Police Search Gets Hearing


Illinois vs Caballes, 03-923


April 5, 2004: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether police can use drug-sniffing dogs to check the vehicles of motorists stopped for traffic offenses, even without suspicion that any individual possesses drugs.

The court agreed to hear Illinois officials bid to reinstate the marijuana-trafficking conviction of a man whose car was checked by a dog after police stopped him for speeding. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that marijuana found in the car couldn't be used in court because police lacked a specific reason to use the drug-sniffing dog.

"A sniff by a drug-detection dog is uniquely unobtrusive," the state's lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington. "Because a canine sniff does not expose items that would otherwise remain hidden, information is obtained without the intrusion or discomfiture associated with a traditional search."

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that police can't use roadblocks with drug-sniffing dogs to search for drug traffickers without individual suspicion of the cars being stopped. In 1996, the court ruled that police can stop cars for traffic violations even of the actual goal was to investigate a possible drug offense.

In today's case, Roy Caballes was stopped by an Illinois state trooper for speeding in November 1998. The trooper said he was going to write a warning ticket for speeding. He also asked Caballes if he had ever been arrested, and Caballes said he hadn't. A police dispatcher reported that Caballes had two prior arrests for distributing marijuana.

Fourth Amendment


While the trooper was writing the warning ticket, another trooper arrived with a drug-sniffing dog who alerted to the car's truck. Police said they found marijuana inside. Caballes was convicted of marijuana trafficking and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The Illinois Supreme Court threw out his conviction, saying police "impermissibly broadened the scope of the traffic stop" by using the drug-sniffing dog without suspicion that Caballes possessed drugs.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said in court papers that a canine sniff isn't considered a search under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on reasonable searches. Other courts have concluded that using drug-sniffing dogs at traffic stops doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, the states lawyers said.

Lawyers for Caballes said the officer extended the duration of the traffic stop while questioning Caballes, and said that the Illinois court may have concluded the officer was "stalling to permit the canine unit more time to arrive."

The court will hear arguments in its term starting in October and will rule by July 2005.

This story was written by Laurie Asseo of Bloomberg and published by Bloomberg