I'm sure the libertarian and liberals here will support this decision.

Per the Wall Street Journal

Quote:WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday police can’t prolong a routine traffic stop to allow a drug-sniffing dog to search the vehicle unless they have a reasonable suspicion of uncovering contraband.

The case is the latest to see the justices reinvigorate constitutional protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” following recent decisions that rejected warrantless cellphone searches and installation of GPS trackers.

Tuesday’s ruling tightens the parameters police should follow when using drug-sniffing dogs during a traffic stop, building on a 2005 precedent allowing the drug searches while stressing such procedures become unlawful if a motorist is detained solely to conduct the search.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The case came from Valley, Neb., where in March 2012 a K-9 officer, Morgan Struble, stopped a Mercury Mountaineer carrying two people after it briefly veered onto a highway shoulder.

It took Mr. Struble about 22 minutes to make his routine checks of the driver’s license, auto registration and proof of insurance, pulling up no outstanding warrants or other reason to delay the vehicle. After giving the driver, Dennys Rodriguez, a warning ticket, Mr. Struble asked permission to walk his drug-sniffing dog, Floyd, around the vehicle.

When Mr. Rodriquez declined, Mr. Struble ordered him out of the car and had him wait until a backup officer arrived. On a walk around the Mountaineer, the dog led the officers to a bag of methamphetamine.

A federal magistrate judge found that Mr. Struble had nothing more than a “large hunch” to justify the search, but admitted the evidence anyway because the procedure imposed only a minimal delay on Mr. Rodriguez.

Federal district and appellate courts upheld that decision. The Supreme Court faulted lower courts.

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. While the court has allowed police to take certain actions in a traffic stop that go beyond its narrow purpose, such as requiring motorists to exit their vehicles, those have been closely tied to officer safety or other practical needs, she said.

The decision returns the case to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, to consider whether Mr. Struble had a reasonable suspicion that justified use of a drug-sniffing dog.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined in part or whole by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Twenty-nine minutes “is hardly out of the ordinary for a traffic stop by a single officer of a vehicle containing multiple occupants even when no dog sniff is involved,” Justice Thomas wrote.

In 2013, the court ruled that police conducted an unlawful search when they brought a narcotics dog to the porch of a private home without a warrant.

Police have won some recent Fourth Amendment cases, however. In December, the court unanimously upheld a search conducted after an officer stopped a car on the mistaken belief that it was unlawful to drive with a broken brake light. The justices found that to be a reasonable mistake.

Good ruling IMO.

(04-21-2015 05:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm sure the libertarian and liberals here will support this decision.

Per the Wall Street Journal

Quote:WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday police can’t prolong a routine traffic stop to allow a drug-sniffing dog to search the vehicle unless they have a reasonable suspicion of uncovering contraband.

The case is the latest to see the justices reinvigorate constitutional protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” following recent decisions that rejected warrantless cellphone searches and installation of GPS trackers.

Tuesday’s ruling tightens the parameters police should follow when using drug-sniffing dogs during a traffic stop, building on a 2005 precedent allowing the drug searches while stressing such procedures become unlawful if a motorist is detained solely to conduct the search.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. She was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The case came from Valley, Neb., where in March 2012 a K-9 officer, Morgan Struble, stopped a Mercury Mountaineer carrying two people after it briefly veered onto a highway shoulder.

It took Mr. Struble about 22 minutes to make his routine checks of the driver’s license, auto registration and proof of insurance, pulling up no outstanding warrants or other reason to delay the vehicle. After giving the driver, Dennys Rodriguez, a warning ticket, Mr. Struble asked permission to walk his drug-sniffing dog, Floyd, around the vehicle.

When Mr. Rodriquez declined, Mr. Struble ordered him out of the car and had him wait until a backup officer arrived. On a walk around the Mountaineer, the dog led the officers to a bag of methamphetamine.

A federal magistrate judge found that Mr. Struble had nothing more than a “large hunch” to justify the search, but admitted the evidence anyway because the procedure imposed only a minimal delay on Mr. Rodriguez.

Federal district and appellate courts upheld that decision. The Supreme Court faulted lower courts.

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. While the court has allowed police to take certain actions in a traffic stop that go beyond its narrow purpose, such as requiring motorists to exit their vehicles, those have been closely tied to officer safety or other practical needs, she said.

The decision returns the case to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis, to consider whether Mr. Struble had a reasonable suspicion that justified use of a drug-sniffing dog.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined in part or whole by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

Twenty-nine minutes “is hardly out of the ordinary for a traffic stop by a single officer of a vehicle containing multiple occupants even when no dog sniff is involved,” Justice Thomas wrote.

