Document text
0 of 3 Premium Clicks used this month SUBSCRIBE Print + Online Subscriber Activation | Register x Forgot Password | Need an Account? e-edition | subscribe | newsletter | deals Classifieds Jobs Autos Real Estate FEATURED » NEWS NOW Beach bacteria thresholds may tighten ... Our View: Who politicized the UCC shootings? Not Obama ... View from 100,000 feet ... Beach bacteria thresholds may tighten ... Our View: Who politicized the UCC shootings? Not Obama ... View from 100,000 feet ... Matthew T. Mangino: The Fourth Amendment is going to the dogs Comment By Matthew T. Mangino More Content Now MailTribune.com By Matthew T. Mangino More Content Now Posted Jan. 29, 2015 at 9:13 AM Updated Jan 29, 2015 at 5:54 PM By Matthew T. Mangino More Content Now Posted Jan. 29, 2015 at 9:13 AM Updated Jan 29, 2015 at 5:54 PM » Social News When the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — were adopted in 1791, the Fourth Amendment was included to protected individuals from unlawful search and seizures. The framers of the Constitution were outraged by the unfettered access British officials had to colonists’ homes and persons. The new nation wanted to insure that any unlawful intrusion by the government would be dealt with swiftly and consistently — a lofty goal, even for the high-minded men who helped draft this enduring document. Remarkably, much of the modern era of search and seizure jurisprudence has gone to the dogs, literally. Little would the framers believe that individuals would have to be protected from overzealous police work performed by dogs, albeit government dogs, but dogs nonetheless. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument recently in Rodriguez v. United States. At issue was whether a police officer “unnecessarily prolonged” an otherwise legal traffic stop by calling for a K-9 officer to walk a drug-sniffing dog around the stopped vehicle. This is not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of four legged police personnel. In 1983 and 2005, the Supreme Court declared that dog sniffs conducted by law enforcement in public places did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment — such conduct did not intrude upon a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In 2000, the court ruled that routine drug checkpoints employing dog sniffs without suspicion resulted in an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. More recently, the Court ruled that using a drug-sniffing dog on the front porch of a residence is a “search,” and subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Rodriguez case involved a valid traffic stop which the officer prolonged for seven or eight minutes in order to conduct a dog sniff of Rodriguez’s car. The entire traffic stop lasted about 30 minutes, at which point the dog alerted to methamphetamine and Rodriguez was arrested. The case was appealed following Rodriguez’s conviction. The Court of Appeals found there was no “reasonable suspicion” for the dog-sniff detention. As a result, another doggy-cop case made its way to the high court. The “reasonable suspicion” standard came about as a result of the 1968 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio. Prior to Terry, and dating back to the birth of the Constitution, a Government official — or police officers as we came to know them — needed probable cause to detain an individual for investigatory purposes. The Terry decision extended the authority to detain based on suspicion less than probable cause. The Court expected that a police officer conducting a “Terry stop,” as they came to be known, would be able to articulate a reason why she thought the individual detained might be involved in some criminal conduct. In Rodriguez, there was no articulable reason to detain Rodriguez and his vehicle. The citation had been written and the driver should have been free to go on his way. As Rory Little wrote on the SCOTUSblog “Here, in a case premised on no reasonable suspicion of narcotics, approving a prolonged detention of any length for a narcotics dog sniff seems, as Justice [Elena] Kagan suggested, “just not right” under Terry.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor also had concerns. She suggested during the Rodriguez argument that the Supreme Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was “flying off the rails” due to its pro-police deference, reported Reason Magazine. “[W]e can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement. Particularly when this stop is not … incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.” Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George. His book, “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010,” was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino. By Matthew T. Mangino More Content Now MailTribune.com By Matthew T. Mangino More Content Now Posted Jan. 29, 2015 at 9:13 AM Updated Jan 29, 2015 at 5:54 PM » Comment or view comments Reader Reaction » STAY INFORMED Email NewsLetter Sign Up Today Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Southern Oregon Directory Featured Businesses Loading... Business Name address Location, ST | website.com Find Southern Oregon Attractions Bars Restaurants Beauty Salons Entertainment Doctors Medical Specialists Contractors Education Lawn Services Lawyers Shopping Travel Tanning Used Cars Wedding Services ▼ Add your business here + Events Calendar Connect with MailTribune.com Facebook Twitter RSS Back to top Reader Services Reader Services Home Subscriptions Subscriber controls Contact us Submissions Photos Events Letters to the editor Corrections Announcements Obituaries Story ideas Since you asked Alerts Email Alerts RSS Feeds Text Alerts Advertise Media Kit Home Products and services Ad rates Advertising contacts Propel Marketing Mail Tribune Daily Tidings The Nickel Shop Our Valley Blogs Mobile Site Stay Informed Email newsletter Sign Up Today Sign up for our newsletter and have the top headlines from your community delivered right to your inbox. Your privacy is important, read our privacy policy. © Copyright 2015 Local Media Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Local Media Group Publications Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. MailTribune.com | P.O. Box 1108, Medford, OR 97501