The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[The Dunedan]

Can ah get uh AMEYAN for tha preachin'?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Drug dogs are a violation of rights, when used in a "traffic stop". Drug dogs are not a violation if the "WARRANT" says the police are looking for "DRUGS" It requires a warrant, to enable special tools, such as a dog to search areas inside or out with his "sensitized" searching device.(his nose) Privacy is the hallmark of property ownership. My car is my property, and I am required to obey traffic laws when applying and receiving my license. The policeman has no way to use a dog to tell if I am breaking a "traffic law". This is common sense.

How is it fine if a policeman uses his best sense (vision) to inspect the inside of your car without actually going in it but not fine if a policedog usues it's best sense (smell) to impsect the inside of your car without actually going in it?

That's such bs! What happened is that the dogs are just so damn good at sniffing out drugs that all the dope heads decided that it was against their rights.

[tinybear]

Osborn> I say the crime Cabelles committed is not victimless. But let's accept it is for the moment. What if as I had postulated earlier, Cabelles is a serial rapist/killer and a teenage girl were found in the trunk. Presumably, you'd say the law's the law and Cabelles walks, right?

[The Dunedan]

If the search was unConstitutional, yes.

"I had sooner that one hundred guilty men walk free, than that one innocents' blood be shed."
La Mort d'Arthur, Thomas Mallory.

[The Dunedan]

Tman:
As others have stated, a dog is not a Policeman; he is not a human afterall. A police dog is a tool; a highly specialized and sensitive one which is capable of searching for items which are not "in Plain Sight" and are therefore not covered under the Plain Sight Rule. Ergo, a warrant is required for the use of a police dog. Period. The Constitution is not to be meddled with and changed for the sake of expediancy: You want it changed, Amend it as the law requires. Otherwise, keep that dog's nose outta my buisiness!

[tinybear]

Quote by: The Dunedan If the search was unConstitutional, yes. "I had sooner that one hundred guilty men walk free, than that one innocents' blood be shed." La Mort d'Arthur, Thomas Mallory.

The Constitution needs to be amended to allow more flexibility then.

[The Dunedan]

I say keep it the way it is, thanks. Historically speaking, "flexibility" nearly always ends up being a euphemism for "abuse." It was the doctrine behind the Special Powers Act which the Brits used to such vile effect in The Occupied North of Ireland, for example; "greater flexibility in dealing with Terrorists" was the specific justification from the Thatcher Gov't....gee doesn't THAT sound familliar...

[tinybear]

Wrong. Give the discretion to the judge and it won't be abused. You trust the judiciary don't you? At least I hope you do.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear Wrong. Give the discretion to the judge and it won't be abused. You trust the judiciary don't you? At least I hope you do.

I don't trust anyone who's in the business of enforcing unconstitutional laws.

[The Dunedan]

The Hell I do! Why should I? These are the treasonous scumbags who -allow- such perversions of the Constitution to take place under the aegis of the Uniform Commercial Code! These are the criminals who have repeatedly allowed things like;
1: Public Defenders who fall asleep during trials, or come to trial drunk.
2: Sentanced mentally-retarded defendants to Death ( Texas ).
3: Been caught masturbating and using penis-enlargement pumps DURING COURT!
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...=news.quirkies
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_342803.htm
4: Sentanced Branch Davidians who had been -acquitted- to prison time!

Some might be tempted to dismiss all this as ancient history. But let's recall that most of the Branch Davidian survivors -- not their assailants -- were put on trial following the fiery holocaust at Waco, and seven were sentenced to decades in prison despite being unanimously found innocent on every major, capital charge.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...99davidian.htm


WHY SHOULD I trust the Judiciary? They're still Human, or does being a Judge make on a God? And being Human, are they not prone towards negligence, power-lust, laziness, vindictiveness, hubris, and cruelty, just as we all are? I trust no man who has not earned my trust, and the Judiciary of this country has done nothing to earn that trust.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman I don't trust anyone who's in the business of enforcing unconstitutional laws.

If the Consitution is amended to give the discretion to the judge, then it won't be unconstitutional to exercise that discretion.

[tinybear]

Any society is in deep shit once it doesn't trust its judiciary.

