The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[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?

[tinybear]

So, I see no one is interested in the Fourth Amendment.

[Lou Minotti]

Drug dogs without warrants violate the 4th amendment. Ground penetrating radar without warrants violates the 4th. Infrared without a warrant? Violates the 4th. Simple. Air freshener as probable cause? The cop should lose his badge and/or have his kid accidentally shot in a drug raid on the wrong house.

[tman_ndsu08]

As soon as you're pulled over, that's pretty much as good as search warrent. The cop better have a legitamate reason to pull you over, though.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 As soon as you're pulled over, that's pretty much as good as search warrent.

Are you saying that this is the way it is or the way it should be?

[tman_ndsu08]

It's not hard to let a dog take a quick sniff around the outside of your car. You don't even have to get out. If it picks up on something, well, you're f***ed then aren't you?

[Lou Minotti]

Okay, so you are against the fourth amendment. Why not just come out and say it?

[tman_ndsu08]

If a police man stops you, he doesn't have a right to come inside your car. That says nothing about the outside.

[Lou Minotti]

So the dog isn't searching the inside of the car with his nose? Is that what you are saying?

That says nothing about the outside.

What says nothing about the outside?

[tman_ndsu08]

If a police man actually saw dugs inside your car, that's all he legally needs to search the inside.

So if a dog can smell drugs inside the car, that's all that's needed as well.

[Lou Minotti]

If a police man actually saw dugs inside your car, that's all he legally needs to search the inside. So if a dog can smell drugs inside the car, that's all that's needed as well.

If a policeman "actually saw dugs inside your car", that would constitute probable cause.. If a policeman searched your car with a dog WITHOUT probable cause, than he is violating your civil rights.Case closed.

[bugsbunny04]

I dont think what he did should be illegal to begin with and therefore I dont think drug dogs should even exist because there is no use for them in my opinion. But lets say it was a cadavar dog looking for a dead body. well, technically, the dog's olfactory nerves can only respond to molecules that are OUTSIDE the car. as long as the dog doesnt touch the car, he is only responding to the ambient air. If the dog can be demonstrated capable of pointing to where the scent is coming from (in the same a human can tell where a sound is coming from), then probable cause for a search of where he sais its coming from exists.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lou Minotti If a policeman "actually saw dugs inside your car", that would constitute probable cause.. If a policeman searched your car with a dog WITHOUT probable cause, than he is violating your civil rights.Case closed.

A dog is a policeman, not a tool. So I'm failing to see the difference to between a human policeman using his sight to detect drugs without searching the inside and a canine policeman using his smell to detect drugs without searchign the inside.

[BloodEagle]

a canine policeman? the phrase itself is inconsistent... how can a dog be a man?

[The Dunedan]

"Plain Sight" doctrine allows for the -EASILY VISIBLE- evidence of a crime to be construed as Probable Cause.
However, for evidence to fall under Plain Sight, is must be;
1: Visible to the naked eye ( no drug dogs ).
2: Unconcealed, or positioned/placed in such a way as to lead a reasonable person to assume that no effort had been taken to conceal it.

In other words, it has to be literally lying out in the open where someone could trip over it. If a policeman so much as moves a handkercheif w/out a warrant, it's inadmissible from a Constitutional standpoint. Warrantless drug-dog searches are unConstitutional on their face, as is the totality of the "Traffic Stop Tap-Dance" that we all go through. Without probable cause under Plain Sight ( or a warrant ), the request for license/reg/insurance and drug-dogs is patently illegal.

[tinybear]

Hey guys, would your opinions be any different if Cabelles had been a serial rapist/murderer and a teenaged girl was found in his car trunk? If so, why? If not, why not?

[tinybear]

Would it any different if Cabelles had resisted arrest and, in the process, had seriously wounded the cop with the sniffer dog and that, at the trial, he claims that his resistance to arrest was lawful because he shouldn't have been arrested in the first place?

[The Dunedan]

If the search was illegal, Cabelles had every right to resist, with lethal force if needed. An unlawful arrest is correctly known as "Assault," "Battery," "Kidnap," or "Home Invasion," depending on the method and circumstances.

[tinybear]

Hmm, yes, it would logically follow, wouldn't it? Let's say I give you some more facts. Cabelles has a long string of comvictions for assault & battery, spousal abuse, drugs, controlling a prostitute, robbery, rape..etc. The wounded policeman (who will be disabled for life), on the other hand, is a veteran with 30 years of impeccable service with the force, having been awarded medals for bravery on no less than 10 occasions by the State. You are sitting on the jury. What say you? Same as before? Cabelles walks?

[tman_ndsu08]

Am all for rights, but if you get pulled over it's because you were breaking the law. You messed up, fair enough. If you're stupid enough to be carrying dope on you, that's your own damn problem.

Stupid people deserve no rights.