# SCOTUS: Police can use drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 25, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512 "2005-01-25T01:21:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/81 "2005-01-26T02:22:59Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > They can look at my house all they want, use UV cameras, Mass Spec analysis on the air coming out of my vents, whatever. None of that is invasive at all. Are you serious? If you are, then I can see why no one can get through to you with their arguments. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/82 "2005-01-26T03:40:52Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Well, I’ll back up **Desk** 110%, having endured a similar experience. > > I was traveling from El Paso to Atlanta with a couple of friends. We were coming through New Orleans on I-10 in the early morning hours. We didn’t do a damn thing but look suspicious, and yet we got pulled over. The cop said we were weaving. (Not true, but how do you disprove that?) My friend who was driving is part Vietnamese, but might be mistaken for Mexican at a glance. We were in a rental car. Since that stretch of I-10 is heavily used by drug traffickers, I’m certain we got “profiled.” > > This officer detained us for **over 1/2 hour** while he took turns questioning the three of us separately about who we were, where we’d been and where we were going. (Obviously looking for discrepancies.) Meanwhile, he was making repeated calls to another officer and asking him how soon he could get there. I assume he was calling a K-9 unit. > > Now bear in mind that we had done nothing wrong. After 40 minutes or so, I was fed up. I lit into the cop (well, firmly but politely) and told him we had a long way to go and it was late, so he should either give us a ticket, arrest us, or let us go. He got a bit flustered, but he let us go. His fellow officer (presumably with K-9) never arrived. > > **buttonjockey308** , if you think police power never gets abused, or that innocent people don’t get targeted, you are, to put it as kindly as I can, _mistaken_. > > And there’s the problem. (Or _one_ problem, anyway.) Who do you suppose will be targeted with drug-sniffing dogs? Do you think a businessman in a suit is at any risk of being waylaid for 40 minutes like this? Do you think that drug-sniffing dogs will be used randomly? Or will they be targeted at certain segments of society? And is that just? 1. Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. That said, I can just as easily make the case that there were 2 of you and only one of him, and THAT is why he called for backup, which may or may not have been a K9. 2. If you think that police power always gets abused, you too, are mistaken. I’m not ignorant of the abuse of police power, but I know there’s no where NEAR as much as you think, no matter how much that is. 3. Look, as seemingly unpopular as it is, profiling WORKS. Generally speaking, a business man in a suit driving a rented sedan isn’t as LIKELY to be driving around with a trunkload of dope as some others may be. I don’t make these things up, they’re reality. 4. Yeah, it’s just. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/83 "2005-01-26T03:57:09Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Are you serious? If you are, then I can see why no one can get through to you with their arguments. Because I don’t think that emissions are private or require permits to be ‘searched’? Ooooooh, yeah, I’m so out there. I’d love to hear an explination of why these are so sacrisanct. It’d sure be better than ‘why can’t you understand?!?" I can’t because I’m not a freakin’ mind reader. Why shouldn’t the cops be able to look at the IR spectra coming out of your house? Why is that so special? I understand that the courts see it differently than me and legally it is seen as such. But I don’t agree that some line needs to be drawn in this case. Binoculars and corrective lenses let police and others see better than others. Would a mutant who can see in the IR spectra be denied being able to use his sight to look at people’s houses? Or do you have a problem with the methods I meantioned as being non-invasive? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/84 "2005-01-26T05:02:57Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. If you think that police power always gets abused, you too, are mistaken. I’m not ignorant of the abuse of police power, but I know there’s no where NEAR as much as you think, no matter how much that is. I thik they’re saying that this won’t changenthings any. If the cops want an axcuse to search you, they can probably find one. Anyone, police or not, can exploit the letter of the law. The dogs probably won’t change that. Thinking further, this may get challenged on the grounds that the cop himself didn’t see/smal/hear/whatever the target, and therefore can’t identify the source; this wouldn’t be an issue if the cop was simply using thermograph. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/85 "2005-01-26T05:10:16Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Because I don’t think that emissions are private or require permits to be ‘searched’? Ooooooh, yeah, I’m so out there. I’d love to hear an explination of why these are so sacrisanct. It’d sure be better than ‘why can’t you understand?!?" I can’t because I’m not a freakin’ mind reader. Why shouldn’t the cops be able to look at the IR spectra coming out of your house? Why is that so special? I understand that the courts see it differently than me and legally it is seen as such. But I don’t agree that some line needs to be drawn in this case. Binoculars and corrective lenses let police and others see better than others. Would a mutant who can see in the IR spectra be denied being able to use his sight to look at people’s houses? > > Or do you have a problem with the methods I meantioned as being non-invasive? OK. So a copper sets up across the street and decides to watch your every move with binoculars/night vision/take your pick without probably cause. By your definition, that’s non-invasive, right? You have no problem with this? