SUPREME COURT RULING THAT ALLOWS SEARCHES WITHOUT CAUSE ABUSES OUR RIGHTS

"Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to
call in the dogs, to the distress and the embarrassment of the law abiding
population," according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a U.S Supreme court justice
since 1993, who voted against a ridiculous ruling.

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?