Cpl and a vehicle search

[Venator]

Supreme Court Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405

Page 11
The permissible scope of a routine traffic stop is clear: A

motorist reasonably expects that she will be detained briefly

while the police officer asks for her name, checks her

driver’s license, and properly documents her alleged

violation. She also reasonably expects that she will then be

allowed to resume her journey, without being subjected to an

invasive, unrelated drug investigation.

The deployment of drug-detection dogs cannot be justified

by the legitimate investigative needs of a routine traffic stop.


Page 24
at

the sole discretion of a street-level police officer acting on his

own initiative, is precisely the kind of “standardless and

unconstrained discretion” that this Court has previously

condemned. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 39, quoting Prouse, 440

U.S. at 661.

In sum, the use of a drug-detection dog at a routine traffic

stop, even where the stop itself is based on probable cause,

impermissibly alters the nature and quality of the stop.

Given the absence of any logical relationship between traffic

violations and drug offenses, the transformation of a traffic

stop into a drug investigation is simply arbitrary. Absent at

least reasonable suspicion, such a drug investigation cannot

withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny.


Page 36
Drug-detection dogs

have proved to be less reliable and disciplined than the Court

thought in Place, where it assumed that canine sniffs

categorically “do[] not expose noncontraband items.”‘ 462

U.S. at 707. In fact, research shows that the reliability of

dogs varies widely based on several factors, including the

degree of its underlying training and the skill and attitude of

its handler. Another significant factor is the randomness of

the inquiry, with false alerts being much more likely in cases

in which individualized suspicion is absent.


Here is the PDF
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/caballes.pdf

The above is the ACLU's response, not the SCOTUS opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-923.pdf

[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]ILLINOIS[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook] [/FONT][FONT=IMFMLH+CenturySchoolbook]v. [/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]CABALLES [/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS [/FONT]​

[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]No. 03–923. Argued November 10, 2004—Decided January 24, 2005 [/FONT]
[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]After an Illinois state trooper stopped respondent for speeding and ra­dioed in, a second trooper, overhearing the transmission, drove to the scene with his narcotics-detection dog and walked the dog around re-spondent’s car while the first trooper wrote respondent a warning ticket. When the dog alerted at respondent’s trunk, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested respondent. At respondent’s drug trial, the court denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence, holding, [FONT=IMFMLH+CenturySchoolbook]inter alia[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], that the dog’s alerting provided sufficient probable cause to conduct the search. Respondent was con­victed, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that because there were no specific and articulable facts to suggest drug activity, use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=IMFMLH+CenturySchoolbook]Held: [FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 2–4. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]207 Ill. 2d 504, 802 N. E. 2d 202, vacated and remanded. [/FONT]
[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]S[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]TEVENS[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’C[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]ONNOR[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], S[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]CALIA[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], K[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]ENNEDY[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], T[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]HOMAS[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], and B[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]REYER[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], JJ., joined. S[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]OUTER[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], J., filed a dissenting opinion. G[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]INSBURG[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which S[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]OUTER[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], J., joined. R[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]EHNQUIST[/FONT][FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook], C. J., took no part in the decision of the case. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]_________________ _________________ [FONT=IMFMKG+CenturySchoolbook]1 Cite as: 543 U. S. ____ (2005) [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Glock 27a]

Illegal search.

I believe I know the answer but I need a cite which I can't find.

Situation: A person with a CPL is stopped for a traffic violation. During the stop, for no probable cause the officer demands to search your vehicle.



I believe you do not loose your rights to a search of a search of a vehicle

A buddy of mine ,a cpl holder is absolutely certain that once you are issued your CPL you LOOSE your right to refuse a search of your vehicle.

I believe he is incorrect, but I am trying to find the legal requirements one must DO with a CPL when involved in traffic stop

he says his instructor about a year ago, a Shiawassee county sheriff beat this into their head, if stopped you do not have the right to refuse a search of your vehicle

again I know this to be a case of disinformation, but I need to prove it to him

There had to be something your buddy did to cause the cop to be suspicious, probable cause. However, it is advised that if you are a CPL carryer, you hand your license over with your drivers licenses whether you currently have the firearm with you or not. Be very, very nice. Go to the web site Michigan State Police Legal Update. This should get you started. By the way, if you are stopped for a civil infraction (speeding, run a stop sign, etc, no you do not loose your CPL. A misdemeanor costs you six months without the CPL. Felony, the CPL is gone for life. Again, the MSP Legal Updates will alwayse reference the Michigan Law. Good luck. Glock27a. P.S. The traffic violation was enough for probable cause--its his word against the officer, and who do yoou think the judge is going to believe

 

[Glock 27a]

Hey War Child

Not really...there are a few "old school" shi deputies around that don't like it. I've never been challenged by any of them; but have had a couple conversations with deputies that have "told" me about the "old guys" and how THEY feel about this open carry stupidity. insert all the dumb excuses here...manhood, shot first, conceal it..yadda, yadda.