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/86 "2005-01-26T05:22:35Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > 1. If you think that police power always gets abused, you too, are mistaken. I’m not ignorant of the abuse of police power, but I know there’s no where NEAR as much as you think, no matter how much that is. I really don’t have a problem with cops per se. They have a difficult job to do, and I sure as hell am not interested in policing. However, I would say that little abuses of police power (e.g. pulling you over for no reason—rather, bogus reasons—just to look you over and ask questions.) happen fairly routinely. Cops I know have admitted as much to me, defense attorneys tell me it’s routine, and personal experience bears this out. I had a friend who bought an old Caprice years ago. It can be described as looking like a drug dealer’s car. In the first month, he got pulled over for no reason whatsoever a dozen times. Never got a ticket. Never got a warning for anything. It was funny the first few times, but it got old fast and he ended up selling his car. Is it reasonable for a law-abiding citizen to be inconvenienced like this repeatedly? I know anecdote != data, but short of videotapes there’s not much more I can offer you. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/87 "2005-01-26T05:47:23Z")
Most cops are fine people and professional, but I’ve had my share of bad experiences with cops who think long hair or out-of-state/county tags are probable cause for detaining someone, questioning them and searching for contraband. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/88 "2005-01-26T06:29:41Z")
If the dogs are not reliable, then their barking does not provide probable cause. If the dogs are reliable, then it is silly to pretend that using them isn’t a search. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/89 "2005-01-26T06:43:40Z")
What if dogs are not reliable, but judges persist in treating them as if they are? Or alternatively, what if dogs are seen as neutral indicators, but are actually lead by their handlers? As to the police misconduct question, it is common knowledge amongst all PDs I have worked with or spoken to that ‘in plain view’ at least for drugs busts, is most often said with a pretty hefty wink. It’s amazing how the crack dealers in Nashville all store their drugs in a sports bag on the front seat that they always leave unzipped as the cop is standing there. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/90 "2005-01-26T14:11:24Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I can just as easily make the case that there were 2 of you and only one of him, and THAT is why he called for backup, which may or may not have been a K9. No. He already had backup there. My impression was he was trying to keep us there long enough for K9 to arrive. In fact, one of the network news magazines did a story on this type of bogus stop being done in Louisiana as an excuse for K9 searches. (Oh wait. They’re not “searches” any more, I guess.) > [@](#): > > Look, as seemingly unpopular as it is, profiling WORKS. It didn’t “work” in my case. And I believe the presumption of innocence works better. > [@](#): > > Generally speaking, a business man in a suit driving a rented sedan isn’t as LIKELY to be driving around with a trunkload of dope as some others may be. Who knows? Businessmen in suits don’t get subjected to these types of searches. When I’m in my business gear, I get much more deferential treatment from police. > [@](#): > > Yeah, it’s just. So it’s just for an innocent person to have 40 minutes of their lives wasted? And if the K9 unit had showed up and given a false alert, would it have been just for me to have the car impounded for hours while a complete search was performed? When does it stop being just? ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/91 "2005-01-26T15:06:04Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > OK. So a copper sets up across the street and decides to watch your every move with binoculars/night vision/take your pick without probably cause. By your definition, that’s non-invasive, right? You have no problem with this? Other than it’s a waste of his time, no. How is he any different than the nosey lady who lives across the way? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/92 "2005-01-26T15:19:19Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Other than it’s a waste of his time, no. How is he any different than the nosey lady who lives across the way? Hey, if the neighbor across the street was snooping on me, you betcha I would have a word with her or the police. I am not comfortable with the government surveilling me without probably cause. I think it’s an invasion of my right to privacy. It’s not the job of the government to spy on its own citizens. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/93 "2005-01-26T15:22:45Z")
At the risk of pseduo-Godwinizing this thread, would you have been comfortable living in Stalinist Russia? After all, if you weren’t breaking the law and walked in step with the government line, you didn’t really have that much to worry about. How is this different? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/94 "2005-01-26T16:56:51Z")
I’d like to invite non-ranters to the [GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298704) I started on this. Dog reliability is mentioned in the case and in the thread. I’ve dug up the paper cited during the case. Interesting, but long, read. Most shocking to me is that this was a 6-2 decision. Like it was no thing at all. “Oh, the 4th amendment? I fucked that.” Ginsburg and Souter gave some great dissenting opinions. I think Souter was a few pints away from just shitting on the majority. This is begging for a slippery slope. Fuck the 6 justices in the majority on this case, fuck them in their stupid asses. _Place_ was already suspicious with its mention of dog sniffs not being a “search” because they were a unique case. Obviously, the good justices have a real lack of imagination if they think dogs constitute a reasonably infallible and unique example of a non-privacy-violating search. I could come up with two off the top of my head within minutes of reading the majority opinion. This ruling is fucking stupid. Dogs can search. They do search. “Search” is pretty much the perfect fucking word for the activity dogs engage in, which is “finding”. How can you “find” without “searching”? Obvious answer: you can’t. Their workaround? “Oh, but they can only find things you don’t have a right in protecting from prying eyes.” Of course, no one actually knows that until they conduct the search. :rolleyes: Total. Sidestep. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/95 "2005-01-26T17:01:38Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > At the risk of pseduo-Godwinizing this thread, would you have been comfortable living in Stalinist Russia? After all, if you weren’t breaking the law and walked in step with the government line, you didn’t really have that much to worry about. How is this different? For real? So living in England where the police don’t need a warrent to search your house is like living in Stalinist Russia? Okay, let’s see… 1. You have every right to disagree with the government and propose changes to the rules and laws of it. Not so in Stalinist Russia. 2. I have a hard time believing that people are being taken out of their homes and killed because they don’t agree with the government or a particular party. 3. Barring some minimum requirements, most anyone can run for most any office. Not exactly a reality of Stalinist Russia. 4. In our society you are innocent until proven guilty and the rules of law are not subject to the whims of the ruling party. 5. Chicago’s too fucking cold for me as it is, Russia with poor heating. Brrrrrrrrrr. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/96 "2005-01-26T17:05:40Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Your argument here is circular “I know it’s not legal, but i don’t think the police should be able to check for it” the logic is at odds with itself. We need a “sneezing” smiley, to depict an allergic reaction to this sort of straw man. The argument is that the police should not be able to **search** without probable cause (and that, judicial sophistry to the contrary notwithstanding, deploying a tool designed to reveal something beyond human sensory detection and pointing it at a specific target is indeed a “search”). Perhaps you’d like to try your hand at debating the actual subject at issue… > [@](#): > > IMO, the ''if you’re not doing anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about" concept is damn valid. Nonsense; the valid argument is the one that says that if you aren’t giving the police a valid reason to suspect you of crime then the police have no business poking into your person, papers, or effects. You know, like it says in the highest law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/97 "2005-01-26T17:09:46Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Nor do I trust that the dog is reacting only to drugs, when it’s just as easy to train a dog to bark or do any other action with a cue that’s not necessarily going to be perceptible to me. I consider it likely that dogs train themselves to do so without the conscious intent of their handlers (google “Clever Hans effect”). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/98 "2005-01-26T17:19:07Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Should I just suffer because I follow the rules? If you really believe that you are in fact following **all** the rules, you’re as deluded as someone who thinks that the Art Bell show is a documentary. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/99 "2005-01-26T17:24:30Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Other than it’s a waste of his time, no. How is he any different than the nosey lady who lives across the way? 1. A nosey lady across the way is not bound by the limtations placed upon government agents by the United States Constitution. 2. A nosey lady across the way is not shielded from lawsuits by the doctrine of soverign immunity if she commits a tort. 3. A nosey lady across the way is not provided with search equipment at taxpayer expense. Look! Three critical differences, thought up and typed out in thirty seconds! ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512/100 "2005-01-26T17:48:08Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > We need a “sneezing” smiley, to depict an allergic reaction to this sort of straw man. > > The argument is that the police should not be able to **search** without probable cause (and that, judicial sophistry to the contrary notwithstanding, deploying a tool designed to reveal something beyond human sensory detection and pointing it at a specific target is indeed a “search”). Perhaps you’d like to try your hand at debating the actual subject at issue… > Nonsense; the valid argument is the one that says that if you aren’t giving the police a valid reason to suspect you of crime then the police have no business poking into your person, papers, or effects. You know, like it says in the highest law of the land. You want a debate, fine, we’ll be using your logic then, **Steve.** Perhaps we ought not use radiological detectors to check trucks and containers entering our ports and borders. Or maybe we should just unplug all the explosive detection machines at the airports and wing it. After all, TSA agents can’t SMELL Semtex :rolleyes: Hell, you can extend your already-too-broad definition of ‘search’ to include officers ‘searching’ for speeders by using radar, or ‘searching’ for burglars by patrolling, it’s all just semantic anyway. The fact is that you do not own, nor can you control the scents that eminate from your person or vehicle, nor can you control who detects those odors. Ergo, the ‘search’ as you define it, is the REAL strawman in this alleged argument. When an officer and his K9 are operating in their official capacity, and detect something amiss, and react to it, they’re doing EXACTLY what they’re trained and paid to do. Period. Let’s ignore the drug angle for a minute. Let’s say an explosive detection dog was working an event, say, the Super Bowl. In the course of duty, the dog hits on a guy who has the scent of explosives eminating from him. Later it turns out that he’s a demolition expert, who forgot his wallet in his workshop. The cops detain him, check him out, and send him on his way. What say you to that? That what you’d call a reasonable ‘search’? I would. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-police-can-use-drug-sniffing-dogs-during-routine-traffic-stops/286512.md?page=6)