Tweet
Supreme Court supports the free-air sniff
I hope this wasnt already posted somewhere else already (I looke around and didnt see it) but I thought it was worth mentioning.....
"SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court sided with police Thursday in a case testing a unique type of drug-dog search of vehicles.
In a 4-3 decision, the high court overruled an Adams County judge’s decision that said motorists can’t be ordered to assist officers in conducting dog sniffs of their own cars and trucks, even if the police don’t have probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The case stems from a 2006 traffic stop in Quincy, in which Cheryl Bartelt was stopped after a police officer observed she was parked illegally.
A second officer arrived at the scene with a police dog and, although he had no probable cause, ordered Bartelt to roll up her windows and turn on the interior blower fan. Air being pushed out from within the vehicle alerted the dog to the presence of drugs inside. Bartelt was arrested.
The circuit judge sided with Bartelt that the evidence should be suppressed because it was obtained in violation of a person’s right to unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth District Appellate Court disagreed.
In siding with the police, the high court majority cited a decision in a Florida drug arrest in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents “prepped†the suitcases of two drug suspects by pressing the suitcases lightly with their hands in order for drug-dogs to sniff any drug-laced air being emitted from the suitcases.
Justice Lloyd Karmeier noted that the Quincy police action “was not sufficiently intrusive.â€
But, a minority dissent noted the case raises questions of whether a police officer’s order to a driver to help “set up†a drug sniffing procedure constitutes an unreasonable seizure.
“It is my view that it is,†Justice Charles Freeman wrote in the dissent."
Some of the comments on this story have been rediculous! One person went so far as to ask "since when can police officers just search your vehicle because they feel like it?"
"SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Supreme Court sided with police Thursday in a case testing a unique type of drug-dog search of vehicles.
In a 4-3 decision, the high court overruled an Adams County judge’s decision that said motorists can’t be ordered to assist officers in conducting dog sniffs of their own cars and trucks, even if the police don’t have probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The case stems from a 2006 traffic stop in Quincy, in which Cheryl Bartelt was stopped after a police officer observed she was parked illegally.
A second officer arrived at the scene with a police dog and, although he had no probable cause, ordered Bartelt to roll up her windows and turn on the interior blower fan. Air being pushed out from within the vehicle alerted the dog to the presence of drugs inside. Bartelt was arrested.
The circuit judge sided with Bartelt that the evidence should be suppressed because it was obtained in violation of a person’s right to unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth District Appellate Court disagreed.
In siding with the police, the high court majority cited a decision in a Florida drug arrest in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents “prepped†the suitcases of two drug suspects by pressing the suitcases lightly with their hands in order for drug-dogs to sniff any drug-laced air being emitted from the suitcases.
Justice Lloyd Karmeier noted that the Quincy police action “was not sufficiently intrusive.â€
But, a minority dissent noted the case raises questions of whether a police officer’s order to a driver to help “set up†a drug sniffing procedure constitutes an unreasonable seizure.
“It is my view that it is,†Justice Charles Freeman wrote in the dissent."
Some of the comments on this story have been rediculous! One person went so far as to ask "since when can police officers just search your vehicle because they feel like it?"
Comment