The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[Rainbow]

Quote by: 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.

The ground for a search is simple : a dog discovered drugs.
Since a dog is being used as a routine for searching vehicles, then that dog is a part of a routine that provides and supplies an information to Police, as well.
Does the Police dog need to serve a warrant ? :-)))

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear 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.

Give me a break, please :-)))
While using a dog, Police realized that a trunk was packed with drugs.
What Police should do, then ? Let that person go free, sell drugs, and some more to commit crimes ?
A new developement dictates new desicions.

I hope that the new Law would cover such cases once and for all.

[The Dunedan]

No, the Police need a warrant to use the dog. This is a very simple concept; the dog is a tool. In order to conduct any type of search other than a glance in the window, a cop needs either consent or a warrant. The use of a sensitive tool like a police dog certainly falls under the "Type of search other than a glance in the window" catagory.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Rainbow Give me a break, please :-))) While using a dog, Police realized that a trunk was packed with drugs. What Police should do, then ? Let that person go free, sell drugs, and some more to commit crimes ? A new developement dictates new desicions. I hope that the new Law would cover such cases once and for all.

No they didn't know there were drugs in the trunk. The police now adopt the tactic of bringing along dogs to sniff around cars stopped for speeding on a random basis in the hope of striking it lucky. And they got lucky in the Cabelles case.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear 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.

The highest law of the land is the constitution. And criminalizing drugs is unconstitutional.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The highest law of the land is the constitution. And criminalizing drugs is unconstitutional.

Criminalizing dangerous drugs is unconstitutional? Which Supreme Court decision says this? And which part of the Constitution does it violate?

[The Dunedan]

Federal prohibition of drugs violates Amendments 9-10, which state ( paraphrase ) that;
9: Any power not specifically GRANTED to the Feds is FORBIDDEN TO THEM.
10: All powers not retained by the Feds ( see 9 ) are retained by the People or the States.

Federal and State drug-war policies routinely violate other provisions of the BoR:

1: Asset Forfiture violates Amendment 5 by allowing for the confiscation of property without due process or compensation.

2: Helicopter and car-based FLIR-searches violate Amendment 4 by allowing the electronic surveillance of homes and vehicles without a lawful warrant.

3: Mandatory Minimum Sentancing laws routinely violate Amendment 5 by imposing "cruel and unusual" punishments such as 25-life terms for simple posession.

[tinybear]

But State drug prohibition laws are legal, right?

[The Dunedan]

State-based drug prohibitions are not, per se, unConstitutional on the Federal level. The Feds have no power to regulate commerce or lawmaking within the States, except as regards Amendments 13-14.

However, many of their practices in prosecuting these offenses ( see above ) are.

[tinybear]

Are they?

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: Rainbow The ground for a search is simple : a dog discovered drugs. Since a dog is being used as a routine for searching vehicles, then that dog is a part of a routine that provides and supplies an information to Police, as well. Does the Police dog need to serve a warrant ? :-)))

What are you talking about? Routine searching of vehicles? You mean routine violations of people's rights.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: tinybear But State drug prohibition laws are legal, right?

Wrong.

[tinybear]

Now I'm confused. Dunedan just told me something different. Is there a lawyer in the house? :p

[Lou Minotti]

Don't be confused. The founders of this country would laugh at the notion.

[tinybear]

What notion?

[Lou Minotti]

The notion of taking people's freedom and seizing their property for how they choose to live their lives.

[tinybear]

You mean by how they choose to live their lives and in the process breaking the law?

[Lou Minotti]

Not at all. I mean only what I said and not what you added to what I said.

[tinybear]

I mean you cannot choose to live your life if it involves breaking the law. Freedom is not absolute. There would be anarchy if it were.

[Lou Minotti]

Oh I see. What were those stupid black people thinking when they went and tried to vote in the late 50s? They were breaking the law. You have a lot to learn Tiny.