Traffic Stop not a license for criminal investigation..

[JSandi]

Traffic Stop not a license for criminal investigation..
Illinois Supreme Court ^

Posted on 05/31/2007 6:50:24 PM PDT

In a pair of decisions handed down November 20, Illinois' highest court has held that police conducting traffic stops may not undertake criminal investigations of drivers or passengers without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The twin decisions broaden Illinois citizens' right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and provide greater protection than granted by the US Supreme Court in similar cases.

In one case, the court threw out the conviction of a man arrested after a drug dog sniffed his car during a traffic stop. In the other, the same line-up of judges threw out the conviction of a passenger who was arrested after providing identification to a police officer, who then used it to run a warrant check.

Roy Caballes was stopped for driving 71 mph in a 65 mph zone on Interstate 80, and while one trooper wrote him a speeding ticket, another trooper arrived with a drug-sniffing dog and walked around Caballes' vehicle. When the dog alerted, troopers searched the vehicle, found marijuana in the trunk, and arrested Caballes.

Caballes filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion that he was in fact committing a crime. In trial court testimony, prosecutors produced no tell-tale smells, roaches in ashtrays, or any other evidence other than that Caballes appeared nervous and was wearing a new suit. The motion was rejected and Caballes was convicted. He appealed, and last week the Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the drug dog search resulting in Caballes' arrest was not allowed.

[JSandi]

This is Illinois but the way things are going its only a matter of time before this is the rule everywhere.

[OrlandoExp103]

So what happened to the ground around the vehicle being considered public domain, and therefore does not violate his privacy when the K-9 is walked around it, as it is a public street, not his?

This just gives people an excuse to get away with crimes. I dont see why it matters if you have a reasonable suspicion or not for a simple K-9 walk around, as that's all it sounds like here, not that the dog jumped in his car and searched in there. As long as the driver is not being held an unreasonable amount of time waiting for the dog, then there shouldn't be any problem.

[InterstateLaw]

The Caballes case was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and his conviction stands as the canine sniff was legal.

[OrlandoExp103]

The Caballes case was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and his conviction stands as the canine sniff was legal.

guess it all worked out for the best then...

[IMachU]

guess it all worked out for the best then...

Yeah, it's just sad that it had to go to that extreme when current case law supports the initial conviction.

[pf217]

...without a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

But that's been the case ever since reasonable suspicion was established. True, the cases that follow are somewhat extreme. I'm not saying that it's better anywhere else, but it seems especially here in Cook County (the county that hosts Chicago), you could have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed and still have most cases thrown out pre-trial. It's just a suspect-friendly world.

[SRT936]

Take note of decisions like this people. There is a growing trend in states across the country that are whittling away at pre-textual stops and many of the interdiction tactics that have worked so well. Although SCOTUS has routinely upheld these tactics and it appears that they will continue to do so, individual states can and have been interepting their individual constitutions to provide greater protections.

[Gene L]

Sure is true in my state. A deputy stopped a guy who looked hinkey, had all the dope-related bumper stickers on his car. He stopped him for weaving within the lane, talked to the guy for 20 minutes gave him a warning, and got permission to search the vehicle. Found 6 pounds of marijuana.

The case was thrown out becaue of two reasons: first, the court held there was no reason to make the stop initially, as there is no law against "weaving within the lane" and second, they held it was profiling because of the look of the car. Third, he held the guy 20 minutes before writing the ticket, which the court felt was unconscienceable for a traffic ticket, and unacceptable especially for a warning ticket for a crime that didn't exist.

They held that the stop was a pretext for a search.

[Fëanor]

Third, he held the guy 20 minutes before writing the ticket, which the court felt was unconscienceable for a traffic ticket, and unacceptable especially for a warning ticket for a crime that didn't exist.

That part is definitely true. The court is right on that one.

[JSandi]

June 10, of 1996 The US Supreme Court unanimously held that evidence seized during a traffic stop can be used in court, even if the traffic stop was only a pretext to look for drugs or evidence of other illegal activities (Whren v. U.S., No. 95-5841, 59CrL2121, (June 10,1996);

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=517&invol=806

[Gene L]

Yeah, but that was 11 years ago. Since then profiling has raised its ugly head, and we are being more restricted in traffic stops. On a state level, if not on a SOCTUS level, which is just as binding. And I think on a SCOTUS level as well.

Now, you have to go through a paperwork process to even do a roadcheck...approved by a Shift Level supervisor, you have to fill out a form for the reason of hte check, etc. Can't do them in majority ethnic areas. Can only do a roadcheck for ONE reason that you list before hand. Of course, if you're doing a license check and smell alcohol, then you develop PC.

I can't overemphasize how strongly the courts have restricted pretextual stops and searches. Not restricted, actually forbidden.

[SgtScott31]

This is Illinois but the way things are going its only a matter of time before this is the rule everywhere.

Why are you posting the Illinois ruling when it was overturned by the US Supreme Court?? It is obviously apparent that drug sniffing dogs can be used during traffic stops and formulate PC for searches, and it holds all day long in courts. The only time this normally becomes an issue is when the time of the traffic stop is unreasonable (i.e. over 30 min for a moving violation).

[Gene L]

Why are you posting the Illinois ruling when it was overturned by the US Supreme Court?? It is obviously apparent that drug sniffing dogs can be used during traffic stops and formulate PC for searches, and it holds all day long in courts. The only time this normally becomes an issue is when the time of the traffic stop is unreasonable (i.e. over 30 min for a moving violation).

Because it's apparently law in Illinois. The State can broaden the rights of a citizen under the 4th Ammendment, states do not have the right to tighten restraints over the SCOTUS.

I'm afraid it's like that in my state. You'd better be able to articulate a good reason for running a dog around the outside of a car on a traffic stop.

Most cops who stop a 73 year old guy are not going to run a dog around the car. They should, if they want to avoid problems like the one in my state, which invoked the visage of "profiling."

We've been liimited by state law. Regardless of how broad our powers are according to SCOTUS, the state can, and will, limit those powers.

[SgtScott31]

If an officer is making stops for traffic violations, and during the stop decides to run his dog around the car, it is completely legit in our state (TN). Deciding that it is not legal during the course of the stop in any state is ridiculous. I feel sorry for you guys.