Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
corrected
In ''Illinois v. Caballes'', 533 U.S. 27 (2005), a 7-2 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs without probable cause and without a warrant to smell for drugs around random vehicles. The rationale was that the drugs could only detect unlawful activity, and thus there was no violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]].
In ''Illinois v. Caballes'', 533 U.S. 27 (2005), a 7-2 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld the use of drug-sniffing dogs without probable cause and without a warrant to smell for drugs outside the trunk of a car stopped for speeding. The rationale was that the drugs could only detect unlawful activity in the trunk of the car, and thus there was no violation of the [[Fourth Amendment]].
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]