:banghead:I can't get the passion for carrying open. It merely gives the bad guy his primary target to hit first:banghead:you give yourself away and that is not the idea. Carrying Concealed gives you the advantage. I say lets keep them under wraps:shocker:but keep the law as it is. I guess there is a time and a place for open carry and I would not want to see us loose that. P.S. Write your rep and get him to vote for the bill that will get rid of the "No Gun Zone Carry"

 

[Glock 27a]

Whats the Latin Navy Mike?

If that was the case, the 4th would be meaningless. Thankfully, the courts have ruled clearly on this.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

Whats the Latin?:banana:

 

[TheQ]

There had to be something your buddy did to cause the cop to be suspicious, probable cause. However, it is advised that if you are a CPL carryer, you hand your license over with your drivers licenses whether you currently have the firearm with you or not. Be very, very nice. Go to the web site Michigan State Police Legal Update. This should get you started. By the way, if you are stopped for a civil infraction (speeding, run a stop sign, etc, no you do not loose your CPL. A misdemeanor costs you six months without the CPL. Felony, the CPL is gone for life. Again, the MSP Legal Updates will alwayse reference the Michigan Law. Good luck. Glock27a. P.S. The traffic violation was enough for probable cause--its his word against the officer, and who do yoou think the judge is going to believe

The traffic violation is PC/RAS for a stop, not a search. If he searches my car despite my protest, well, we'll let the lawyers sort it out.

My criminal defense attorney and the DA if they prosecute me.

THEN

My civil attorney and the Defendants' Attorneys when I when I bring my USC 1983 suit.

 

[Venator]

:banghead:I can't get the passion for carrying open. It merely gives the bad guy his primary target to hit first:banghead:you give yourself away and that is not the idea. Carrying Concealed gives you the advantage. I say lets keep them under wraps:shocker:but keep the law as it is. I guess there is a time and a place for open carry and I would not want to see us loose that. P.S. Write your rep and get him to vote for the bill that will get rid of the "No Gun Zone Carry"

I'm not understanding your position. Are you saying you don't want to OC? Or was it a sarcastic post?

 

[TheQ]

:banghead:I can't get the passion for carrying open. It merely gives the bad guy his primary target to hit first:banghead:you give yourself away and that is not the idea. Carrying Concealed gives you the advantage. I say lets keep them under wraps:shocker:but keep the law as it is. I guess there is a time and a place for open carry and I would not want to see us loose that. P.S. Write your rep and get him to vote for the bill that will get rid of the "No Gun Zone Carry"

I open carry because I love 1A as much as I love 2A. I refuse searches and refuse to answer questions because I love 4A and 5A -- also because in NO circumstances can consenting to searches or answering questions help you. Go ask Justice Jackson - SCOTUS.

If you don't believe in open carry, you're on the wrong site. If you were being sarcastic, do a better job at letting the rest of us know who aren't in your head and can't hear your voice.

ETA: the guy is new to OCDO. Did a bang up job for his first three posts.

 

[NavyMike]

Whats the Latin?:banana:

When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.

 

[Grapeshot]

:banghead:I can't get the passion for carrying open. It merely gives the bad guy his primary target to hit first:banghead:you give yourself away and that is not the idea. Carrying Concealed gives you the advantage. I say lets keep them under wraps:shocker:but keep the law as it is. I guess there is a time and a place for open carry and I would not want to see us loose that. P.S. Write your rep and get him to vote for the bill that will get rid of the "No Gun Zone Carry"

The point of this site is hardly whether you have a passion for OC or not. Few here will care but a very little whether you OC, CC or noC - those are all you personal decisions. We do care that if you decide to carry that you do so responsibly.

Being responsible is a big thing with OCDO and making claims w/o cites is not going to pass unnoticed. You claim that OCing will make one the primary target to hit first - I don't think so.

Standard challenge that has been made umpteen times before:
Show me one (1) verifiable, with cite, instance anywhere in these United States, in modern times, where a legal, honest person open carrying a handgun has every been preemptively taken out. LEOs, security and military are excluded.

Will such likely happen one day? Statistical probabilities say yes, but when it does the resultant numerical ratio will equal a figure much like this: .000001%

CC on the other hand IS an advantage to the BG - they seldom (never?) OC (by definition in a holster) as do not wish to been seen by LEOs to whom they are likely known.

Please tell us how CCing out in public educates people, how it is faster or how it deters crime before it occurs. OC satisfies all of these.

I will fight for your right/privilege to CC. Learn to understand why OC is not only good too, but that it accomplishes much that CC cannot and does not do. Personal I, like many others here, would prefer Constitutional Carry.