Pubdate: Tue, 06 Apr 2004
Source: North Texas Daily (TX Edu)
Copyright: 2004 North Texas Daily
Contact:  http://www.ntdaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2842

PRIVACY GOES TO THE DOGS

With Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court is once again faced with 
deciding how much privacy a motorist is allowed after being pulled over.

Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether drug-sniffing dogs 
should be used when police pull motorists over for non-drug-related 
reasons, such as traffic violations, even when the motorists have given 
police no reason to suspect they are carrying drugs.

The justices will have to consider whether or not situations like this 
violate the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case in question happened in Illinois in 1998. Roy Caballes was pulled 
over on Interstate Highway 80 for going six miles per hour over the speed 
limit. Though he gave the officer his license and other paperwork on 
demand, he refused the officer permission to search his trunk. The officer 
smelled air freshener in the car and noticed that Caballes was nervous. A 
second officer arrived on the scene with a drug dog. The dog, while walking 
around the car, indicated the presence of drugs in the trunk, and Caballes 
was arrested on drug charges.

Lower courts ruled that by walking a dog around the car, the police were 
inappropriately broadening an ordinary traffic stop. Illinois's attorney 
general appealed the case to the high court, claiming that using a dog is 
much less obtrusive than a police officer searching the car himself.

The attorney general was right, but his logic was flawed. A police 
officer's search of a car would be much different than a dog sniffing 
around the edges. A police officer is much more likely to be biased, and 
using a dog would eliminate the chances of an officer planting drugs. In 
addition, the drug dog would only sniff for drugs, and would not have to 
rifle through everything in the car.

However, even though a search of this nature is less obtrusive, it is still 
a search. Without a truly compelling reason to conduct a search, using 
drug-sniffing dogs is an invasion of privacy. Under the law, "compelling 
reasons" must be defined, and these reasons should be produced by officers 
before starting a search. Someone who has just been pulled over is going to 
be nervous, so this alone is not compelling. Smelling air freshener is also 
a rather silly reason.

Every motorist should know his or her rights when pulled over. We should 
always cooperate with police officers, but we do not have to submit to a 
search without compelling reasons. If we give up our privacy rights little 
by little, we may soon have nothing left.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl