The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[tinybear]

Cabelles deserves to go to jail. No doubt about it. If the law says he should walk, then the law's stupid.

[Waychel]

Yes, but the question here is whether we should restrict the law even further from putting people where they deserve to go.

[tinybear]

Come again? Is your point this: That even under the existing law, Cabelles should have been rightly convicted and that the evidence of the search should have been admitted in evidence?

[Waychel]

Yes, because I personally don't see how it was an unlawful search and seizure. Cabelles was first pulled over for speeding; it wasn't until the dog -- which was not deliberately lead or commanded to search the car -- alerted the officers to the presence of narcotics that the car was searched. IMO, the dog alerting the officers was reason enough for them to search the vehicle. For the police to gnore the dog would be to ignore their jobs.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Rainbow Since "nothing is perfect", there is no formula that can be applied to every single case as a solution Exception : theory.

Quote by: tinybear Could you please clarify, Rainbow?

In a search for the "best" System, Constitution, Law, ect. we present variety of arguments which may point to the solution, while Reality manifests (itself) not exactly the same or similar ones.
Annnex, Amendment, Bill of Rights, ect. may improve functionallity of these aspects, but we most likely will never find the "perfect" one.

With concern to this thread's topic, we elaborate on "this" or "that" aspect, while we all know what is "right" and "wrong".
That is a waste-time. We should rather be constructive, instead of polemics which bring not much to the case (itself).

What is that whole debate all about, then ?
A man was smuggling drugs.
A man should be charged.
Fine.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Waychel Yes, because I personally don't see how it was an unlawful search and seizure. Cabelles was first pulled over for speeding; it wasn't until the dog -- which was not deliberately lead or commanded to search the car -- alerted the officers to the presence of narcotics that the car was searched. IMO, the dog alerting the officers was reason enough for them to search the vehicle. For the police to gnore the dog would be to ignore their jobs.

But it was the practice of state troopers to bring along a sniffer dog on their patrols and permit the dog to sniff cars which they stop for traffic violations. It was done deliberately.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Gorgo said: This would be settled if drugs were legalized. I say: This entire society would be fixed, if they just stripped all un-constitutional laws, agencies, executive powers, and organizations. Just reinstate the Constitution, and all of its limitations, and all will be well again. There are no modern problems, that cannot be addressed in a constitutional manner.

It is important to note that all fifty states signed the constitution to be part of the U.S. of A., and that that signature is a binding legal contract which they are obligated to follow. That is why all elected official are required to swear to uphold that document. The failure to do so is allocated a special title, treason, and that the punishment for treason is death.

[Waychel]

Quote by: tinybear But it was the practice of state troopers to bring along a sniffer dog on their patrols and permit the dog to sniff cars which they stop for traffic violations. It was done deliberately.

The vehicle was not pulled over to have the dog sniff it for narcotics, but was pulled over for a routine traffic violation. The dog was already at the scene when it alerted the officers to the narcotic, so this was a far cry from being an unlawful search. Moreover, considering that there was over $250,000 worth of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle, the dog didn't need to be commanded or lead through a deliberate search of the car to have become alerted to the presence of the substance in the first place.

Although we have rights regarding unlawful search and seizure, the law is an issue of circumstance and our vehicles are only on a comparable level to our homes. Homes are stationary whereas vehicles are not. If every police officer were required to go through the process of obtaining a warrent from a judge before being allowed to search a vehicle, then we would have no regulation whatsoever on our highways. As a result, if an officer pulls over a vehicle for one violation but is given reasonable suspicion that another violation may be in progress, they are permitted to search the vehicle.

The officer was alerted to the possibility of a crime in progress and that alone gave him justification to search the vehicle. Whether the searching of the car came about from the dog's nose or the policeman's doesn't really matter, IMO. Infact, I'm more inclined to agree with it considering that a dog goes by sense whereas an officer is only human and could be susceptible to acting on grounds of prejudice. The fact that this was a dog's nose and not a policeman's makes the justification for the search not only more reasonable, but potentially a dereliction of duty on the officer's part if ignored.

[tinybear]

I hope the DA didn't forget to argue this before the Supreme Court. A decision is due in June.

[Waychel]

While doing a little research on this subject, a friend of mine pointed out to me the case of Maryland v. Dyson, which leads me to believe that Cabelles stands little to no chance before the Supreme Court.

With Maryland v. Dyson, Maryland police were told by a reliable informant that Dyson -- who was already known to be a prolific drug dealer/smuggler -- had recently come into the possession of cocaine. Feeling that they needed to act as expediently as possible, the police tracked down Dyson and searched his vehicle; subsequently discovering and seizing several pounds of cocaine. The Supreme Court held that the police officers acted in accordance with the Automobile Exception of the Fourth Amendment, which states that a vehicle may be seized and searched solely on the grounds of exigency present due to the mobility of a vehicle prior to a warrent being obtained. There are quite a few exceptions to the warrent requirement of the Fourth Amendment in regards to automobiles specifically which also justified the preemptive actions that the officers took.

I knew that there would be an exception of some kind regarding the searching of automobiles without a warrent, but there are actually over six that I have come accross. Indeed, law is an issue of circumstance and unfortunately for Cabelles, both circumstance as well as chance don't seem to have worked out in his favor all too much. I'm assuming that Cabelles' attorney (if not the ACLU or some similar organization) is representing him in a push for more conservative restrictions to be placed upon law enforcement in consideration to the Fourth Amendment. Although I think that would be interesting to see, I don't see it standing anywhere near of a fighting chance taking into consideration the influence of the Patriot Act today.

[tinybear]

Am I right to think that any laws enacted which are contrary to the Constitution of the US are invalid though?

Besides, in the Dyson case, police had reliable info that the defendant was in possession of drugs. That constitutes probable cause for searching his vehicle, does it not?

[The Dunedan]

Yup. Any law which conflict with the Constitution, no matter how small the conflict, is invalid and may be lawfully ignored.

[tinybear]

The Courts have to hand down a ruling or judgment to that effect first though. You don't ignore a law duly passed by Congress simply because you think it's unconstitutional.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Depends on whether you have a gun pointed at you or not.

[tinybear]

Yep, that's what lawbreakers always say just before they break the law.

[Lou Minotti]

Jesus never said that.....

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear Yep, that's what lawbreakers always say just before they break the law.

Depends on whether the law is morally just or not.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Jesus never said that.....

Jesus was exceptional.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Depends on whether the law is morally just or not.

Morality has got nothing to do with whether a law is valid or not.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Do you understand what you're saying??

That is the biggest load of shit I've ever heard on this forum.

There's simply no arguing with a statement like that.