| dbo:abstract
|
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–2, that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses. In the case, Illinois native Roy Caballes was charged with narcotics trafficking after Illinois State Police uncovered marijuana in the trunk of his car during a routine traffic stop for speeding. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that a well trained police dog will only alert to the presence of illegal substances that no citizen has the right to possess, and therefore it is not unconstitutional for the police to use a dog to uncover it. Chief Justice William Rehnquist took no part in the consideration of this case, and did not author an opinion. The ruling relied on a previous decision, United States v. Place (1983), in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of police dog searches, and affirmed that police do not have to have reasonable suspicion to bring a canine near a person's belongings in a public place. In response to Caballes, the Court clarified in Rodriguez v. United States (2015) that an officer may not unreasonably prolong the duration of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 15990 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-11-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
|
- Illinois v. Caballes, (en)
|
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-01-24 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
|
- Souter (en)
- Ginsburg (en)
|
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Illinois, Petitioner v. Roy I. Caballes (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
|
- Illinois v. Caballes (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:notparticipating
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:page
|
- 1 (xsd:integer)
- 237 (xsd:integer)
- 348 (xsd:integer)
- 696 (xsd:integer)
|
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:volume
|
- 462 (xsd:integer)
- 568 (xsd:integer)
- 569 (xsd:integer)
- 575 (xsd:integer)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dbp:year
|
- 1983 (xsd:integer)
- 2013 (xsd:integer)
- 2015 (xsd:integer)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–2, that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses. In the case, Illinois native Roy Caballes was charged with narcotics trafficking after Illinois State Police uncovered marijuana in the trunk of his car during a routine traffic stop for speeding. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that a well trained police dog will only alert to the presence of illegal substances that no citizen has the right to possess, and therefore it is not unconstitutional for the police to use a dog to uncover it. Chief Justice William Rehnqu (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Illinois v. Caballes (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Illinois, Petitioner v. Roy I. Caballes (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
