Kane County Nuggets

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). SCOTIS Notice (Duration 1:43)

This is the SCOTUS case that set the framework for the use of drug dogs in the United States.

[insert mp3 player]

This opinion normalized the use of drug dogs by police departments during traffic stops. The case concluded that police don't need a warrant when they walk a drug dog around a car during a traffic stop.

Issue Do police need a warrant to use a drug dog to sniff a car during a traffic stop? Facts Driver was stopped and ticketed for speeding. During the traffic stop, a canine unit appeared and a dog handler walked the dog around the car. The police dog alerted on the trunk. Police searched the trunk. Driver was arrested for trafficking cannabis. Everything happened in under 10 minutes. He was sentenced to 12 years. Analysis A privacy interest (that society recognizes as reasonable) cannot exist from aromas that come from completely illegal contraband. There is no right to privacy that protects illegal smells. Holding Conviction was affirmed because there was no 4th amendment violation. Related Cases

• Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013) (drug dog brought to front stoop of a house)
• Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (2013) (drug dog reliability is determined by a totality of the circumstances)
• Rodriquez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (any delay during a traffic stop to give the dog time to arrive is unreasonable)

[insert video]

Key Facts In Illinois v. Caballes

Key facts in the case include ...

• Defendant’s car stopped
• He’s ticketed for speeding
• During stop canine unit appeared
• Sniff dog handler walks the dog around car
• Drug dog alerts on the trunk
• Car searched
• Cannabis discovered
• Convicted for trafficking cannabis
• Everything happened in under 10 minutes

The case began as a traffic stop for speeding. The car was stopped and driver ticketed for speeding. During the traffic stop, a canine unit appeared and a dog handler walked the dog around the car. The police dog alerted on the trunk. Police searched the trunk. Driver was arrested for trafficking cannabis.

Everything happened in under 10 minutes.

Key Finding

Key findings from the court:

• Police Dog Drug Sniffs are Not Searches
• Practical Limits Remain
• Not That Many K-9 Units
• Police Can Not Cause an Undue Delay

The case worked its way up to the United States Supreme Court, where the Court’s central finding was that:

“That any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed legitimate, ‘and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband’ compromises no legitimate privacy interest.” Quoting United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).

You don’t have a privacy interest in illegal smells.

The Aftermath of Illinois v. Caballes

This case threatened to blow this issue wide open in favor of the police and the use of drug dogs. The central finding that a police dog sniff was not a search meant the use of drug dogs could perhaps be expanded to other areas besides a traffic stop.

The gist of the ruling is that a privacy interest (that society recognizes as reasonable) cannot exist from aromas that come from completely illegal contraband.

“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.” Caballes , 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

So if a sniff is not a search police can probably do more of them without running afoul of the 4th amendment.

There Are Still Limitations

Yet, even Caballes recognized limits on the use of police dogs during a traffic stop. Beginning with Caballes itself, we can see that fundamental limits on the use of sniffer dogs during traffic stops were built right into the system.

The Court approvingly noted that the police officers detaining Caballes did not delay the traffic stop just so that the drug dog could finish the sniffing.

This is important.

Had the Court found undue delay, the clear inference is that the case would have come out differently. This is what the court is talking about when it mentions a “prolonged” traffic stop.

The Court wrote that:

“A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unl...

Episode 724 (Duration 33:57). Chicago defense attorney Peter Lewis explains what a litigant can do when their criminal discovery is missing the police body cam video.

In This Case...

The State's Attorney's position is if they didn't get it from the police then it doesn't exist.

Attorney Peter Lewis Am I Entitled To Have The Police Body Cam In My Case?

Yes. Generally, speaking a criminal defendant is going to be entitled to possess a copy of the police body cam or cams involved in his or her case. The interesting question is what to do when you don't get it.

Attorney Peter Lewis

Peter Lewis has been an Illinois attorney since 2004. He currently has an extensive criminal law practice. He handles cases throughout Cook County and the collar counties.

Contact Information

5508 West Lawrence Ave Chicago, IL 60630 773-853-0223

http://pwlewislaw.com/

Main Areas Of Law

In Chicago what are the three main areas of law that govern the police use of body cameras?

• United States Department of Justice & Chicago Police Department Consent Decree
• Illinois Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act
• Chicago Police Department Special Order S03-14 on Body Worn Cameras

What Does The Consent Decree Say About Body Cam?

What does the Justice Department's Chicago Police Department Consent Decree say about the use of police body cams?

On page 6 of the report it says,

...that the Justice Department supports the City’s decision to accelerate its plan to ensure that all CPD officers have body cameras.

In the "Recommendations" section of the report, it says that CPD should "adopt use of force practices that minimize the use of fore." Subsection (i) states,

Equip all patrol officers and supervisors, and officers who regularly interact with the public, including tactical officers, with body cameras, and develop a body camera policy delineating officers’ responsibilities regarding the consistent and appropriate use of body cameras and the retention and review of body camera footage.

