Thursday, November 11, 2004

Lisa Madigan argues to the Supremes that we don't need rights. Illinois' Lisa Madigan got her chance at the big time, arguing in the Supreme Court for Illinois v. Caballes. The case involves whether you can use drug sniffing dogs in routine traffic stops when there is no cause to suspect drug activity. Standing before the justices, Madigan forcefully argued that police don't violate the Constitution's 4th Amendment in such circumstances because they aren't actually conducting a search when they use a drug dog. "A sniff is not a search and, therefore, requires no 4th Amendment justification," said Madigan, in her first argument before the high court. ... Madigan stood firm, forcefully arguing that police could use the dogs, without any evidence of criminal activity, on public streets or in parks or, even, around the outside of a person's home. Thanks, Lisa. So you wouldn't mind, then, if I brought my dog up to you and had it sniff your crotch in public? After all, it's not a search, so why should anyone mind? Unfortunately, early appearances are that the Supremes are going to roll over and play dead on yet another 4th Amendment case. 7:08:00 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []