- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court rules that Police can’t extend traffic stop for Dog Sniff
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:12 pm to AnonymousTiger
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:12 pm to AnonymousTiger
Already had this happen to me. Cops said the dog was hitting all over and that I had "pounds" of drugs in the car. Of course the dog never barked or did anything and the cops never found any drugs.
1
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:13 pm to AnonymousTiger
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday placed a new limit on when police can use drug-sniffing dogs, ruling the dogs cannot be employed after a routine traffic stop has been completed if there is no reasonable suspicion about the presence of drugs in the vehicle.
This doesn't really preclude a cop from making up something about reasonable suspicion but at least it seemingly overturns the bullshite precedent set in Illinois v. Caballes.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
cops are magically going to be smelling smoked marijuana at every traffic stop
If they're wrong on that kind of stuff a certain number of times, don't they get in some kind of trouble?
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:16 pm to Brosef Stalin
And you nwver hear about the false alerts and there are literally 1000s of them.
You usually here about some dog finding 80,000# in a 18-wheeler on I-10.
You usually here about some dog finding 80,000# in a 18-wheeler on I-10.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
cops are magically going to be smelling smoked marijuana at every traffic stop
It's just like the glassy-eyed, slurred speech epidemic.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:19 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
If they're wrong on that kind of stuff a certain number of times, don't they get in some kind of trouble?
No. It's kind of like trying to get a girl home from a bar. If you ask 100 girls to leave with you and get 99 No answers and only one Yes, then you still have a successful night according to all your friends.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this changes nothing
Bingo. Although it certainly will be an argument drug traffickers throw out left and right
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:30 pm to Alt26
This changes nothing. See Illinois v. Caballes.
"The United States Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that, where lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond time necessary to issue warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer's arrival at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics-detection dog to sniff around exterior of motorist's vehicle did not rise to level of cognizable infringement on motorist's Fourth Amendment rights, such as would have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion."
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005).
"The United States Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that, where lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond time necessary to issue warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer's arrival at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics-detection dog to sniff around exterior of motorist's vehicle did not rise to level of cognizable infringement on motorist's Fourth Amendment rights, such as would have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion."
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005).
This post was edited on 4/21/15 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:31 pm to AnonymousTiger
Good post OP. In my opinion this whittled away at IL v Caballes by actually mentioning a measurement of time. With the introduction of printed warnings and cites traffic stops should be shorter. As has already been mentioned, it will be interesting how lazy cops crawfish around this decision.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
thomas is money on issues dealing with ICC it seems that the dissents are just saying this won't do anything and conflicts with previous rulings. a practicality/stare decisis argument
quote:
Writing for the group, Thomas said Ginsburg’s reasoning would link the constitutionality of a drug sniff to the officer’s efficiency in completing the traffic stop.
Thomas also said the officer could have arrested Rodriguez and taken him to the police station just on the basis of the traffic violation. He pointed to a 2001 Supreme Court decision allowing arrests for the criminal offense of failing to wear a seatbelt.
and in 2001 in a 5-4 ruling HE was one of the assholes that ruled it's a-ok for the cops to arrest a person for not wearing a seatbelt.
LINK
He was trying to protect a police state he helped create. frick him.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:39 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
Game changer
Not really. Just call and see if the K9 needs to pee before writing the citation.
This post was edited on 4/21/15 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:41 pm to AnonymousTiger
tl;dr - Using a dog during a traffic stop = Unconstitutional because it takes too long; DUI checkpoints = just fine.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:42 pm to CuseTiger
quote:Every bust I read about on I-10 between Sulphur and Lake Charles always say "the driver was pulled over for an unspecified traffic violation and began acting suspiciously." I have been nervous every time I've been pulled over, and I don't run dope. Does being nervous = suspicious?
Question then becomes what is reasonable suspicion in this case.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:43 pm to Bard
Not exactly.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:43 pm to Dr RC
if thomas had his way, and i mean if he got to make the case law individually, the WOD and police state would be greatly reduced
it's not that evil of a ruling. it mainly dealt with ancient law and is rather boring as an academic pursuit
they just said that you can be formally arrested for a fine-only offense, which isn't that crazy
quote:
HE was one of the assholes that ruled it's a-ok for the cops to arrest a person for not wearing a seatbelt.
it's not that evil of a ruling. it mainly dealt with ancient law and is rather boring as an academic pursuit
they just said that you can be formally arrested for a fine-only offense, which isn't that crazy
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:44 pm to Bard
quote:
Using a dog during a traffic stop = Unconstitutional because it takes too long
Not entirely true. Only if the use of the dog extends the stop.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they just said that you can be formally arrested for a fine-only offense, which isn't that crazy
Uh yes, it is. That's a horseshite reason to justify taking a person to jail. A low level fine should not be an excuse to fill jail cells.
quote:
if thomas had his way, and i mean if he got to make the case law individually, the WOD and police state would be greatly reduced
Sure, that's why he decided it was cool to jail people for small fines. Totes believe he really wants to reduce the police state.
This post was edited on 4/21/15 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i just read the article. alito nails it quote:In a dissenting opinion, Alito said the ruling would have little practical effect because police officers just need to learn the correct procedure for conducting a lawful dog sniff. "I would love to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police instructors teach this rule to officers who make traffic stops," Alito wrote. this changes nothing
Unfortunately, this is the correct answer. All this decision means is that writing every traffic ticket will now take twenty minutes or until the dog can get there.
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:50 pm to CuseTiger
quote:
Question then becomes what is reasonable suspicion in this case.
quote:
Rodriguez
Found it!
Posted on 4/21/15 at 2:51 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Uh yes, it is. That's a horseshite reason to justify taking a person to jail. A low level fine should not be an excuse to fill jail cells.
They ruled this is City of Lago Vista (Defendant) if I recall correctly and it's not that crazy that you could be arrested for any violation of the law, even minor ones. You can be arrested and detained for up to 48 hours (72 in some cases) without being charged of anything.
Edit: Looked it up: Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
This post was edited on 4/21/15 at 2:55 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News