Illinois v. Cabelles

Illinois v. Cabelles

Facts

A state trooper stopped a motorist on the count of over speeding on a throughway highway. He called in the police correspondent to report the stop, and a narcotics officer overheard the conversation and headed for the scene with his anti-narcotic dog. At this time, the traffic officer was inside the squad car with the motorist, writing him a warning ticket when the narcotic officer with his dog arrived and conducted a dog sniff on the exterior of the car, and the dog alerted at the trunk. After the alert, the officers conducted a search in the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested the motorist. The whole incident took a few minutes, not more than 10. The motorist was charged and sentenced for 12 years imprisonment and fined $256,136.

Holding and Rationale

The legal question identified in this case by the Supreme Court was to find out whether the fourth amendment was violated when the police conducted the search after the defendant filed for violation of fourth amendment. The fourth amendment serves to protect the constitutional rights of persons from unwarranted searches, hence if there is reason to raise suspicion of a particular person, a warrant to such into their private interests should be attained, or a reason to suspect them should exist before a search.

The judge in the case, the majority held that there was no violation of the fourth amendment, since the officers did not extend the time necessary for a traffic stop, and as such, the judge denied the respondents suggestion to suppress the charges because of violation of his rights by the dog. However, the Supreme Court reversed this on account that there was no specific fact that warranted any suspicions of drugs before the arrest, and the use of canine sniff served to change the rationale of the traffic stop.

In this question, it can be found that found that a dog sniff that is conducted on a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop that leads to the helpful information bout a specific location of a substance held by an individual does not violate the fourth amendment. In this case, the dog did not contravene the respondent’s privacy interests rights protected by the fourth amendment because the dog just revealed the presence of marijuana, which no person is legally allowed to posses. Furthermore, the dog only sniffed the exterior of the vehicle, and gave the cops reason to search. This was affirmed by the fact that dogs do not violate any privacy, but rather, are trained to detect narcotics, and give an indication of the likely hood of their existence.

In addition, a legitimate traffic stop could only violate the fourth amendment if it is not conducted reasonably in a way that does not contravene private interests provided for in the amendment. More so in this case, the stop was conducted within reasonable measures, since the police traffic officer acted diligently, and was writing down a warning ticket when the narcotic officer arrived with his dog. He did not ask to search the vehicle but just conducted a sniff on the outside of the vehicle that was pulled over from the road. The dog did not get inside the vehicle, and it was during a lawful stop. The dog only acted to provide reason to search, hence, no interference with private things occurred, which does not amount to violation of fourth amendment.

Thirdly, a lawful stop could violate the fourth amendment if it is prolonged more that it is necessary to conduct the particular task. In this case, everything was conducted in less than 10 minutes, affirming that no extending of time occurred to wait for the narcotic officer to arrive; hence, no violation occurred, as it was within the traffic stop that the sniff was conducted. It can be conclude that the officers acted reasonably and did not violate any constitutionally protected private interests of the motorist.

Although there are no prior suspicions or reasons warranting that the motorist was holding illegal drugs, the rights of the motorist were not violated, since the dog sniff conducted only served to show that there was possibility of drugs in the trunk, and did not interfere in any way with his privacy since it was outside the vehicle. More so, the sniffing took time during a legal traffic stoop by the traffic police officer who had held him in the squad car to write a warning ticket, so it was reasonably executed, and within time allowed by traffic rules for a traffic stop.