2008 Woodie Awards
Supreme Court ruling that allows searches without cause abuses our rights
Editorial
Issue date: 2/18/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
|
Wonder what we're talking about?
As of January 24, a police officer may search your vehicle without probable cause due to a Supreme Court ruling. The ruling was made by a 6-2 vote with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a justice since 1972, abstaining. Rehnquist took no part in the ruling because of illness.
While we at The Ranger do not condone drugs or the smuggling of them, we do think this ruling will have several severe consequences if the ruling goes nationwide.
First, it would be an inconvenience to those of us not smuggling drugs.
Second, it could cause undue harm to officers who already risk their lives every day. It is possible that every time someone is pulled over and the car is searched, people may become more hostile toward police officers.
Third, this ruling is just completely stupid.
Only the idiots on the Supreme Court could have come up with it. If this ruling goes into effect all over, cops will have the right to do basically anything they want to you.
Many police officers out there are honest; however, there are a select few who aren't. They are the "crooked" cops that everyone needs to know about and watch out for.
In the case, Illinois Petitioner vs. Roy Caballes, Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette pulled Caballes over for going 71 in a 65 zone. While Gillette was writing out a warning to Caballes, Trooper Craig Graham heard about the routine stop on the radio and decided to drive over and do a dog sniff of Caballes' car. When Gillette asked to search Caballes car, Caballes refused, so the officer did it against his request.
Graham proceeded to let the dog sniff Caballes car. In the trunk, they found $250,000 worth of marijuana. The Illinois Supreme Court threw out Caballes' conviction because there had been on probable cause to search his vehicle.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling, saying the search did not infringe on Caballes' or anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.
"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that an individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment," wrote John Paul Stevens, a justice since 1975.
"The police did not detect the odor of marijuana in the car or note any other evidence suggesting the presence of illegal drugs," Ginsburg wrote.
Would you want a cop to search your car after you said no? I think not, and we at The Ranger also say no. This ruling is an abuse of our rights as human beings. We were given rights, and now we are being stripped of them.
What did we do wrong?