

Typical, - you laugh about govt infringements.

They just agreed with part of my rational world, and it obviously upset part of yours. --- But feel free to whine on. It's amusing.

I posted earlier that I agree with the ruling. Just because I don't agree with meth vending machines in schools doesn't mean I'm against this ruling. Try and keep up.

You can't keep up with yourself. You qualified your agreement enough take it meaningless, hypocrite...

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   9:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GrandIsland (#12)

I posted earlier that I agree with the ruling.

Besides, this case isn't over. The Supremes tuned it up a bit and tossed it back to the Eighth Circus.

This was not a final disposition of the entire issue or even this particular case and it may well end up before the USSC again.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-04-22   10:15:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tpaine (#13)

You qualified your agreement enough

So... that was "qualifying". So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   10:18:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: GrandIsland (#15)

I posted earlier that I agree with the ruling. Just because I don't agree with meth vending machines in schools doesn't mean I'm against this ruling. Try and keep up.

You can't keep up with yourself. You qualified your agreement enough take it meaningless, hypocrite...

So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?

The court ruled that the driver was stopped for a traffic infraction, and unless there's a DUI charge, what he or his car smells like is none of the cops business. It would be an unreasonable search. -- Get it?

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   11:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: GrandIsland, tpaine (#15)

So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?

Right, and we all know that cops would never lie.

Judge: Cop couldn't have smelled pot in moving car

And we also know that drug dogs are infallible.

How Even a 'Well-Trained Narcotics Detection Dog' Can Be Wrong 84 Percent of the Time

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts

Deckard  posted on  2015-04-22   11:21:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tpaine (#13)

You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible.

Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax and child porn?

States have a right to prohibit certain things the constitution doesn't protect... and drugs aren't specifically protected.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   11:56:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Deckard (#17)

Right, and we all know that cops would never lie.

Should we ban confessionals because some priest diddle little boys? Your argument is weak... just like the yellow journalism you post.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   11:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Deckard (#17)

Btw, your whole post was a deflection from the question I asked. You deflected because you don't have the stones to answer it. Go ahead, answer it... if an officer TRUELY smells marihuana inside a vehicle, is there then enough reason to wait for a drug dog?

I know you won't answer that because if you do... you are full blown anarchist.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:01:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: GrandIsland (#18)

Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---

They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so.

--- and child porn?

Is a crime against children, which even govts don't approve of...

States have a right to prohibit certain things the constitution doesn't protect...

So statists claim, ignoring the clear words of the 14th Amendment. (Criminal actions excepted, of course)

.. and drugs aren't specifically protected.

Try reading the 9th Amendment sometime.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   12:18:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: GrandIsland (#20)

So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?

The court ruled that the driver was stopped for a traffic infraction, and unless there's a DUI charge, what he or his car smells like is none of the cops business. It would be an unreasonable search. -- Get it?

Btw, your whole post was a deflection from the question I asked. You deflected because you don't have the stones to answer it. Go ahead, answer it... if an officer TRUELY smells marihuana inside a vehicle, is there then enough reason to wait for a drug dog? ---- I know you won't answer that because if you do... you are full blown anarchist.
Calling us anarchists is pretty lame, even for a statism loving ex-cop who can't read an answer.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   12:25:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine (#21)

Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---

They aren't prohibited

Yeah? Go buy one. Let me know how you make out.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:26:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: tpaine (#22)

Calling us anarchists is pretty lame, even for a statism loving ex-cop who

About as lame as calling someone a statist?

You and Deckard are about as hypocritical as one gets.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:29:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#22)

what he or his car smells like is none of the cops business. It would be an unreasonable search. -- Get it?

Oh really.

So if the officer hears a young voice screaming inside the trunk, that's none of his business too? Isn't kidnapping just as illegal as illegal drug possession?

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: GrandIsland (#23)

Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---

They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so.

Yeah? Go buy one. Let me know how you make out.

Do you really imagine you've made a valid point? -- I could probably buy a govt made black market grenade, within hours, -- in any metro area of the USA.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   12:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine (#26)

Do you really imagine you've made a valid point? -- I could probably buy a govt made black market grenade, within hours, -- in any metro area of the USA.

And you'd be breaking a state law.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:38:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: GrandIsland (#25)

So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?

The court ruled that the driver was stopped for a traffic infraction, and unless there's a DUI charge, what he or his car smells like is none of the cops business. It would be an unreasonable search. -- Get it?

Oh really. ---- So if the officer hears a young voice screaming inside the trunk, that's none of his business too? Isn't kidnapping just as illegal as illegal drug possession?

Sounds like a reasonable search to me, mr straw man..

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   12:41:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: tpaine (#28)

Sounds like a reasonable search to me, mr straw man..

You mean Reasonable only because it's not drug related PC. Admit your anarchist hypocrisy

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   12:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)

You mean Reasonable only because it's not drug related PC. Admit your anarchist hypocrisy

Our drug war is constitutional hypocrisy, and the people who fight against this so-called war are patriots, not anarchists.

And people like you, who fight for this unconstitutional war, betray their oaths to our constitution.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   14:31:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tpaine (#30)

Our drug war is constitutional hypocrisy, and the people who fight against this so-called war are patriots, not anarchists.

And people like you, who fight for this unconstitutional war, betray their oaths to our constitution.

This fantasy of yours must be the reason you and Deckard shit up this forum with your "anything goes" ideology.

There is no war on pot. If you want it, move to a state that its legal. The only war you are in is against rules.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   14:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: GrandIsland defends state weapons prohibitions (#27)

Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---

They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so.

Yeah? Go buy one. Let me know how you make out.

Do you really imagine you've made a valid point? -- I could probably buy a govt made black market grenade, within hours, -- in any metro area of the USA.

And you'd be breaking a state law.

CAPT Obvious strikes again, defending a non-existent state 'power' to ignore the 2nd, just like the feds.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   18:38:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: GrandIsland, ' there is no war on pot' (#31)

Our drug war is constitutional hypocrisy, and the people who fight against this so-called war are patriots, not anarchists.

And people like you, who fight for this unconstitutional war, betray their oaths to our constitution.

This fantasy of yours must be the reason you and Deckard shit up this forum with your "anything goes" ideology.

Pretending you haven't made an oath to protect and defend our constitution is your fantasy, not mine.

There is no war on pot. If you want it, move to a state that its legal. The only war you are in is against rules.

You're quite belligerent today. Having some Dutch courage?

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   18:44:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: tpaine (#33)

You're quite belligerent today.

Another post meant to trash up this site.

You have your opinions, I have mine. You just can't settle for that... you've gotta push your snake oil on others... or cause trouble when you get resistance. (Like the post above)

You and Deckard are proof we can't live in an anything goes society... for without rules, society would act like you two.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-04-22   18:59:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: GrandIsland (#34)

There is no war on pot. If you want it, move to a state that its legal. The only war you are in is against rules.

You're quite belligerent today. Having some Dutch courage?

Another post meant to trash up this site.

No, it's a rational response to your weird comment that "THERE IS NO WAR ON POT".

You have your opinions, I have mine. You just can't settle for that... you've gotta push your snake oil on others... or cause trouble when you get resistance. (Like the post above)

I have my opinions about your weird fantasies about our unconstitutional war on pot, and other drugs. -- And this is a discussion forum meant to air those opinions.

You and Deckard are proof we can't live in an anything goes society... for without rules, society would act like you two.

I think you're boozing it up too much, as nothing I've posted here would lead a rational sober individual to that conclusion.

tpaine  posted on  2015-04-22   19:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com