very Interesting.  Did you see who was in dissent?  Seems the Liberals on the court are the ones that trashed the 4th amendment, and the conservatives voted to uphold it.  A shame Rehnquist did not vote.  Given that o'Connor voted against it, I am sure he would have as well.

http://www.usscplus.com/current/cases/PDF/9950020.pdf

Lemme see here....
They have went after the First Amendment, now the Fourth AmendmentLink

Notice the Second Amendment is unscathed.

Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc



There is only one reason it's still around. Because us gun owners and the NRA were willing to stick our necks out. And up until Last year (AWB sunset) it wasn't intact. And just an FYI I stuck my neck out for the first too.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier.

What is the difference between this and profiling?  They ruled against profiling, yet let this one stand.  I dont get the logic.

Sorry but this is what I'd consider hyperbole. The ONLY person that has thought of it is the writer of the piece. And as far as the rest of the article... Good for the cops! Don't know what state you live in but around here if a drug dog alerts on you that's considered probable cause. Once that has happened they no longer "need" a warrent. And just for the record. I can't believe anyone but an idiot would say that wrong had been done to the courier. What is the difference between this and profiling? They ruled against profiling, yet let this one stand. I dont get the logic.

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs.

The case, decided by the court on January 24th, had nothing to do with the Information Superhighway, but rather an ordinary interstate highway in Illinois. Roy Caballes was pulled over by the Illinois State Police for speeding. While one officer was writing him a ticket, another officer in another patrol car came by with a drug sniffing dog.

Me either Guy, that's what bugs me the most here i think. I personally don't look at the court strictly as "liberals vs conservative" judges anymore. For years ther have been some unbalanced and strange rulings from all sides.

For the record, i'm all for the 2nd amendment.

Just more Judges legislating from the bench.. one of my real gripes. They are suppossed to interpit law, NOT make law.

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs.

Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out?  I mean if it was a family of 4, mom, dad, brother sister, would he have serached it?  There are many forms of prejudice and profiling.

For the record, I am glad he was nailed.  But I still worry that if I am on my way to pick up my sons, and get stopped, what will they try to do to me?  I live on the I95 corridor, and I doubt I fit a profile other than I am traveling on it.  But this makes me think they can stop me and IF I refuse a search, Like Gid just wrote about, they can harrass me for a long time, even tho I am innocent.

This is too Big Brother for me.

Me either Guy, that's what bugs me the most here i think. I personally don't look at the court strictly as "liberals vs conservative" judges anymore. For years ther have been some unbalanced and strange rulings from all sides. For the record, i'm all for the 2nd amendment.

Just goes to show that politics makes strange bedfellows!  No disagreement here.

Just more Judges legislating from the bench.. one of my real gripes. They are suppossed to interpit law, NOT make law.

Yea, but now it is on both sides of the spectrum!  maybe now we can get some consensus on abolishing it?

Sorry Dr but this *ain't* nowheres close to profiling. They didn't call for the dog. It was sheer conincidence that he happened along. And once the dog alerted that's all she wrote. And BTW if the drugs aren't wrapped real well then the dog does NOT have to be real close to alert on the drugs. Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out?

You evidently *missed* what I said. If the drugs are not wrapped properly (IE:sealed). The dog doesn't even have to get out of the car. All it requires is an partially open window on the police car for him to alert. Besides the fact the article doesn't state wether or not the dog actually got out.

Ok, but why did the second officer even stop and get the dog out? I mean if it was a family of 4, mom, dad, brother sister, would he have serached it? There are many forms of prejudice and profiling.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct.

and you know for sure the k9 unit wasnt operating in tandem with the unit that made the stop? or whether those dogs to which you attribute such complete objectivity aren't, in fact, responding to something other than scent...say, just for giggles, a desire to please their masters?

using dogs to check shipping containers, buildings, luggage being loaded on a plane is a whole different thing than using it in the more highly subjective atmosphere of a traffic stop.

very Interesting. Did you see who was in dissent? Seems the Liberals on the court are the ones that trashed the 4th amendment, and the conservatives voted to uphold it. A shame Rehnquist did not vote. Given that o'Connor voted against it, I am sure he would have as well.

Dr Guy, you need to read that again. The dissenting justices were Ginsberg and Souter. The passing opinion of the court was that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that the case was an unwarrented search was vacated and remanded.

Dr Guy, you need to read that again. The dissenting justices were Ginsberg and Souter. The passing opinion of the court was that the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that the case was an unwarrented search was vacated and remanded.

You are right, but it still sucks. Besides. Stevens is not conservative. It sounded like a set up to me.

If the dog alerts the vehicle WILL be searched. That is *neither* profiling nor prejudice. Now had they called for the dog specifically, then I would say that your correct. and you know for sure the k9 unit wasnt operating in tandem with the unit that made the stop? or whether those dogs to which you attribute such complete objectivity aren't, in fact, responding to something other than scent...say, just for giggles, a desire to please their masters? using dogs to check shipping containers, buildings, luggage being loaded on a plane is a whole different thing than using it in the more highly subjective atmosphere of a traffic stop.

I don't for certain they weren't any more than you know they were! The article doesn't say one way or the other. And your comment shows just how much you *don't* know about their training! These dogs do NOT alert just for grins and or giggles. Maybe you should read up on their training *before* you say anything about it.