PRIVACY GOES TO THE DOGS

With Illinois v. Caballes, the Supreme Court is once again faced with
deciding how much privacy a motorist is allowed after being pulled over.

Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether drug-sniffing dogs
should be used when police pull motorists over for non-drug-related
reasons, such as traffic violations, even when the motorists have given
police no reason to suspect they are carrying drugs.

The justices will have to consider whether or not situations like this
violate the constitutional ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case in question happened in Illinois in 1998. Roy Caballes was pulled
over on Interstate Highway 80 for going six miles per hour over the speed
limit. Though he gave the officer his license and other paperwork on
demand, he refused the officer permission to search his trunk. The officer
smelled air freshener in the car and noticed that Caballes was nervous. A
second officer arrived on the scene with a drug dog. The dog, while walking
around the car, indicated the presence of drugs in the trunk, and Caballes
was arrested on drug charges.

Lower courts ruled that by walking a dog around the car, the police were
inappropriately broadening an ordinary traffic stop. Illinois's attorney
general appealed the case to the high court, claiming that using a dog is
much less obtrusive than a police officer searching the car himself.

The attorney general was right, but his logic was flawed. A police
officer's search of a car would be much different than a dog sniffing
around the edges. A police officer is much more likely to be biased, and
using a dog would eliminate the chances of an officer planting drugs. In
addition, the drug dog would only sniff for drugs, and would not have to
rifle through everything in the car.

However, even though a search of this nature is less obtrusive, it is still
a search. Without a truly compelling reason to conduct a search, using
drug-sniffing dogs is an invasion of privacy. Under the law, "compelling
reasons" must be defined, and these reasons should be produced by officers
before starting a search. Someone who has just been pulled over is going to
be nervous, so this alone is not compelling. Smelling air freshener is also
a rather silly reason.

Every motorist should know his or her rights when pulled over. We should
always cooperate with police officers, but we do not have to submit to a
search without compelling reasons. If we give up our privacy rights little
by little, we may soon have nothing left.