In 2013, the court ruled that police conducted an unlawful search when they brought a narcotics dog to the porch of a private home without a warrant.

Police have won some recent Fourth Amendment cases, however. In December, the court unanimously upheld a search conducted after an officer stopped a car on the mistaken belief that it was unlawful to drive with a broken brake light. The justices found that to be a reasonable mistake.

Good ruling IMO.

Yep.

Good. It's such a massive loophole for police to circumvent the 4th amendment. It doesn't completely solve the issue, but it does prevent some of the cases where it is normally abused.

It's a victory for the people against abuse of powers by the gov't.

Good news. I'd rather the guilty go free than the innocent be wrongfully harassed.

Wow, I agree with UCF and John0

I still don't see how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

Seems easy to circumvent that ruling, IMO.

(04-22-2015 08:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Wow, I agree with UCF and John0

I know. Scary stuff for me too.

(04-22-2015 08:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I still don't see how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

because they arguably stop 'everyone'... i.e. equal treatment. Sort of like metal detectors at airports or other buildings. I agree it's certainly a dark grey area, but drunk driving is a big problem. If there were a better way, I'd support it instead.

Speaking about how this has been reported, this is another example of how badly our legal system gets reported on by our media. The article gives a totally distorted glimpse of what exactly happened and what the result was.

(04-22-2015 09:51 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 08:34 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Wow, I agree with UCF and John0

I know. Scary stuff for me too.

(04-22-2015 08:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I still don't see how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

because they arguably stop 'everyone'... i.e. equal treatment. Sort of like metal detectors at airports or other buildings. I agree it's certainly a dark grey area, but drunk driving is a big problem. If there were a better way, I'd support it instead.

I'm not saying drunk driving isn't a problem, I question how effective these checkpoints are at curbing drinking and driving.

They have to announce and publicize exactly where they will take place beforehand.

I've often wondered if it weren't a way for overtime to get paid - these are often funded by a grant.

Seems like more often than not, they find more "other stuff" in these than drunk drivers.

(04-22-2015 10:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Speaking about how this has been reported, this is another example of how badly our legal system gets reported on by our media. The article gives a totally distorted glimpse of what exactly happened and what the result was.

What do you mean? What was distorted by this article? Honest question, I haven't put much time into finding out what happened.

(04-22-2015 11:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  I'm not saying drunk driving isn't a problem, I question how effective these checkpoints are at curbing drinking and driving.

They have to announce and publicize exactly where they will take place beforehand.

I've often wondered if it weren't a way for overtime to get paid - these are often funded by a grant.

Seems like more often than not, they find more "other stuff" in these than drunk drivers.

Don't disagree at all... but checking people leaving bars is apparently a violation... so while not a violation, it's also highly ineffective. Probably catch far more inspection stickers and things like that than drunk drivers. Unless the 'stuff' is in plain sight, it's also a violation to do a search (unless you say ok)

(04-22-2015 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  I'm not saying drunk driving isn't a problem, I question how effective these checkpoints are at curbing drinking and driving.

They have to announce and publicize exactly where they will take place beforehand.

I've often wondered if it weren't a way for overtime to get paid - these are often funded by a grant.

Seems like more often than not, they find more "other stuff" in these than drunk drivers.

Don't disagree at all... but checking people leaving bars is apparently a violation... so while not a violation, it's also highly ineffective. Probably catch far more inspection stickers and things like that than drunk drivers. Unless the 'stuff' is in plain sight, it's also a violation to do a search (unless you say ok)

It just appears to me to be such a waste of time and effort for very little return. IMO, they'd be more successful just patrolling the streets more.

(04-22-2015 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  I'm not saying drunk driving isn't a problem, I question how effective these checkpoints are at curbing drinking and driving.

They have to announce and publicize exactly where they will take place beforehand.

I've often wondered if it weren't a way for overtime to get paid - these are often funded by a grant.

Seems like more often than not, they find more "other stuff" in these than drunk drivers.

Don't disagree at all... but checking people leaving bars is apparently a violation... so while not a violation, it's also highly ineffective. Probably catch far more inspection stickers and things like that than drunk drivers. Unless the 'stuff' is in plain sight, it's also a violation to do a search (unless you say ok)

It's not probably, It's factual. Nearly every checkpoint has between a 25:1 & 100:1 ratio of non DUI citations to DUI citations. The only way that these should ever be constitutional is if the police were barred from issuing non DUI citations.