Home | Community | Message Board


Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Original Seeds Store Shop: buy cannabis seeds

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflinemotamanM
old hand
 User Gallery
Registered: 12/18/02
Posts: 6,028
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits
    #2532935 - 04/06/04 10:00 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3943873,00.html

Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits

Monday April 5, 2004 10:31 PM


By ANNE GEARAN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding and was just about to get off with a warning when another Illinois trooper pulled up with a drug-sniffing dog.

The dog indicated drugs were in the trunk of Caballes' car. Police searched it and found $250,000 worth of marijuana, transforming a run-of-the-mill traffic stop into what Monday became a Supreme Court case.

The high court said it will use Caballes' case to clarify when police can use drug-sniffing dogs to check stopped cars whose drivers have given police no particular reason to suspect illegal activity.

Lower courts have been divided over whether police must have such specific suspicions before allowing a dog to sniff around a car during an ordinary traffic stop.

The case is another in a long line of Supreme Court cases involving cars, traffic stops and the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches or seizures, but it deals with a situation more common than many the high court has reviewed recently.

``It happens every day as we're speaking, all over the country,'' said Ralph Meczyk, one of Caballes' lawyers.

Police often look for a way to turn a traffic stop into an all-out search, and drug dogs can be a convenient pretext, he said.

In Illinois, in traffic stops where a dog indicates drugs or other contraband in a car, eight out of nine searches turn up nothing, Meczyk said.

On the other side, the Illinois attorney general and law enforcement groups argued that drug dogs are highly effective, work quickly and pose little or no inconvenience for drivers.

A quick scan of a car's exterior by a drug dog is not the same as a more intrusive search of the interior or the driver himself, big-city police chiefs said in a friend of the court filing.

If a police officer's nose was good enough to smell marijuana in the car trunk, the officer would have plenty of reason to suspect illegal activity and all the cause needed to search the trunk, police groups said.

``When properly trained, the dogs' heightened sense of smell allows them to detect specified narcotics without entering or rummaging through the vehicle,'' the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the national Major Cities Chiefs Association told the court.

Limiting police ability to use drug dogs could harm anti-drug efforts at airports and borders as well as on the streets and could affect the hunt for other contraband or for terrorists, the police chiefs said.

The court previously has allowed police considerable leeway to stop and search cars but also has refused to allow random roadblocks to look for drugs.

The court ruled four years ago that police were out of bounds when they used drug dogs to check out cars at roadblocks set up in a high-crime Indianapolis neighborhood, because they lacked any special reason to suspect any individual car or driver.

The latest case arose from a 1998 traffic stop along Interstate 80, a major drug corridor.

A state trooper pulled over Caballes for driving 71 mph in a 65 mph zone. Caballes, of Las Vegas, produced his driver's license and other paperwork but refused permission for the officer to search his car trunk.

The trooper told Caballes he would issue only a warning for speeding. While the trooper and Caballes spoke, the second officer arrived with the dog. After the dog signaled drugs, officers found packages of marijuana.

Caballes was arrested and charged with drug trafficking. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison, but has been out on bond pending appeals. The case will be argued at the Supreme Court next fall.

The case is Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923.


--------------------
http://heffter.org


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJoshua
Holoman
Male

Registered: 10/27/98
Posts: 5,389
Loc: The Matrix
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: motaman]
    #2533933 - 04/07/04 06:14 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I was just considering this senario, I am glad you posted the article.

If the Supreme court is supreme, it will find the unwarranted use of drug dogs to be unconstitutional, just as the use of infrared radar used to detect marijuana grow ops...anyone know if this (infrared) is a SC decision?

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMikeOLogical
Doctor ofShroomology
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/31/04
Posts: 4,132
Loc: florida
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: Joshua]
    #2534191 - 04/07/04 10:07 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

yup it sure was... the cops now need a warrant to look at your house with infrared...


--------------------
We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJohn
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: MikeOLogical]
    #2534421 - 04/07/04 11:21 AM (13 years, 7 months ago)

the cops need a warrant to submit infrared evidence to the court, and can't use infrared images to get a search warrant for the house, not to look at your house with infrared, well your right but what's stopping them? i'm sure they still do it and if they find anything just find another reason for a warrant like trash or electric bills whatever. it's just a minor hinderance.


--------------------
There's a thin line between sanity and insanity... and I just snorted it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineChiefThunderbong
Inhale to theChief
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/18/02
Posts: 3,647
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: motaman]
    #2535439 - 04/07/04 03:55 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I really hope this will be a win for our side, I have a bad feeling it'll be a major defeat though.


