Supreme Court ruling on illegal searches

[xsubsailor]

http://www.businessinsider.com...traffic-stops-2015-4

 

Supreme Court rules that cops can't hold you for even a few extra minutes after routine traffic stops


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote Tuesday that routine traffic stops cannot be extended for further police investigation.

After police have completed a routine traffic stop, they cannot hold you for even a few extra minutes without violating your rights, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

In a 6-3 vote, the court said constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police agencies from extending traffic stops for additional investigation, such as the use of a drug-sniffing dog.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a written ruling on behalf of the court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of the dissenting justices, said the court’s interpretation could blur the definitions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion for U.S. police departments.

In Rodriguez v. United States, a case brought by a Nebraska man who was pulled over for driving erratically on a state highway in 2012, the court majority said police lacked probable cause in a search that led to the man's drug charge.

The man in the case, Dennys Rodriguez, had his license checked and was issued a warning for his improper driving. But then a police officer asked Rodriguez if he would consent to having a drug-sniffing dog walk around the vehicle. He refused.

The officer still held Rodriguez and told him to wait in his vehicle for “seven or eight minutes,” according to a report in the Hill, until another officer arrived with the drug-sniffing dog. Police ended up arresting Rodriguez for possession of methamphetamines and Rodriguez was indicted on federal drug charges.

But at the moment that the first officer completed the initial check, all further searches of Rodriguez's car were illegal, Ginsburg said in the ruling. The "tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” she wrote. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

Thomas, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, argued that police should have the authority to detain people when they suspect other crimes are being committed. “Had [the police officer] arrested, handcuffed and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment,” Thomas wrote in the dissent. “Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.”

[xsubsailor]

For those of you that speak "Legalize" (which I don't) this should be the link to the actual ruling.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

[EssOne]

From what I can see, the court is objecting to a traffic violation-based fishing expedition conducted without a reasonable suspicion that another violation exists. From the syllabus: "He found no reasonable suspicions supporting detention once Struble issued the written warning." From what I read in the syllabus, this decision would not seem to preclude searches and seizures arising from traffic stops as long as there is reasonable suspicion of a violation of law discovered after the stop was made. i.e. visible drug paraphernalia, burglar tools, bloody clothes, etc., etc. What it does is effectively outlaw the "cop's hunch" alone as a valid reason for a detention and search, and makes any evidence discovered in such a search inadmissible. That's the way I see it anyway.

Edited April 21, 2015 by EssOne

[DaveTN]

I read it the same way; the clock stops if there is probable cause. He did not articulate any probable cause for a search and he wanted to run the dog around the car to get that cause. If he had been writing the ticket and he had a partner that got the dog out, or a K9 Officer drove up and ran the dog while he was writing the ticket; he would have been okay. I doubt this will change much except for those Officers that ask permission to search with no probable cause; which I have never understood anyway.

[EssOne]

The courts have been tightening up the rules on search and seizure by the police since the 60's. I think this is just a predictable continuation of all the previous rulings. I'm a little shocked though that the 8th supported it in the first place. They sure wouldn't have where I plied the trade. 'Course we had the 9th, well, why spoil the conversation............. :pleased:  

[macville]

What's surprising is that Thomas was one of the dissenting 3. His argument using the majority's argument was poor at best. Very surprising considering his other writing.

[btq96r]

I read it the same way; the clock stops if there is probable cause. He did not articulate any probable cause for a search and he wanted to run the dog around the car to get that cause. If he had been writing the ticket and he had a partner that got the dog out, or a K9 Officer drove up and ran the dog while he was writing the ticket; he would have been okay. I doubt this will change much except for those Officers that ask permission to search with no probable cause; which I have never understood anyway.

 

I've never been a fan of the exemption for dogs to make a sniff without probable cause or a warrant.  It's a search, plain and simple in my mind, and one that is grossly misused via the war on drugs culture. 

 

SCOTUSblog is theorizing the court may be chipping away at it, and I'm all for it if true.

 

 

What's surprising is that Thomas was one of the dissenting 3. His argument using the majority's argument was poor at best. Very surprising considering his other writing.

 

I'm not at all surprised at Justice Thomas being in the minority on this.  He's consistently voted in favor of law enforcement with regards to 4th Amendment cases that come before the court.

[Pain103]

This has already been in effect here. He extended the stop to perform an exterior free air sniff without reasonable suspicion. Had he done it while a license and warrant check was being performed his case would have been upheld. I don't think an exterior sniff of the vehicle during a stop or in a public place without a warrant will be changed anytime soon. I could see having to secure a warrant being implemented over ruling the carroll doctrine before the K-9 requiring a warrant.

[E4 No More]

Back in the early 90's when I was a LEO this tactic started, but we were told that you couldn't detain for an unreasonable amount of time for a traffic stop which was determined to be 45 minutes. I remember laughing at the time about that because I NEVER had a normal traffic stop last anywhere near 45 minutes. What this will lead to is the LEO screwing around about writing the ticket until the dog arrives to "sniff the air."

[bersaguy]

This is probably an indirect result of many different police departments using the tactic Policing for Profits like they have been doing on several interstates here in Tennessee. Dickson County has been doing is for years and it has made channel 5 news several times. The Drug Task Force was original put out there to stop east bound traffic coming to Nashville until they discovered how much drug money was going west bound. They decided they wanted the money more than the drugs so they began to target west bound traffic and began making millions. Our great Governor said he was going to put a halt to it but has yet to do so. I know this is going on in other counties also. They stopped my son once on his way home for speeding. 72 mph in 70 mph zone and after running his license and insurance they ask him if he objected to a search of his vehicle. He said if you get a warrant you can look till your hearts content. After about 3 minutes they sent him on with no ticket.