Post by Mech on Jan 26, 2005 21:39:26 GMT -5
Prepare for life in a police state: Court allows drug dogs in all traffic stops
Jan/26/2005
By Sarah Ryley
Voice Editor
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that narcotics-detecting dogs can be used for all routine traffic stops — and you can bet that we, as students with varying degrees of other “incriminating” visual factors, are going to be the targets.
The case involved John Caballes, an Illinois man who was stopped for doing only six miles over the speed limit, but narcotics-detecting dogs ended up finding $250,000 worth of marijuana while sniffing around his trunk. The fact that he was stopped for doing only six over is a sign that this ruling is going to open the door for more frivolous traffic stops with the officers hoping to find drugs.
In a 6-2 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens issued a statement stating that Caballes had no legal right to privacy concerning illegal narcotics, and since narcotics dogs are only trained to detect illegal drugs — not money or any other lawful possessions — constitutional search and seizure protections were not violated.
Not only do narcotics-detecting dogs often make mistakes resulting in the unlawful rummaging through one’s personal possessions, but it’s commonly because they detect money with drug residue on it — between 70 and 96 percent of bills are estimated to have residue from some illegal narcotic.
According to the NPR report, another man was stopped by police using narcotics dogs and sent to jail because he had a large sum of money on him that dogs detected because of drug residue — but they found no actual drugs. The man still had to post bail and pay for a lawyer in his court case.
In the Supreme Court’s dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said that allowing narcotics-detecting dogs for routine traffic stops opens the door for using the dogs to survey parked cars, much like some schools do for students’ lockers, and having the dogs on street corners. She also made the point that the dogs are intimidating and will fundamentally change the police-driver encounter while also elongating it.
Police are well known to profile drivers who they think might possess drugs based on visual factors such as race, age, piercings, dreadlocks, tattoos, the type of car being driven and the bumper stickers on it.
Students on college campuses and low-income minorities are especially harassed because the officer figures that he or she can find other reasons to issue tickets if the apparent infraction is too minor, such as lack of registration, insurance or a license; drunk driving; or the jackpot infractions — possession and drug trafficking. The Supreme Court decision is only giving the officers further incentive to make these harassing and predatory stops.
Even if the victim doesn’t have any actual drugs on him, he can still be forced to go through the process of going to jail, posting bail and paying crippling lawyer fees if he has a large amount of money containing drug residue on him, or if a friend left trace marijuana in his car. Imagine driving home from work and being pulled over for going only six miles over the speed limit, and then being carted off to jail because the $300 in tips you made bartending happened to have some cocaine on it. This can very easily start being commonplace around inner cities and college campuses.
“Innocent” bystanders aside, police applaud this ruling as a major step toward combating the war on drugs, and one can only imagine the zeal with which they will put it into practice. But this ruling really targets the recreational pot smoker since they are the most common, and we need to stop clogging up the courts and jails with small-time drug users.
This is a waste of our tax dollars and a waste of our youth. Sending young people to jail and then forcing them to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees for possessing a small amount of marijuana — a “mistake” many successful adults, such as our last two presidents, will have to admit to — is really just unfair and unproductive.
It’s not likely that the ruling will be overturned, at least in the next four years, so prepare yourself for life in a police state.
Send all comments to this story to sryley@southend.wayne.edu
Jan/26/2005
By Sarah Ryley
Voice Editor
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that narcotics-detecting dogs can be used for all routine traffic stops — and you can bet that we, as students with varying degrees of other “incriminating” visual factors, are going to be the targets.
The case involved John Caballes, an Illinois man who was stopped for doing only six miles over the speed limit, but narcotics-detecting dogs ended up finding $250,000 worth of marijuana while sniffing around his trunk. The fact that he was stopped for doing only six over is a sign that this ruling is going to open the door for more frivolous traffic stops with the officers hoping to find drugs.
In a 6-2 ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens issued a statement stating that Caballes had no legal right to privacy concerning illegal narcotics, and since narcotics dogs are only trained to detect illegal drugs — not money or any other lawful possessions — constitutional search and seizure protections were not violated.
Not only do narcotics-detecting dogs often make mistakes resulting in the unlawful rummaging through one’s personal possessions, but it’s commonly because they detect money with drug residue on it — between 70 and 96 percent of bills are estimated to have residue from some illegal narcotic.
According to the NPR report, another man was stopped by police using narcotics dogs and sent to jail because he had a large sum of money on him that dogs detected because of drug residue — but they found no actual drugs. The man still had to post bail and pay for a lawyer in his court case.
In the Supreme Court’s dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Ginsburg said that allowing narcotics-detecting dogs for routine traffic stops opens the door for using the dogs to survey parked cars, much like some schools do for students’ lockers, and having the dogs on street corners. She also made the point that the dogs are intimidating and will fundamentally change the police-driver encounter while also elongating it.
Police are well known to profile drivers who they think might possess drugs based on visual factors such as race, age, piercings, dreadlocks, tattoos, the type of car being driven and the bumper stickers on it.
Students on college campuses and low-income minorities are especially harassed because the officer figures that he or she can find other reasons to issue tickets if the apparent infraction is too minor, such as lack of registration, insurance or a license; drunk driving; or the jackpot infractions — possession and drug trafficking. The Supreme Court decision is only giving the officers further incentive to make these harassing and predatory stops.
Even if the victim doesn’t have any actual drugs on him, he can still be forced to go through the process of going to jail, posting bail and paying crippling lawyer fees if he has a large amount of money containing drug residue on him, or if a friend left trace marijuana in his car. Imagine driving home from work and being pulled over for going only six miles over the speed limit, and then being carted off to jail because the $300 in tips you made bartending happened to have some cocaine on it. This can very easily start being commonplace around inner cities and college campuses.
“Innocent” bystanders aside, police applaud this ruling as a major step toward combating the war on drugs, and one can only imagine the zeal with which they will put it into practice. But this ruling really targets the recreational pot smoker since they are the most common, and we need to stop clogging up the courts and jails with small-time drug users.
This is a waste of our tax dollars and a waste of our youth. Sending young people to jail and then forcing them to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees for possessing a small amount of marijuana — a “mistake” many successful adults, such as our last two presidents, will have to admit to — is really just unfair and unproductive.
It’s not likely that the ruling will be overturned, at least in the next four years, so prepare yourself for life in a police state.
Send all comments to this story to sryley@southend.wayne.edu
