Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2004 | 11:20 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court today considered the fate of a Las Vegas man who was busted in Illinois for having marijuana in his car trunk -- and mulled larger constitutional questions about search and seizures.
At issue in the case is whether police need "reasonable, articulable suspicion" to use a drug-sniffing dog during an unrelated traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Roy Caballes was moving from Las Vegas to Chicago in November 1998 and was pulled over for speeding six mph over the limit. But he was ultimately sentenced to 12 years in prison after a second officer arrived at the Interstate 80 roadside with his drug-sniffing dog, which detected marijuana in Caballes' car.
While writing a warning ticket, the first trooper had found out from a radio dispatcher that Caballes had two prior arrests for distributing marijuana.
The second officer then arrived with his drug-sniffing dog and began walking around Caballes's car. The dog started to bark near the trunk and the troopers found marijuana inside.
Caballes was arrested and charged with one count of marijuana trafficking. He subsequently was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine, the street value of the amount of drugs found in the car, according to court records.
The Illinois Supreme Court eventually overturned his conviction. That court said police using a drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches. The court said police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the car contained drugs.
Today Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan argued that the state court ruling should be reversed.
In its briefs, Illinois argued that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to suspect there are illegal drugs present before using a drug-sniffing dog around a car during a traffic stop.
Also, central to the case is whether a dog sniff is a "search." The Supreme Court has already ruled in similar cases that it is not, Madigan argued.
From the tenor of their questioning today, justices appeared to agree that was a difficult precedent for Caballes to overcome.
But lawyer Ralph Meczyk, arguing for Caballes, said the sniffing was a search and that the search was unreasonable because it invaded an enclosed space where Caballes had a right to privacy -- his car.
Lawyers for Caballes also have argued that having a big police dog called out to search his car is humiliating, potentially intimidating, and a further invasion of his privacy.
"What makes this stop so pernicious is that it takes place in front of the entire world," Meczyk told the court today.
Meczyk wrote in the cases' briefs that bringing a dog to sniff a person's car is not the same as seeing drugs in plain view in a car during a traffic stop. He took no issues with the police stopping Caballes for speeding. But that stop did not authorize the police to have a dog sniff Caballes' car, Meczyk said.
Outside court, Meczyk said the court has to consider that the case could give police even broader powers to search without cause.
"That is the evil that we wanted to address here today," he said.
As the justices fired questions at the attorneys it appeared they were wrestling with whether that's true. They noted that police dogs are used routinely and legally to sniff for drugs in various venues, including bus stations.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked if it would be acceptable, under Meczyk's argument, for police to search cars near a park known for drug dealing.
"We believe that would be OK, Justice O'Connor," he said.
The justices also mulled Meczyk's contention that the Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot use heat-seeking equipment to search for marijuana-growing operations inside homes.
Sun Washington
Bureau reporter Suzanne Struglinski contributed to this story.
archive
