5 ms·

Read the opinion carefully, it explicitly says that the order of events is not justification enough. You are right in saying that this doesn't prohibit dog snif

by hacknat 11y ago

Read the opinion carefully, it explicitly says that the order of events is not justification enough. You are right in saying that this doesn't prohibit dog sniffs in all traffic stops. Period. However, you are wrong that stating that a dog sniff can be justified by simple ordering, see page 8: >>The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6. and page 7: >>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop SCOTUS is in fact saying that a dog sniff must be supported by what they call "individualized suspicion".

lsiebert 11y ago
Now they will simply add an extra officer. As long as he conducts the search while the other officer does traffic related things, I don't see how this would prevent a dog sniff search.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  To do that, you'd have to know in advance which officers were going to be making traffic stops in which they would want an excuse to make an otherwise unconstitutional excuse so you could preposition K9 units to assist them, or you'd have to have every patrol car have two officers and a dog. Either of these is impractical.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    We should cut to the subtext here and stipulate: trained dog handling officers can cue their dogs to alert. So the problem is, if you're on a traffic patrol and already have a drug dog (many do), then the following sequence remains blessed: 1. Make a reasonable traffic stop 2. Approach vehicle with drug dog 3. Cue dog to alert concurrent with traffic stop handling 4. Conduct car search based on cued alert No delay has been added in this procedure, and by the letter of the opinion today, it looks like that search will hold up.
    - beedogs 11y ago
      Drug dogs are basically lie detectors with fur. Just as unreliable, just as easy to misuse, and yet people still think they're doing something useful.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      What happens when a large percentage of the cued alerts result in nothing found via search?
      - MertsA 11y ago
        http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-ca... Evidently a Supreme Court Ruling. Hopefully there will be a ruling that drug dogs aren't considered probable cause soon.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's my reading too. But before we get too mechanistic about what's going to happen: no police department can afford to put two officers and a drug dog in every traffic patrol car. Police departments will be able to adapt so that the patrols that already had drug dogs will often (but not always) be able to use them. What they won't be able to do is ensure that any stop can be converted on a whim to a drug search. It's an incremental win, but a win.
etjossem 11y ago
>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop Alito's dissent states that a preliminary dog sniff will become an ordinary incident as a result of this ruling. It will be the new standard procedure for K-9 officers who initiate traffic stops. A future Officer Struble will simply get the dog out first for everyone he stops, post Rodriguez and a bit of officer training. Officers that don't have a dog in the back will still have to establish reasonable suspicion to call in a K-9 sniff, just as they did before the ruling. So I can't see this ruling having an impact for longer than it takes to re-train officers.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If it's an ordinary incident of a K-9 traffic stop, it's not prolonging the stop. Its still a search not reasonably related to the justification of the stop, which would seem to make it unreasonable as an ordinary procedure. Sure, Scalia might vote to uphold it, but if Scalia's view was controlling he wouldn't need to.
  - etjossem 11y ago
    The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172

by hacknat 11y ago

lsiebert 11y ago

Now they will simply add an extra officer. As long as he conducts the search while the other officer does traffic related things, I don't see how this would prevent a dog sniff search.

dragonwriter 11y ago
To do that, you'd have to know in advance which officers were going to be making traffic stops in which they would want an excuse to make an otherwise unconstitutional excuse so you could preposition K9 units to assist them, or you'd have to have every patrol car have two officers and a dog. Either of these is impractical.
- tptacek 11y ago
  We should cut to the subtext here and stipulate: trained dog handling officers can cue their dogs to alert. So the problem is, if you're on a traffic patrol and already have a drug dog (many do), then the following sequence remains blessed: 1. Make a reasonable traffic stop 2. Approach vehicle with drug dog 3. Cue dog to alert concurrent with traffic stop handling 4. Conduct car search based on cued alert No delay has been added in this procedure, and by the letter of the opinion today, it looks like that search will hold up.
  - beedogs 11y ago
    Drug dogs are basically lie detectors with fur. Just as unreliable, just as easy to misuse, and yet people still think they're doing something useful.
  - gambiter 11y ago
    What happens when a large percentage of the cued alerts result in nothing found via search?
    - MertsA 11y ago
      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-ca... Evidently a Supreme Court Ruling. Hopefully there will be a ruling that drug dogs aren't considered probable cause soon.
tptacek 11y ago
That's my reading too. But before we get too mechanistic about what's going to happen: no police department can afford to put two officers and a drug dog in every traffic patrol car. Police departments will be able to adapt so that the patrols that already had drug dogs will often (but not always) be able to use them. What they won't be able to do is ensure that any stop can be converted on a whim to a drug search. It's an incremental win, but a win.

etjossem 11y ago

>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop Alito's dissent states that a preliminary dog sniff will become an ordinary incident as a result of this ruling. It will be the new standard procedure for K-9 officers who initiate traffic stops. A future Officer Struble will simply get the dog out first for everyone he stops, post Rodriguez and a bit of officer training. Officers that don't have a dog in the back will still have to establish reasonable suspicion to call in a K-9 sniff, just as they did before the ruling. So I can't see this ruling having an impact for longer than it takes to re-train officers.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If it's an ordinary incident of a K-9 traffic stop, it's not prolonging the stop. Its still a search not reasonably related to the justification of the stop, which would seem to make it unreasonable as an ordinary procedure. Sure, Scalia might vote to uphold it, but if Scalia's view was controlling he wouldn't need to.
- etjossem 11y ago
  The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172