http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/10147893.htmBY STEPHEN HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - An hour of high-minded debate at the Supreme Court on Wednesday over the scope and limits of the Fourth Amendment and personal privacy boiled down to a five-word question: Is a sniff a search?
Roy Caballes said it is - especially when police stop you for speeding, then have a K-9 unit sniff around your car for drugs. In Caballes' case, the dog found $256,000 worth of marijuana stashed in the trunk. Police arrested Caballes, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Caballes' lawyer told the high court Wednesday that the traffic stop didn't give Illinois state troopers probable cause to search Caballes' car for drugs, so the dog's sharp nose was an infringement on Caballes' privacy rights.
But Illinois officials, backed by the Justice Department, told the justices that
a sniffing dog isn't really a search, at least not as far as the Constitution is concerned. It's a reasonable investigative tool, they said, no different from the trooper's own eyes or nose. Moreover, Caballes has no right of privacy when it comes to contraband.
"Dog sniffs are unique in that they only reveal the presence or absence of contraband," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan told the justices.
"And there's no privacy right for drugs."more