Plainsman1963

Illinois Supreme Court OKs searches by drug dogs
05-18-06 | stltoday.com | Ann Sanner

A deeply divided Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police may use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect cars during traffic stops, even if they have no particular reason to suspect the driver of illegal activity.

The 4-3 ruling comes in a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally, the Illinois courts ruled that the search was improper, but that was overturned by the federal court, and the case was sent back to Illinois for further hearings.

The case involves Roy Caballes, who was stopped by Illinois police in 1998 for driving 6 mph over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after noticing air freshener in the car and noting Caballes appeared nervous.

The dog indicated drugs were in the trunk, and police searched it even though Caballes refused to give permission. They found $250,000 worth of marijuana, and Caballes was convicted of drug trafficking.

Initially, the verdict was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled the search was improper because police had no particular reason to suspect Caballes had drugs. But the U.S. Supreme Court found that a dog sniffing the outside of a car did not amount to an improper search.

Caballes challenged his conviction again by arguing that the Illinois Constitution's privacy protections are stronger than those in the U.S. Constitution.

This time, the Illinois court upheld the search, although Justices Charles Freeman, Mary Ann McMorrow and Thomas Kilbride dissented.

"It's truly an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights," said Caballes' lawyer, Ralph Meczyk, who was still studying the ruling and didn't know if he would appeal.

Chron

Those four judges just urinated on the Fourth Amendment.

"Troopers brought over a drug dog after noticing air freshener in the car and noting Caballes appeared nervous". What a weak justification for violating someone's privacy. I can just picture the cops using this excuse on every young black or latino male. "We figured we had probable cause since he looked nervous". Get the **** outta here!! The cops could lie and bypass the Fourth Amendment every time if they're allowed to bring a drug dog to a routine traffic stop.

dedbr

If the Illinois supreme court already ruled that this was an illegal search, why the frick did they change their mind and rule it was?

Somebody was bought off, plain and simple!

And who ever it it was, shame on ya, asshole. Ya pay for what ya get on the karma of life. If you do wrong, you get wrong back.

Was that simple enough for ya.....


Somewhere in Ded Land.....

__________________
Though my soul may set in darkness,
It will rise in perfect light.
I have loved the stars too fondly,
To be fearful of the night." Sarah Williams

Our Posting Guidelines (Check 'em Out!.....)

troublemaker_42

Assuming a payoff was made without any evidence whatsoever to back it up is one hell of an assumption. Maybem, just maybe, whebn they realized the US supreme court found such a search resonable, they had the cnfidence to go ahead and find likewise. I see no reason to assume there was any kind of payoff involved. Just because the cause as suffered yet another setback is no reason to go blindly making assumptions where there is no evidence to suggest such a thing occurred. Who paid them off? The DEA? Local law enforcement? NIDA? The FBI? I mean, a payoff doesn't evven make SENSE in this context, as far as i can see. Making paranoid assumptions like that is one of the reasons potsmokers are generally dismissed as people not to be taken seriously.......to assume someone was paid off because the lower court reconsidered after the Supreme Court ruled the search legal is just asinine, if you ask me. Not every setback is part of some grand conspiracy on behalf on the antidrug crusaders.

dedbr

learning new words, TM?

OK, I'll rephrase it. Who got to him? Who made someone change his mind? Does that make you feel better?

My opinion is he was bought off.

How does that make ya feel, TM? Have ya got your warm and fuzzy back?

My opinion is the judge who changed his mind needs his ass snatched up and whooped until he can't see straight.

Does that seem OK now?

Jesus..... assinine....


Somewhere in Ded land....

troublemaker_42

Actually, according to tests that measure such things, my vocabulary is just fine....and above average, for that matter. You still haven't even begun to asnwer my question though. WHO is it that you think is orchastrating this mass conspriracy that has the power to buy off judges and keep us down? After all, it COULDN'T be the fact the supreme court is full of conservatives. It COULDN'T ebthat those in power could care less about potsmokers. It HAS to be a conspiracy, doesn't it?