The New York Times > Washington > Justices Uphold Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Traffic Stops

In sad news from the Supreme Court, the court ruled 6-2 that if a cop pulls you over for a legitimate traffic stop, they have the right to bring in a drug-sniffing dog to search the exterior of your vehicle:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that in making a routine traffic stop, the police can permit a trained dog to sniff the car for drugs without the need for any particular reason to suspect the driver of a narcotics violation.

The 6-to-2 decision set aside a ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court, which held in 2003 that a state trooper who had stopped a man for speeding had broadened the scope of the encounter beyond constitutional limits by having the dog sniff the car. The dog alerted the police to the trunk, which contained $250,000 worth of marijuana.

Now, many would consider this a good thing; the cops caught a bad guy with harmful illegal drugs (never mind my opinion that marijuana is far from “harmful” both physically and societally, because the case would go the same way if we were talking about harmful drugs like cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine). But decisions like this granting the police broadened powers often have unintended consequences. As noted by dissenting Justices Souter and Ginsberg:

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both issued vigorous dissents on Monday, warning that the latest decision, Illinois v. Caballes, No. 03-923, opened the door to the use of drug-sniffing dogs to patrol parking lots, garages, and even pedestrians on sidewalks.

Ya think? I have some personal experience on this one. In my home county, the local sheriff there made a big splash by using drug-sniffing dogs to patrol the parking lots of the local shopping mall. When the dog alerted to a car, they noted which car it was, then waited for the car to leave the lot. They’d follow the car and wait for any little traffic violation — using the turn lane for more than 100 ft, switching lanes without blinking for the mandated five seconds, travelling 2 MPH over the speed limit, a burnt-out license plate light, whatever — then pull the driver over and pressure them into a search.

I protested this move and ended up on the local NBC news affiliate airing my views (li’l ol’ liberal me, just a tiny blue-state-berry in a big ol’ cherry-red-state pie). The sheriff backed down after the lawyers let him know how potentially unconstitutional and expensive-to-fight this maneuver would be. I wonder how he’s taking the news from yesterday? He’s probably got the drug dogs patrolling the Karcher Mall lot as I type this. (This sheriff’s other wonderful idea in the War on [Some Americans With certain] Drugs was to encourage landlords to institute drug testing as a condition for renting apartments. The landlords refused, knowing full well that if stoners couldn’t rent apartments, there’d be no apartment market. Plus, who wants to be a narc without a raise in pay?)

I wonder what other unintended consequence this decision might unearth:

In the new case, an Illinois state trooper stopped Roy I. Caballes for driving 71 miles an hour on Interstate 80; Justice Souter, in his dissenting opinion, said it was “remarkable” for the police to stop a car for driving six miles an hour over the speed limit on a highway.

Hmm, a man with a Hispanic name pulled over for doing six miles over the limit, eh? Wanna bet the cases of DWB (Driving While Brown) go way up?

What is especially troubling is the fact that drug-sniffing dogs can sometimes give false positives:

Souter, in his dissent, said sniffing dogs are prone to mistakes, meaning that police often will find something other than contraband when they open a trunk after a dog alerts. He said Illinois, in defending its practice, cited a study that showed trained dogs return false positives as often as 60 percent of the time.

“In practical terms, the evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times,” Souter wrote.

Well, who needed that pesky 4th Amendment anyway? Didja know that if someone snorts cocaine or crank or rolls a joint with a dollar bill, the residue on that bill can be detected by drug dogs for months. I’ll bet you’re carrying some drug-soiled currency in your wallet or purse right now. Suppose you’re driving on your way back home from a Phish concert and you’re pulled over for that pesky burned-out bulb on your back license plate holder. Suppose they bring over the drug dog and it alerts to the smell of the pot smoke on your clothes from the Phish-heads at the concert, or maybe from those soiled bills in your wallet. Now they’ve got you in cuffs, sitting on the curb, as they paw through your trunk and glove box, tear apart your car seats, deflate and remove your tires from their rims, and they find absolutely nothing. Bet you’ll wish you had that 4th Amendment then.

I plan to fight this like I planned to fight Sheriff Nourse back in Canyon County. I’m getting a bottle of hempseed oil and spraying a little on the trunk lid of every Hummer, Lexus, Jaguar, BMW, and Cadillac I see. Maybe if it’s some rich white conservative folks whose civil liberties are getting trampled, we might all get our civil liberties back.