JUSTICES TO WEIGH POLICE DOG CAR SEARCH

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to rule on the
constitutionality of police using dogs to sniff for illegal drugs in
vehicles stopped for routine traffic violations.

In a brief order, the justices voted to hear an appeal by the State of
Illinois arguing that sniff searches are not covered by the
Constitution, so police are allowed to make them without having
grounds for suspecting a vehicle may be carrying drugs.

The Illinois Supreme Court, however, ruled that a canine search can be
done only at a traffic stop if the officers have specific reasons to
think there are drugs in a vehicle. Without those suspicions, the
state court said, a routine traffic stop broadens into a drug
investigation, and that can be justified only with some evidence
greater that "a vague hunch."

The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to explore an
increasingly complex constitutional question: What more may officers
do during routine traffic stops, beyond asking for a driver's license
and registration?

The court has issued a series of rulings detailing when police may
search the interior of a stopped vehicle and what they may do with the
passengers.

In the current court term, the justices already are examining whether
a state may make it a crime for a stopped motorist to refuse to
identify himself when asked to do so by officers.

The new case, to be heard in the fall with a decision likely next
year, stems from a traffic stop of a speeding vehicle by an Illinois
state trooper. After pulling over a car from Nevada, the officer
checked with headquarters on the validity of the driver's license and
his registration and on whether the operator had a criminal record.

While that check was occurring, an officer on drug patrol arrived on
his own with a dog. The dog circled the car and led officers to the
car's trunk. Marijuana with a street value of more than $250,000 was
found there.

The Nevadan, Roy I. Caballes, was convicted of one count of marijuana
trafficking, given a 12-year sentence, and fined the street value of
the drugs.

Caballes contended that the dog search was unconstitutional, because
the traffic stop was solely for speeding, with nothing to suggest that
he had drugs in his car.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the State of Illinois contended
that a sniff search by a trained dog involves only a minor intrusion
into personal privacy. It argued that a sniffing dog is not even
making a search, in a constitutional sense.

The Supreme Court also agreed yesterday to hear a case that tests
whether the US government may prosecute an individual for using a
telephone or other wire communication in this country as part of a
scheme to avoid paying taxes to another country.

The case involves New Yorkers who were convicted of wire fraud for
arranging to have liquor bought in Maryland shipped to Canada without
paying that country's steep liquor import taxes.