Special Newsletter for April 22, 2015
By Derek Gilna
The US
Supreme Court has once again pushed back against overly intrusive government
searches of defendants in a routine encounter with police where police have no
grounds for such a search. The newly-announced
decision in Rodriguez v U.S., 13-9972, reversed and remanded an Eighth Circuit
ruling that the search of defendant’s car by a drug sniffing dog was within the
scope of the traffic stop for a minor traffic violation, and that an
eight-minute delay for the motorist was constitutionally acceptable.
Not so
fast, the Supreme Court said, calling the search “unlawful.” The Supreme Court
has previously struck down convictions based upon evidence gained as a result
of a warrantless placement of a GPS tracking
device on a defendant’s motor vehicle.
Interestingly, Justice Scalia, generally known for his conservative
views, once again joined the majority of justices to further limit government’s
ability to arrest people without probable cause. The justices were not
persuaded by the government argument that the intrusion on defendant rights was
justified by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs.
(This is the same faulty Government rationale used to justify TSA
searching Granny at airports in the name of stopping “terrorism.”)
It is hard
to overestimate the value of this decision.
Although obviously it is limited to the facts of this case, it sets
clear limits on what is and isn’t acceptable in police stops. Of course, it would not be helpful in cases
where the defendant is already under investigation by police or fleeing the
scene of a crime.
Brick by
brick the high court is starting to slowly build a wall of protection of
citizen rights, to rein in the natural tendency of law enforcement to expand
its power beyond what is necessary to perform its core function of protecting
its citizens against violence and disaster.
All we have to do is read the newspaper to see that the public is fed up
with police misconduct in patrolling the streets, and ready to have a
discussion as to what and what is not proper policing.
Is this ruling applicable to your
case and your set of facts.
Derek Gilna
113 McHenry #173
