Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

extending traffic stops violates 4th ammndmt


OverSword

Recommended Posts

From the article:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police are not allowed to extend a citizen’s detention during a normal traffic stop, while officers probe for evidence of crimes unrelated to the offense that prompted the initial stop.

In the case before the court, Rodriguez v. U.S., Dennys Rodriguez was given a warning for driving on the shoulder of the highway, then forced to wait for almost 10 minutes as police awaited the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog.

After arriving at the scene, the dog alerted, and a subsequent search of the vehicle found methamphetamine.

The issue before the court was whether it was reasonable to extend Rodriguez’s detention on the side of the road for longer than needed to deal with the initial offense, absent reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer.

The court voted 6-3 in favor of Rodriguez, with the majority holding that the stop went beyond what was reasonable under the law and setting precedent for the entire country.

Prior to the decision, the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, following precedent, held that “extension of the stop… for the dog sniff was only a de minimus intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was, therefore, permissible.”

Penning the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, rebuked that contention, holding that detention of a person for any longer than it takes to deal with initial offense, even if only a few minutes, was improper

Source

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree.

And it is about time the courts stepped up to the plate and defended the rights of its citizens.

The contract we have with our society and gov't is one where we pay our taxes and stay in line (or if we deviate we do so outta sight) and they collect the trash (human and otherwise) and generally leave us alone.

This reaffirmation of faith actually strengthens my admiration for jurisprudence, well, at least when it is functional, which for once it is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will go far beyond traffic stops I beyond just traffic stops I hope.

One article quotes where the cops brought up a drug sniffing dog to a man's property and had it sniff around without a warrant. I would have informed the police that this is private property and if they ain't got a warrant then they are strangers bringing a war-hound onto my land and I will react in a reasonable way to any swarm of armed men brandishing a beast invading my privately owned real property without legal causation to be there.

But that is just me. Whacky ol' Bubbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, occasionally the Supreme's act like they actually understand the Constitution. Now if they could just do it all the time.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now lets see how many cops actualy care about it, and how many will be punished for not following ussc guidelines. my guess no one cares, and none will be punished. otoh i'm glad they do not care, if they do something unlawfull it makes it easier for lawyer to drop charges, and gives people reasons to sue them.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One article quotes where the cops brought up a drug sniffing dog to a man's property and had it sniff around without a warrant. I would have informed the police that this is private property and if they ain't got a warrant then they are strangers bringing a war-hound onto my land and I will react in a reasonable way to any swarm of armed men brandishing a beast invading my privately owned real property without legal causation to be there.

But that is just me. Whacky ol' Bubbs.

And then you'd be dead.

Or in gaol for threatening a police officer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then you'd be dead.

Or in gaol for threatening a police officer.

All I would need to say in court was armed strangers and private property. There are 2 costume shops within 5 miles of my front door where any thief, murderer or rapist can purchase a very real looking replica of a real uniform.

It ain't a threat. It is a prohibition to obey the law. They know the rules. No warrant, no touchy my dirt.

They can stand on the nice public sidewalk for all I care.

I have a soft voice and as I said before I would inform them that private land is not for public intrusions, especially without warrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, I would have argued that the traffic stops was once of those areas that allowed a police officer's instinct to check out crimes they would otherwise have been unable to follow up on.

However, it has become rather obvious, of late, that fewer and fewer police officers are capable of handling the responsibility of flexible procedures, and more restrictive discipline must be enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, I would have argued that the traffic stops was once of those areas that allowed a police officer's instinct to check out crimes they would otherwise have been unable to follow up on.

However, it has become rather obvious, of late, that fewer and fewer police officers are capable of handling the responsibility of flexible procedures, and more restrictive discipline must be enforced.

At first I was a little shocked about this decision, not because I disagree with it but because it seemed like the ends justified the means in this case. But after reading the judges thoughts about what constitutes normal peripheral investigations to a traffic stop (checking license, insurance, etc) I could see the point that calling in a drug sniffing dog goes too far. If the cop thought he really had reasonable cause for searching the vehicle he should have just done it.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I would need to say in court was armed strangers and private property. There are 2 costume shops within 5 miles of my front door where any thief, murderer or rapist can purchase a very real looking replica of a real uniform.