[The Dunedan]

I'd say that the fact that we don't trust the Judiciary is more than justified by the actions which cause that distrust: actions which prove that we are, in fact, in shit up to our eyeballs.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear If the Consitution is amended to give the discretion to the judge, then it won't be unconstitutional to exercise that discretion.

Actually, I was referring to the criminalization of drugs (just for starters).

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear This case is now being heard by the US Supreme Court. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041110/D8698CNO0.html What are your views? Should the State's appeal be allowed?

When a person breaks the Law, he/she should be charged.
Whether there is an official warrant in that matter or not, it depends of conditions (or circumnstances) that particular case applies.

In this case, a man was carrying drugs.
Is that legal to possess drugs ? or not ?

The whole "debate" is about whether Police had an "appropriate" warrant. Soon, we would recognize breaking all the Law as acceptable, since no applicable warrant was served. In the same time, we will alarm a government to much more aggresively fight crimes that are drugs-related.
According to the defendant's attorney "idea", Police was allowed to search the defendant, only. However, that "smart lawyer" has forgotten that his client was not driving on his own, but used a vehicle in order to travel, instead, and that vehicle - (by) becoming the source for a transportation - is the subject for a search automatically, as well.

Police should be armed with warrants that allow to search passengers along with their vehicle(s) as needed. Otherwise, people start smuggling anything, since the source for a transportation is covered by "immunity" as a default.

[The Dunedan]

unConstitutional.
4A requires that the Warrant specifically describe the persons or premises to be siezed or searched: a "one size fits all" blank warrant to search cars at will does not and cannot fit this description.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: The Dunedan unConstitutional. 4A requires that the Warrant specifically describe the persons or premises to be siezed or searched: a "one size fits all" blank warrant to search cars at will does not and cannot fit this description.

In other words :
- while sitting in a car, I pull out my gun and shoot you. You are dead and that is "Constitutional", is not it ? :-)))

What is to be "debated" then ?
Police should wait till crime is commited, or prevent a crime, as well ?

The solution :
- change the Law, that allows Police to search passengers and their vehicle(s), respectively.
It solves the whole "debate", fees for courts, attorneys, ect.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Actually, I was referring to the criminalization of drugs (just for starters).

Drugs which are harmful should be outlawed. But let's not argue this here.

Judges are bound to apply the law, whether they agree with it or not. It wasn't the judges who outlawed drugs. It was Congress. Only Congress can decriminalize what they outlawed. So I think you're pointing the finger at the wrong people here.

[The Dunedan]

Rainbow:
Red Herring. Witnessing a crime is instant Probable Cause, and grounds for search, siezure, or arrest; it's a corrolary to the Plain Sight Rule, if you like.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Rainbow When a person breaks the Law, he/she should be charged. Whether there is an official warrant in that matter or not, it depends of conditions (or circumnstances) that particular case applies. In this case, a man was carrying drugs. Is that legal to possess drugs ? or not ? The whole "debate" is about whether Police had an "appropriate" warrant. Soon, we would recognize breaking all the Law as acceptable, since no applicable warrant was served. In the same time, we will alarm a government to much more aggresively fight crimes that are drugs-related. According to the defendant's attorney "idea", Police was allowed to search the defendant, only. However, that "smart lawyer" has forgotten that his client was not driving on his own, but used a vehicle in order to travel, instead, and that vehicle - (by) becoming the source for a transportation - is the subject for a search automatically, as well. Police should be armed with warrants that allow to search passengers along with their vehicle(s) as needed. Otherwise, people start smuggling anything, since the source for a transportation is covered by "immunity" as a default.

No, no. That's not the issue here. The issue is this: The US Constitution provides that no one can be arrested or searched arbitrarily and without probable cause. Cabelles was stopped because of speeding. There was nothing to indicate he had committed any other offence until that state trooper arrived with the sniffer dog. At that stage, Cabelles was free to go as soon as he had received that traffic ticket. But the state trooper decided to allow the dog to sniff his car and as a result the drugs were found in his trunk. Strictly speaking, the search was unlawful and unconstitutional. The question is: do we nevertheless allow the evidence of the search to be admitted in the case against Cabelles for drug trafficking? Note that Cabelles admits the drugs in the trunk was his and he had knowledge of their presence.