Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Use in Traffic Stops

[vulcan16 971]

The Supreme court finally got one right. Less power to police forces that use Gestapo like tactics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/supreme-court-limits-drug-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/scotus-drug-sniffing-dogs_n_7109146.html

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0421/Supreme-Court-says-police-can-t-prolong-traffic-stops-to-allow-for-a-dog-sniff

 

[HB of CJ 1,263]

Just stupid me here, but could this ruling be the start of a major position shift regarding drugs, traffic stops and the Feds?  And silly me, I know that there is ZERO chance EVER of the various Courts doing WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO DO by the powers that be?  

 

Some of the recent rulings make no sense to me what so ever.  But ... this one does.  How is this possible?  And of course the bigger question ... is it possible the courts are being controlled from the shadows?  Humm ... "Oven Tempered" or "Quilted Strength"?  

 

HB of CJ (old stupid silly old coot)  For your young people, the above quote refers to aluminium foil required for that hat.

[XD45 7,124]

I think the scumbag was a meth dealer and deserved prison.

 

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the 4th Amendment applies IN ALL CASES, even for scumbags. 

 

Holding somebody against their will even for a few minutes based on a vague suspicion is exactly the sort of thing the BOR was intended to prevent.

 

Score one for the scrotum.  Even if it was the libtard members who got it right this time.

[wasrNwarpaint 184]

this is good news!

I live in the sticks....population 1502....AND WE HAVE A DRUG DOG...I cant tell you how much this pisses me off

 

Just another dirty scumbag trick used by the locals to be tax collectors instead of the honourable "to serve & protect"

[gunfun 3,931]

I'm with D S on this one. Studying the ConLaw contradictions they wrote to allow ge-stop-o stops any where vaguely near borders just makes cranial arteries explode. I have such a hard time regurgitating them on tests and such because they are so contrary to the text of 4a, to reason, and to other rulings. --Which is ironic, because they simultaneously make me want to regurgitate.

 

Same goes for the exceptions to the exclusionary rule for "good faith" 4 a violations. 'Oops, I accidentally searched without a warrant, and found what I was hoping to find. I guess I get my way afterall.                                  What do you mean this incentives me to not take your search and seizure rights seriously? I'd never get sloppy on purpose just because it makes my job easier. Shame on you for suggesting that I would do that.'

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=good+faith+exception+to+the+exclusionary+rule

 

WA state Sup court said pretextual traffic stops are invalid a while back, but IIRC the burden was on the stopee to show that the stop was pretextual. It had to be pretty blatant. i.e. cop follows you through 15 turns tailgating you the whole time. Pulls you over because your licence plate light was out. Searches car excessively 'for his personal safety'... So in effect they can stop you for a search anytime they want so long as they can articulate a reason that would have been valid to pull you over. "I thought his headlight was out, but it turned out not to be. While I was waiting for his licence to run, I observed..."