Last year I commented on what I believed was an incorrect decision in the case of People v. Anne Cox.

http://www.leerburg.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=146;t=000017

In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court extended an inappropriate rule to the deployment of K9 units at roadside stops, requiring that officers show "articulable facts" justifying the use of the dog. This is patently contrary to the overwhelming majority of federal cases on the use of dogs, and case history in Illinois as well-to say nothing of the weighty opinions of many constitutional scholars on the subject.

Last november, the court again applied this rule in People v. Caballes.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2003/November/Opinions/Html/91547.htm

Many on this board know that, at the time these cases went to the Illinois Supreme Court, I was on the team that briefed an argued these cases for the Illinois Attorney General's office, so I am more than a littel biased on the subject. I have since left that office to return to active duty in the Marine Corps, but I will tell you that these decisions do not bode well for Illinois K9 handlers. These rules also have a tedency to cross state lines over time; courts in other states will look to such opinions as persuasive authority in reaching similarly flawed conclusions.

I sincerely hope that the Illinois AG takes this case through the certiorari process-hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court can correct the problem.

In the meantime, I am very interested in hearing from Illinois handlers as to what changes they have had to make in response to this case. I would also like to hear from handlers in other states that have similar rules-I am considering writing an article on this subject, and would appreciate any input.

I have to honest here. I have taught for a long time that a k-9 sniff without some articulable suspicion may be legal (except in Illinois it seems) but should not become a normal mode of operation in K-9 deployments. I have preached this for the simple reason that these decisions by the courts seemed inevitable somewhere.
I still produce aurtculable suspicion about drug involvement on virtually every deployment. I also teach this as a practice.
I certainly can see my state following Illinois example and doing the same thing if presented with a similiar case.

In Pennsylvania we are all ready there.... Reasonable Suspicion based on articulable facts is required for external sniffs of vehicles.

We are pretty much on RAS deployments here in MD as well...my dept. requires it before we do a scan, and alot of other depts. are going that way as well, mostly due to some recent case rulings during the past 2 years and to head off any future issues with a scan....

Kevin, I agree with you that suspicionless K9 sniffs shouldn't be the norm. However, as you know, they can be extremely valuable tools in certain circumstances. Even so, reasonable suspicion has benefits as well, such as the ability to extend the duration of the stop for a reasonable time in order to wait for the K9 and handler to arrive. Most of the cases we lost in Illinois were lost due to improper extension of the duration of the stop in order to wait for the K9 unit. Articulated RS would have averted these losses.

But the point in these cases is that the decisions on which the Illinois Supreme Court has relied upon as the basis for its rules (where it relies on case law at all) do not stand for the propositions cited in Cox and Caballes. The decisions also do not properly articulate a basis in Illinois State law (there's a doctrine there called "lockstep", which means that they do the 4th Amendment just like federal courts, unless they specifically find a reason under Article I section 6 of the Illinois Constitution to do otherwise.)

Rather than correctly note the widely-held rule which grew from U.S. v. Place ("a sniff is not a search"), these courts are establishing rules of police procedure without foundation. I think that's dangerous, especially in the absence of any accountability on the matter.

I think it begs the question addressed by Thomas in his dissent: if "a sniff is not a search," then how does the 4th Amendment come into play? It seems more than a little absurd to apply a 4th Amendment rule to conduct which does not implicate the 4th Amendment...

Blah, blah. Lawyer talk, I know, but this stuff has me really riled up right now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Here we go again. What is permissible is not always intelligent. Running a dog on vehicles when there are two or three indicators of criminal activity is nothing short of grabbing at straws. I think what needs to be looked at here is this; are officers too d--- lazy to DOCUMENT their reasonable suspicion and as a result, creating bad case law.

Investigate, ask your clarifying questions and know you subject matter. I won't call for a K9 with any less than 10 indicators. You all have seen the recent case law coming out about no amount of reasonable suspicion is good enough to detain for a K9 sniff ( Tenn. I think, Trp Frost, please confirm). Hopefully, this will be overturned.

As interdiction officers, we need to think about the impact of our searches, detentions and roadside interview techniques and how they will impact interdiction as a whole, nationwide. No one load is worth canning the whole program, ask anyone involved in interdiction in New Jersey.

If, during the course of a traffic stop, indicators of criminal activity are present, WRITE THEM DOWN. What's the very worst that can happen, your field notes are included in the subpeona? It takes more courage to cut it loose than stand on thin ice and have everyone pay for it.

The United States Supreme Court just granted the petition to hear this case. Those familiar with the legal requirements for the deployment of a K9 will understand what this means-this will be a case which decides (probably for the next 20+ years) what the requirements are for the use of a K9 during a traffic stop, at the very least. If the Court wanders a little, the case could have much broader application. If you're a handler, trainer or law enforcement professional of any kind, you should be glued to this topic in the Court.

To brush up on it, you can still click on the links I put in this thread when I originally posted it 10 months ago. (For the record, I'm very happy that the court granted my little wish that I put in that first post!)

Stay tuned...

After reading portions of the arguments to the USC and judges comments, I'm being cautiously optomistic.

DFrost

This one case has seen more print and media coverage that any case in a long time.
I am hoping for favorable outcomes. Maybe we'll see some new and interesting opinions. Maybe we'll get told to be more selective, who knows.
I for one am watching closely.

The United States Supreme Court today held that the suspicionless deployments of K9s during traffic stops is valid. This decision overruled the Caballes case in the IL Supreme Court, and will have the effect of overruling other decisions based on similar grounds in that state.

Justice Stevens wrote the 6-2 decision, with Justices Souter and Ginsburg abstaining (Justice Rehnquist did not participate in the case).

Under the circumstances, maybe I should change the name of this thread to "U.S. Supreme Court puts Illinois Back On Its Leash".
Basically, the Court said that the intrusion was minimal, and doesn't constitute a search; even if it did, it doesn't implicate the 4th Amendment because there is no privacy interest in the possession of contraband, which is the only thing a trained dog indicates.

The Court did say that the extension of a stop to wait for a dog would be a separate seizure requiring PC, but that was given.

The opinion is posted on the SC website. It's a short one, and worth the read. Hats off to the folks at the IL attorney general's office for their hard work, and commitment to the case over several years. I won't name names, but they know who they are.