It ain't a threat. It is a prohibition to obey the law. They know the rules. No warrant, no touchy my dirt.

They can stand on the nice public sidewalk for all I care.

I have a soft voice and as I said before I would inform them that private land is not for public intrusions, especially without warrants.

Good luck with that. I hope your spouse posts the funeral times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They claim that they don't racially profile, but if this had been Dennis Rodgers in a suit and tie and driving a BMW, would they have felt the need to call up a sniffer dog?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The contract we have with our society and gov't is one where we pay our taxes and stay in line (or if we deviate we do so outta sight) and they collect the trash (human and otherwise) and generally leave us alone.

How does the govt "collect the trash" without intruding, even slightly, into the 'rights' of private citizens?

My opinion here is that the Court of Appeals was correct and the intrusion was de minimus and this was a common-sense decision, whereas the SCOTUS applied the letter of the law without common-sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the govt "collect the trash" without intruding, even slightly, into the 'rights' of private citizens?

My opinion here is that the Court of Appeals was correct and the intrusion was de minimus and this was a common-sense decision, whereas the SCOTUS applied the letter of the law without common-sense.

I can't agree here. He was cited, then had to wait for a drug sniffing dog after he should have been free to go.

There was no probable cause.

Police violate the constitution, the guilty go free as a result. Just the way things work.

Edited by Shiloh17
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fourth Amendment is a very big deal. It should be fought for with proverbial fire and steel. America's right to privacy. Sure they'll have to squabble over "curtilage" and all the grey areas between the lines, but people should know what their Constitution says and they should remind the police during those rare and special times in our lives we spend dealing with cops. It doesn't matter if it's a good cop or a bad cop. Both cops will benefit from the friendly reminder of what the highest law says.

This Supreme Court decision is a good sign that liberty isn't dead in this country. I'm sorry to see that it's a surprise for some people. This kind of decision should be what we expect and demand especially from the highest court. It's the last line of defense for our rights we've got. If it doesn't represent, our liberty is a hen in a foxhouse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What often happens is, the driver refuses to allow a search of the vehicle, so the cops call in the dogs.

The thing is, you don't dare allow the police to search your car, because the Nancy Grace rule is, you do not have to submit to a search if you're under suspicion or investigation of a crime. In fact, you shouldn't answer any questions, at all during a traffic stop, other than your name, zombie rank, and serial number. That's your right, and the police have been ignoring that right for many years and getting away with it.

I'm grateful to the high court, for finally pushing back against the path to a police state, which we've been on. The jails are full of drug addicts, which is a senseless waste of time and money.

Throwing zombies in jail doesn't cure zombie disease, and it sure doesn't rid the community of zombies. All it does is ruin people's lives, so that can't get a job, and then they're zombies for life.

Edited by Raptor Witness
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Supreme Court decision is a good sign that liberty isn't dead in this country. I'm sorry to see that it's a surprise for some people. This kind of decision should be what we expect and demand especially from the highest court. It's the last line of defense for our rights we've got. If it doesn't represent, our liberty is a hen in a foxhouse.

Earlier tonight I was watching a documentary about prohibition in which Roy Olmsted, the king of bootlegging in Seattle, was convicted based on transcripts of a private detective who was wiretapping him. The detective offered to sell the transcripts to him for $1,000.00. Olmsted told him to jump off a cliff because his advisors on the matter (all the top lawyers and politicians in Seattle who were benefitting off of Olmsted's business) told him that there had never been a conviction based on wiretapping and also because they were not even recordings but transcriptions. He was convicted and appealed the decision all the way to the US supreme court who upheld the conviction but one of the justices later spoke on the subject and subsequently ruled that wiretapping falls under the 4th amendment.

Watching that I thought about this thread so decided to add it as a peripheral piece of interesting trivia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an Officer has probable cause, he isn't going to ask to search your vehicle. He will ask you to step out of the vehicle and search it regardless.

If he doesn't have probable cause he will ask if he can search your vehicle. If you refuse, that is not probable cause which would violate the 4th ammendment.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Driving may be a privelge and not a right, but your rights don't seize when you are behind the wheel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.