Consent Decree Important Details From The Illinois Body Cam Act

✓ The Illinois Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act does not require that police departments employ body cams. The act merely provides guideline for departments that wish to use them. The act also includes minimal feature and procedures that must be followed if a department chooses to use body cams. (Go to 4:04)

✓ "No officer may hinder or prohibit any person, not a law enforcement officer, from recording a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duties in a pubic place or when the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy." 50 ILCS 706/10-20(11)

✓ Generally, body cam videos ARE NOT subject to FOIA requests unless you have been arrested, are a victim, or a witness. See 50 ILCS 706/10-20(b)

Did You Know?

✓ As of right now every single Chicago Police Department patrol officer is suppose to be using a fully functioning and operable body cam device. (Go to 2:59)

What You Need To Know About The Chicago Police Department Body Cam Special Order

The policy says in clear unmistakable terms that,

All sworn members and their immediate supervisors assigned to a Bureau of Patrol district normally assigned to field duties and any other member at the discretion of the district commander will be assigned and utilize a BWC.

CPD Special Order S03-14

This is one of the most important things listed in Special Order S03-14, it's under the "Operational Procedures" section. (Go to 6:20)

An attorney trying to hunt down body cam footage may want to know the following to help facilitate the search (Go to 10:08):

• Name of person arrested
• Date of arrest
• RD number
• Incident number
• Name of officers involved
• Badge number of officers involved
• Beat Number

✓ CPD currently has 8,200 video cams issued to officers. This should be enough to cover the entire patrol division. (Go to 14:50)

"Can't Miss" Moments:

✓ In video recordings you often see an officer stop and do this with his equipment right before he engages with a subject. (Go to 7:01)

✓ Body cam equipment involves more than a camera. The devices includes a camera and hard drive that can hold at least 1...

After Illinois passed the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act which became effective in 2020, can police still search a car when they smell cannabis?

The Old “Smell Of Weed Rule” In Illinois Before Decriminalization Of 2020 The warrantless search of a car is authorized “where a trained and experienced police officer detects the odor of cannabis emanating from a defendant’s vehicle.” People v. Stout, 106 Ill.2d 77, 88 (1985)

The question today, is if this rule survived the cannabis law change in 2020.

In This Episode...

“The officer would probably be better suited to try and find more information, more probable cause, to layer that probable cause.” — John “Jack” Duggan

Attorney John Duggan

Jack’s father is a retired Chicago Police Officer. Jack followed in his father’s footsteps and became a Police Officer for the Village of Oak Park. While working as a Police Officer, Jack decided to continue his studies and attended The John Marshall Law School.

Jack focuses his practice in the areas of Real Estate, Family Law, Estate Planning, and selected criminal matters.

Jack Duggan’s Contact Information

782 Busse Highway Park Ridge, IL 60068 [email protected]

http://www.johnmdugganlaw.com/

Attorney Jeff Hall

“I basically call it the ‘sniff and search’ statute.” — Jeff Hall

“I basically call it the ‘sniff and search’ statute.” – Jeff Hall

Jeffrey R. Hall has practiced law since 2004, concentrating in the area of Criminal Law, DUI, Traffic Law, Driver’s License & FOID Card Reinstatement’s.

He began his legal career as an Assistant State’s Attorney in Tazewell County, IL.

Jeff Hall helped draft SB228 (passed on July 29, 2016), the popular Cannabis Decriminalization Bill and was an integral part of the legislative process, changing Illinois law from a “Zero Tolerance” state for cannabis related DUIs, to a more reasonable law that focused more on impaired driving.

Jeff Hall’s Contact Information

316 SW Washington Street, Suite 1A Peoria, IL 61602

[email protected]

http://www.centralillinoislawyers.com/

Links & Resources

• Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act
• Cannabis Control Act
• Illinois Vehicle Code
• The Sniff & Search Law – 625 ILCS 5/11-502.15

What The Illinois Cannabis Regulation And Tax Act Says About Lawful Limits?

410 ILCS 705/10-10. Possession Limit.

“(a) Except if otherwise authorized by this Act, for a person who is 21 years of age or older and a resident of this State, the possession limit is as follows:

(1) 30 grams of cannabis flower; (2) no more than 500 milligrams of THC contained in cannabis-infused product; (3) 5 grams of cannabis concentrate; and (4) for registered qualifying patients...”

Strict Prohibition of Cannabis Possession For Those Under 21

410 ILCS 705/10-15. Persons under 21 years of age.

“(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law authorizing the possession of medical cannabis, nothing in this Act authorizes a person who is under 21 years of age to possess cannabis. A person under 21 years of age with cannabis in his or her possession is guilty of a civil law violation as outlined in paragraph (a) of Section 4 of the Cannabis Control Act. (c) If the person under the age of 21 was in a motor vehicle at the time of the offense, the Secretary of State may suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any person for a violation of this Section under Section 6-206 of the Illinois Vehicle Code and the rules adopted under it.” Further Limitations And Prohibition Of Cannabis In Certain Places

410 ILCS 705/1-35. Limitations and penalties.

“a) This Act does not permit any person to engage in, and does not prevent the imposition of any civil, criminal, or other penalties for engaging in, any of the following conduct... (2) possessing cannabis: (D) in a vehicle not open to the public unless the cannabis is in a reasonably secured sealed, container and reasonably inaccessible while the vehicle is moving; or... (3) using cannabis: (D) in any motor vehicle; (F)...in any public place; or (G) knowi...