CASE BRIEFS

Case Briefs

Case Briefs

Title

Illinois v. Caballes (2005)

Citation

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case presenting this question: Does the Fourth Amendment require reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop?

Facts

Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by a state trooper in Illinois. During the stop, the trooper noticed an altas, an air freshener, and some suits in the car. He asked Caballes for permission to search the car and was denied. A second trooper arrived at the scene with a drug-sniffing dog. While walking around the car, the dog alerted the trooper to the presence of drugs. The first trooper searched the car and found marijuana in the trunk. Caballes was arrested, tried, and convicted of a narcotics offense.

Issue

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, arguing that use of the dog "unjustifiably enlarge[ed] the scope of a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation." The state of Illinois appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiff/Argument

A drug-detection dog is an intimidating animal... Injecting such an animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist

Defendant / Respondents Argument

The decision was not shocking, it was merely an extension of an earlier case decided by the Supreme Court in 1982 which held that the use of drug sniffing dogs to search luggage in an airport was in fact not a search either. (United States v. Place).

Holding

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.

Reasoning

The majority reasoned that a dog's sniffing is not really a “search” because it detects only contraband, and therefore does not compromise the privacy of someone who has nothing to hide. Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both dissented strongly, warning that this decision could lead to “suspicionless and indiscriminate sweeps of cars in parking garages and pedestrians on sidewalks.”

Concuurring

The stop becomes broader, more adversarial, and (in at least some cases) longer. Caballes who, as far as Troopers Gillette and Graham knew, was guilty solely of driving six miles per hour over the speed limit -- was exposed to the embarrassment and intimidation of being investigated, on a public thoroughfare, for drugs..." (Brendan Peters 2007)

Dissenting Opinion

The Illinois ...