More on Caballes
Tuesday, February 1st, 2005The most troubling thing about the drug-sniffing case is that only the dog’s master knows when he’s been alerted to the presence of drugs. A cop with a dog can fake a alert and trigger a full-on search with near impunity. Not to mention that, as Justice Souter noted in his dissent, drug-sniffing dogs have proven error rates of anywhere between 12 and 60%.
That in mind, I got the following email yesterday in responses to my Fox column:
I was defending a guy back in the eighties (I’m an attorney) and decided to conduct an experiment. I sent two Hispanic investigators (former Miami homicide cops) and had them go to Georgia and “troll” a certain stretch of Interstate highway where a State Trooper in a rural area was known for interdicting drug couriers.Not only were my investigators stopped (they drove a Miami tag rental car); they were arrested because they wouldn’t give “consent” to search the vehicle. A dog was called in and it “positively alerted” to drugs, a local magistrate signed a seach warrant, and the car was literally torn apart. It wasn’t until the dummies discovered a video camera in the trunk, that they all disappeared and released my investigators.
The video replay showed a newspaper, with the date, and it scanned the trunk to show it was empty (we were afraid of them planting drugs), with the investigators explaining to the camera that they were conducting an experiment for attorney ________.
I cringed when I read the Supreme Court decision allowing dogs to provide probable cause to search. My police friends tell me they can get a dog to alert to a comic book.
God help us all.
[This case was actually reported in a front page article in the Atlanta Constitution circa 1985.]
Personally, I find it interesting that Justice Stevens can find and vigourously defend a federally-guaranteed right to an abortion deep within the penumbras of the Fourth Amendment (which was clearly written to protect us from baseless searches), but not a right to be free from invasive drug searches triggered by dogs.
TheAgitator.com

Our Robed Masters’ dogs
The robes masters in the United States Supreme Court said it’s ok for a dog to sniff your car without probable cause. Over at The Agitator, he describes why this is so dangerous. Isn’t the court supposed to protect our…
Sniffing Isn’t a “Search” Roundup
Last week, I wondered How Do We Overturn the Supreme Court. Following up on the Supreme Court decision which stated that a warrantless search could be constitutional if it was for items prohibited by law. Well, there’s been quite a bit more blogging si…
Abortion Rights Are Big and Bright….
Clap clap clap clap…. deep in the Fouuuuuurth Amendment!
After demonstrating why considering dog “alerts” can be totally unreasonable as probable cause, the pro-life Radley Balko makes a good point:
Personally, I find it interesting that Justic…