By JOHN O’CONNOR, The Associated Press
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- A sharply divided Illinois Supreme Court tightened restrictions on police searches Thursday, continuing a string of recent rulings that broaden individual rights.
In two opinions decided on 4-3 votes, the court ruled that police stopping motorists may not call out drug-sniffing dogs without good reason or investigate passengers who committed no traffic violation.
The rulings affirm or expand similar decisions justices have made in the past year on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.
“It seems like they’re tipping in favor of individual rights,” said Chicago lawyer Ralph Meczyk, who defended Roy Caballes in one of Thursday’s rulings.
Critics, on the court and off, complain that the rulings go too far.
“The majority’s conclusion ... effectively creates a constitutional right to avoid justice,” Justice Thomas Fitzgerald wrote in one dissent.
The Caballes case involves a 1998 traffic stop on Interstate 80. While a state police officer checked Caballes’ background, another officer with a drug-sniffing dog arrived and allegedly found drugs in the car. That was improper because there were no specific facts “to support the use of a canine sniff,” Justice Thomas Kilbride wrote for the majority.
The ruling expands the court’s opinion in a case last December involving a drug-sniffing dog, in which the court ruled that the motorist was detained too long.
Thursday’s other ruling involves a man who was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped because the driver -- who had a revoked license -- made an illegal turn.
The police officer asked the passenger, Raymond Harris, for identification to determine whether Harris could drive the car away. The officer checked Harris’ criminal background and discovered a warrant for his arrest on another charge. He then searched Harris and allegedly found cocaine.
The court ruled the warrant check was unconstitutional because it was unrelated to the traffic stop. The cocaine allegedly found in the subsequent search cannot be used against Harris.
“In these two cases, the majority read the Fourth Amendment too broadly and in so doing invalidated legitimate law enforcement methods,” said Gary Feinerman, Illinois’ solicitor general.
In his dissent, Fitzgerald argued the request for identification was not an unwarranted interrogation, did not prolong the stop and did not violate Harris’ privacy because police naturally need to be able to check for warrants.
Other similar cases include:
-- an October 2002 ruling that a 1997 roadblock in which police snared a drunk driver while they handed out information about a recent hit-and-run accident was unconstitutional.
-- a September ruling that overturned the 2000 arrest of a Charleston man on weapons and drug charges. Officers went to check on a woman on probation, but she wasn’t there. The justices said the officers then had no authority to search the room.