Pubdate: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 Source: Greensboro News & Record (NC) Copyright: 2005 Greensboro News & Record, Inc. Contact: http://www.news-record.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/173 Author: Eric J.S. Townsend, Staff Writer SNIFFING BY K-9S OK AT ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOPS GREENSBORO - You can lie to the officer after blowing the speed limit, but it's hard to fool that police dog sniffing your exhaust pipe for drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court expanded police search powers Monday by allowing canines to circle vehicles stopped for routine traffic infractions, even if officers have no reason to suspect drugs are hidden inside. In the Piedmont Triad, expect little to change. Several area agencies already use canines in the same fashion just sanctioned. Had the Supreme Court's decision been different, well ... it's safe to say K-9 officers across Guilford County breathed a collective sigh of relief Monday afternoon. "It's not going to change anything we're not already doing," said Capt. Tom Sheppard with the Guilford County Sheriff's Department. "If it had gone the other way, it certainly would have affected us." Authorities use dogs around the outside of vehicles if a driver arouses suspicions. In fact, officers say, they employ police dogs only in a small percentage of stops. Some giveaways for police when deciding to use dogs: the strong scent of air freshener, drivers who provide vague descriptions of travel plans or cities of origin, and past criminal records involving narcotics. "What the Supreme Court did validates a long-standing police practice," said Al Andrews, attorney for High Point police. "It doesn't mean when you get stopped in High Point you'll now have a dog going around your car." That would be a "financial and logistical" impossibility for the agency's four active police dogs, he said. "If (officers) have a right to be there, the dog has a right to be used," said Officer J.D. Frazier with Greensboro police's canine unit. "We couldn't go up on private property, but if it's public property like a road or a parking lot or hotel lot where you don't have the expectation of privacy, a police officer could look in the car." In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Illinois State Police, who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. As one trooper wrote a warning ticket, a second trooper walked his dog around the car. The dog alerted troopers to the trunk, where they found $250,000 worth of marijuana. Caballes argued the Fourth Amendment protects motorists from searches such as dog sniffing and that the police had no reason to suspect drugs. Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed, reasoning that the privacy intrusion was minimal. Caballes' conviction was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court, a ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. "The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation," Stevens wrote. "Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement." Civil liberties groups, however, distrust broader police authority. And one Supreme Court justice warned traffic stops might grow more "adversarial" because of the ruling. "Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population," she wrote. The decision "clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and parking lots." Before Monday's ruling, the Supreme Court had authorized drug dogs primarily to sniff luggage at airports. "The use of dogs is intimidating," said Harvey Grossman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Chicago. "Thousands of motorists have called complaining about suddenly finding their cars surrounded by policemen and drug dogs. Now no one is safe from this major intrusion into our lives." Staff writer John Vandiver and The Associated Press contributed to this article. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek