Essay About Police Officers And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court Curbs Drug-Sniffing Dogs During Traffic Stops
Supreme Court Curbs Drug-Sniffing Dogs During Traffic Stops         In a recent 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court on April 21,2015, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices: Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan ruled for the majority making police officers unable to lengthen routine traffic stops to allow a drug-sniffing dog to search a vehicle without having a reasonable suspicion of uncovering contraband. This case is the latest among others regarding constitutional protection involving “unreasonable searches and seizures”. This decision follows others involving constitutional protection such as warrantless cell phone searches and GPS trackers. The ruling further restricts procedures police officers should use with drug-sniffing dogs during traffic stops.         This decision also builds upon the 2005 precedent allowing drug searches while stressing such procedures become unlawful if a motorist is detained only for the officers to conduct a search. The case was brought upon from Valley, Nebraska during an incident in March 2012 when a K-9 officer stopped a vehicle with two passengers after the vehicle briefly veered onto a highway shoulder. It took roughly 22 minutes for the K-9 officer to make his routine checks of documentation (driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance) without discovering any outstanding warrants or any other reason to delay the vehicle. After handing the driver his documentation back and issuing a warning ticket, the officer then asked the driver for permission to have his drug-sniffing dog walk around the vehicle.        The driver decline the officer permission and after saying that, was ordered to step out of the car and wait until the officer’s backup arrived on the scene. The search ended in finding a bag of methamphetamine. A federal magistrate judge deemed the officer to have a “large hunch” to justify the search and admitted the evidence due to the fact the procedure imposed minimal delay to the driver.Article Source: