Statement of Constitutional Rights
Originally posted by eyewitness86
I believe that every citizen should be given a rights card with every drivers license or ID card and they should be available in every police station in the nation. The cops should WELCOME such a card if they have no intention of violating our rights, correct?
In my view, the Court diminishes the Fourth Amendment’s force by abandoning the second Terry inquiry (was the police action “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances [justifiying] the [initial] interference”). 392 U.S., at 20. A drug-detection dog is an intimidating animal. Cf. United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1268, 1276 (CA10 2004) (McKay, J., dissenting) (“drug dogs are not lap dogs”). Injecting such an animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial, and (in at least some cases) longer. Caballes–who, as far as Troopers Gillette and Graham knew, was guilty solely of driving six miles per hour over the speed limit–was exposed to the embarrassment and intimidation of being investigated, on a public thoroughfare, for drugs. Even if the drug sniff is not characterized as a Fourth Amendment “search,” cf. Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40 (2000); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983), the sniff surely broadened the scope of the traffic-violation-related seizure.
AND: The Illinois Supreme Court, it seems to me, correctly apprehended the danger in allowing the police to search for contraband despite the absence of cause to suspect its presence. Today’s decision, in contrast, clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots. Compare, e.g., United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1526—1527 (CA10 1993) (upholding a search based on a canine drug sniff of a parked car in a motel parking lot conducted without particular suspicion), with United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 159 (CA1 1987) (officers must have reasonable suspicion that a car contains narcotics at the moment a dog sniff is performed), and Place, 462 U.S., at 706—707 (Fourth Amendment not violated by a dog sniff of a piece of luggage that was seized, pre-sniff, based on suspicion of drugs). Nor would motorists have constitutional grounds for complaint should police with dogs, stationed at long traffic lights, circle cars waiting for the red signal to turn green.
For the reasons stated, I would hold that the police violated Caballes’ Fourth Amendment rights when, without cause to suspect wrongdoing, they conducted a dog sniff of his vehicle. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court.(end)
Originally posted by eyewitness86
You never of course address the main point: An easy reference that can give all of the desired information while under pressure MUST be btter, for the majority, than simply trying to recall all aspects of the stated aspects of the rights card from memory while being badgered by a cop who hates your mentioning the Constitution at all
Personally, I think the card is overkill, unless your memory is really bad.
If you know your rights and a cop stops you or knocks on your door, a card won't do you any good. Just insist that your rights be respected and call an attorney, if necessary.
The most important things are to be a law-abiding citizen and to know your constitutional rights.
Worry about the former and you will have to worry less about the latter.