DrugPolicyCases.com | |||
|
Authors ›› Ginsburg
Congress could not be taken to have selected drug possessors, from the universe of all probation violators, for more favorable treatment, the Government reasons, particularly not under a provision enacted as part of a statute called "The Anti-Drug Abuse Act."
[...]
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act [of 1988] [...] was a large and complex measure, described by one member of the House of Representatives as "more like a telephone book than a piece of legislation." 134 Cong. Rec. 33290 (1988) (remarks of Rep. Conte).
[...]
A drug-detection dog is an intimidating animal. Cf. United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1268, 1276 (CA10 2004) (McKay, J., dissenting) ("drug dogs are not lap dogs"). Injecting such an animal into a routine traffic stop changes the character of the encounter between the police and the motorist. The stop becomes broader, more adversarial, and (in at least some cases) longer. Caballes -- who, as far as Troopers Gillette and Graham knew, was guilty solely of driving six miles per hour over the speed limit -- was exposed to the embarrassment and intimidation of being investigated, on a public thoroughfare, for drugs.
[...]
Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population.
[...]
A homedweller places her own privacy at risk, the Court's approach indicates, when she opens her home to others, uncertain whether the duration of their stay, their purpose, and their "acceptance into the household" will earn protection.
[...]
|
|