Illinois v Caballes - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01

Illinois v. Caballes 543 U.S. 405 (2005) FACTS: Illinois State Trooper Daniel Gillette stopped Roy Caballes for speeding on the interstate. When Gillette radioed the police dispatcher, another police officer, Craig Graham over heard the transmission and immediately headed to the scene with narcotic-detection dog. While Caballes was in Gillette’s car, Gillette was writing him a ticket and Graham took his dog over to Caballes car. The dog alerted at the truck. Based on the alert, the officers searched the truck, found marijuana, and arrested Caballes. This lasted less than ten minutes. QUESTION: Was the use of a K9 during a traffic stop unreasonable? NO OPPINION: Stevens 1. Governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband compromises no legitimate privacy interest. 2. Narcotic-detection dogs are unique because it discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics. 3. The dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the truck. 4. The dog sniff was done to the exterior of Caballes car when he was lawful seized for a traffic violation. There was not intrusion on his privacy expectations. 5. 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. DISSENT: Souter 1. The infallible dog id a creature of legal fiction. The dogs are going to make mistakes. 2. Dogs return false positives anywhere from 12.5%-60% of the time. 3. The sniff alert does not necessarily signal hidden contraband, and opening the container or enclosed space whose emanations the dog has sensed will not necessarily reveal contraband or any other evidence of crime. 4. Dogs are trained to obtain information about the contents of private spaces beyond anything that human senses could perceive, even when conventionally enhanced. 5. The use of a narcotic dog functions as a limited search to reveal undisclosed facts about a private enclosures to justify a further and complete search of the enclosed area. DISSENT: Ginsburg 1. The court diminishes the Fourth Amendment force. 2. Having a narcotic-detection dog at a traffic stop change the character of the encounter between he officer and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial, and longer.

Kara Chrispen CJS 305-01

3. Caballes was speeding, and was exposed to the embarrassment and intimidation of being investigated on a public highway for drugs. 4. The sniff broadened the scope of the traffic-violation-related seizure. 5. Now, every traffic stop could become a reason to call in the dogs....