Marijuana.com

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.

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

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.....

__________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln
Happy New Year.......

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?

dedbr

You say your vocabulary is just fine? Did you even try to read this? Maybem, whebn and as suffered? Please .....

Cospiracy? What happened with the new Mexican law that Fox was going to sign?

Your right, TM, no conspiracy here.....

Of course we can just forget about the fourth amendment of the constitution, can't we?

Better take those air fresheners out of the cars, too. Thats a sure sign your a herb smoker, and they should put the damn dog on your ass....


Somewhere in Ded Land......Just laying down and letting them do what they want to me.....

Bowlblaze

It's a ridiculous ruling, and I definitely agree that racial profiling will occur as a result. This makes it more important than ever to only break ONE law at a time. If the cops have no other reason to pull you over, you will be ok, unless another law passes allowing dogs to stand at red lights and randomly walk up to cars stopped at them. Uh oh, should I delete that? I hope I haven't given them an idea.

__________________
The government thinks we're all criminals. The people who are really the criminals are the people who view pot smokers as being no better than rapists, murderers, or corrupt politions
New? Read the Posting Guidelines. Bored? Join the Chat . Need an answer? Try a Search.

troublemaker_42

Pressure from the governemnt is one thing....assuming people wre PAID OFF is taking it to the level I consider absurd. I have no doubt that US pressureplayed a role in Mexico's decsion. How that even relates to a judge in IL being paid off is beyond me. You are making connections where there are none. Do I believe that the governemnt doesn't want marijuan legalized, and wants to screw over those who use it? Sure I do.....but yet I don't believe in a massive conspiracy where persons unknown pay off judges in order to reverse rulings that are favorable to potsmokers. Call me naive.....but I perfer to think of it as rational thinking.


Oh, by the way-
I said my VOCABULARY was just fine. I never made any claims about my typing skills, or lack of them. I was in a hurry....wife was telling me we needed to go, so I finished what I wanted to say and hit submit, without proofreading. Last I checked, typing skills weren't used to measure whether or not someone had a decent grasp of word knowledge.

dedbr

OK, your naive...


I prefer to think of it as Dubya's legacy, but you can think what you wish, hey it's a free country.

At least it will be until these bastards get done with it.....


Somewhere in Ded Land..... I still like these sunglasses....