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: 3817
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0)
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.
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.
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.
Don't worry - McGruff the Crime Dog has it all under control. (He looks just like Columbo, doesn't he?)
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
Seems to work for the CIA.
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.. The USSC also upholds the unconstitutional war on drugs, which makes it profitable to run kilos of cocaine, in a black market. -- Go figure...
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
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
And the fact that we have more people imprisoned, per capita, than any other country? The assholes who support the unconstitutional war on drugs, of course. You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible. 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.
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
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
You've got it backwards. It would take a constitutional amendment to prohibit drugs. -- And such an amendment is literally impossible. 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. You can't keep up with yourself. You qualified your agreement enough take it meaningless, hypocrite...
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.
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
You can't keep up with yourself. You qualified your agreement enough take it meaningless, hypocrite... 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?
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
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
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
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
They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so. Is a crime against children, which even govts don't approve of... So statists claim, ignoring the clear words of the 14th Amendment. (Criminal actions excepted, of course) Try reading the 9th Amendment sometime.
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?
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
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
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
They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so. 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
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? 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
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.
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
They aren't prohibited, as govts use them, while doing their best to prevent anyone else from doing so. 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. CAPT Obvious strikes again, defending a non-existent state 'power' to ignore the 2nd, just like the feds.
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. Pretending you haven't made an oath to protect and defend our constitution is your fantasy, not mine. You're quite belligerent today. Having some Dutch courage?
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
You're quite belligerent today. Having some Dutch courage? No, it's a rational response to your weird comment that "THERE IS NO WAR ON POT". 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. I think you're boozing it up too much, as nothing I've posted here would lead a rational sober individual to that conclusion.
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.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
If they give them five minutes, next it'll be 10 minutes. Then 15. Then 20. Then 30, 60, etc.
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
#4. To: tpaine (#0)
#5. To: tpaine (#0)
#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)
Between this ruling and Miranda, if you're smart, you can run kilos of cocaine daily.
“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
#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 -----
--- and a USSC that upholds the USC. Between this ruling and Miranda, if you're smart, you can run kilos of cocaine daily.
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
And the fact that we have more people imprisoned, per capita, than any other country?
#9. To: tpaine (#7)
unconstitutional war on drugs
#10. To: GrandIsland (#9)
And who's fault is that?
Nowhere does a constitutional amendment state that "drugs" shall not be infringed.
The USSC doesn't agree with your anarchist world.
#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.
#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.
#13. To: GrandIsland (#12)
Is that how it works with guns and speech? --- lol
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.
#14. To: GrandIsland (#12)
I posted earlier that I agree with the ruling.
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
You qualified your agreement enough
#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.
So if an officer smells marijuana emanating from the vehicle, you don't feel that's enough to wait for a drug dog?
#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?
“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
#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.
#19. To: Deckard (#17)
Right, and we all know that cops would never lie.
#20. To: Deckard (#17)
#21. To: GrandIsland (#18)
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.
#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?
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.
#23. To: tpaine (#21)
Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---
#24. To: tpaine (#22)
Calling us anarchists is pretty lame, even for a statism loving ex-cop who
#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?
#26. To: GrandIsland (#23)
Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---
Yeah? Go buy one. Let me know how you make out.
#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.
#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?
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?
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
Sounds like a reasonable search to me, mr straw man..
#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)
You mean Reasonable only because it's not drug related PC. Admit your anarchist hypocrisy
#31. To: tpaine (#30)
Our drug war is constitutional hypocrisy, and the people who fight against this so-called war are patriots, not anarchists.
#32. To: GrandIsland defends state weapons prohibitions (#27)
Where was the constitutional amendment banning bazooka's, atomic bombs, grenades, Anthrax ---
Yeah? Go buy one. Let me know how you make out.
And you'd be breaking a state law.
#33. To: GrandIsland, ' there is no war on pot' (#31)
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.
#34. To: tpaine (#33)
You're quite belligerent today.
#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.
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]