By Anne Gearan, The Associated Press
Washington (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether police can use drug-sniffing dogs to check out motorists pulled over for speeding or other reasons, but who have given police no particular reason to suspect they may be carrying drugs.
Lower courts have divided over whether police must have some reason to suspect illegal activity before they allow a dog to sniff around a car during an ordinary traffic stop.
The case is another in a long line of Supreme Court cases involving cars and traffic stops. As in past cases, the case of Roy Caballes tests police power to look for evidence of wrongdoing against the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches or seizures.
Illinois’ attorney general asked the high court to take the Caballes case after a lower court ruled that police improperly broadened an ordinary traffic stop by walking a drug dog around the outside of Caballes’ car.
“A sniff by a drug-detection dog is uniquely unobtrusive,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan wrote in asking the court to hear the appeal.
The dog does not search a car in the same way a police officer would, Madigan said.
“Information is obtained without the intrusion or discomfiture associated with a traditional search,” she wrote.
The case arose from a 1998 traffic stop along Interstate 80. A state trooper pulled Caballes over for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. Caballes produced his driver’s license and other paperwork on demand but refused permission for the officer to search his car trunk.
The trooper told Caballes he would issue only a warning for speeding, but noted later that Caballes still seemed nervous. The trooper also said he noticed the smell of air freshener in Caballes’ car.
While the trooper and Caballes spoke, another officer arrived with a drug dog. The dog indicated the presence of drugs in Caballes’ trunk.
The case is Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923.