--------------------
Yeah spinnin' around again
yea caught in a tailspin


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 10 months, 7 days
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: ChiefThunderbong]
    #2535582 - 04/07/04 04:25 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I can easily see it going both ways. I was very surprised on the IR outcome. Perhaps this will be the same. I only have a few real problems with drug dogs:

1) you cannot put the dog on the stand in court
2) cops can easily influence a dog to give a false hit
3) putting dogs, which have no say, in a dangerous job is unethical
4) many people are scared of dogs, causing them undue stress during a search
5) the cop doesn't have cause, or he wouldn't need the f!@#%!ing dog


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJoshua
Holoman
Male

Registered: 10/27/98
Posts: 5,389
Loc: The Matrix
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: John]
    #2535592 - 04/07/04 04:27 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

I think electric bills should fall under the same protection. What business does the federal gov't have looking at my energy consumption previous to any probable cause for such action? Just as infrared is an indication of energy exendature, so is a power bill...I really see no legal difference between the two.

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJohn
ssdp.org

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 7,026
Loc: Vancouver, B.C.
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: Joshua]
    #2536132 - 04/07/04 07:28 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I think




THINKING IS FOR TERRORISTS, YOU'RE NOT A TERRORIST ARE YOU? :shocked:

:tongue:


--------------------
There's a thin line between sanity and insanity... and I just snorted it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJoshua
Holoman
Male

Registered: 10/27/98
Posts: 5,389
Loc: The Matrix
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: John]
    #2536151 - 04/07/04 07:37 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

According to the Patriot Act I think I may be.

Joshua


--------------------
The Shroomery Bookstore

Great books for inquiring minds!

"Life After Death is Saprophytic!"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: John]
    #2538896 - 04/08/04 01:22 PM (13 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

THINKING IS FOR TERRORISTS, YOU'RE NOT A TERRORIST ARE YOU?




I think, therefore I am.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDailyPot
Trip'n Time

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 2,207
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dog Limits [Re: motaman]
    #2574592 - 04/18/04 06:04 PM (13 years, 6 months ago)

My legal unbias opinion is that this is illegal. They need probably cause or reasonable suspision to search a car, if there is none they bring a dog to try and find some? Nope, aside from many other arguments, like a dog can easily be trained to always react, there is clearly no legal reason to bring a dog for no reason.

The pro-arguments aren't very good ones.
Quote:

motaman said:
On the other side, the Illinois attorney general and law enforcement groups argued that drug dogs are highly effective, work quickly and pose little or no inconvenience for drivers.

A quick scan of a car's exterior by a drug dog is not the same as a more intrusive search of the interior or the driver himself, big-city police chiefs said in a friend of the court filing.




It doesn't matter weither it bothers the driver or not, its still a form of unreasonable search. Main point, why are they looking for drugs w/o a reason to suspect they're there? Legally they cant.

Quote:

motaman said:
If a police officer's nose was good enough to smell marijuana in the car trunk, the officer would have plenty of reason to suspect illegal activity and all the cause needed to search the trunk, police groups said.

``When properly trained, the dogs' heightened sense of smell allows them to detect specified narcotics without entering or rummaging through the vehicle,'' the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the national Major Cities Chiefs Association told the court.




If they win the ruling w/ this argument it will open some bad doors...

What if his eyes were developed enough? What if they were x-ray and infared? What if he had a machine that could do it? What if the "drug dog machine" (which is real, there was an article about it) gets into the hands of all cops? It can detect small particles of drugs, then they can use those...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Original Seeds Store Shop: buy cannabis seeds

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* B.C. Supreme Court rules in favour of medical marijuana [CAN] veggie 927 2 02/02/09 08:43 PM
by TacticalBongRip
* Supreme Court Rules Against Free Speech In Bong Hits 4 Jesus
( 1 2 all )
jpuff 5,820 23 06/27/07 07:39 PM
by Lightningfractal
* CALI SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST CAR FORFEITURE SCleROTiUM_LICK 884 0 07/27/07 04:25 PM
by SCleROTiUM_LICK
* Ore. Supreme Court rules moving marijuana illegal veggie 1,445 7 06/01/08 03:37 AM
by johnm214
* Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes DNKYD 1,396 13 06/29/05 04:17 PM
by Vulture
* Calif. Supreme Court rules workers can be fired for using medical marijuana [CA] FurrowedBrow 1,529 6 01/25/08 01:24 AM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Supreme Court Ruling Will Set 19,500 Federal Prison Inmates Free veggie 2,874 9 12/15/07 08:59 PM
by monstermitch
* ABC News - Should Drug Laws Limit Religious Activities? Twirling 982 1 11/01/05 07:41 PM
by collegeshroom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: motaman, karode13, Alan Rockefeller, naum, Mostly_Harmless
2,465 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MushroomCube.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 19 queries.