Supreme Court flushes another part of the 4th Amendment down the toilot for drug searches Original Article Court unleashes drug dogs Justices OK use of canines at traffic stops Senta Scarborough The Arizona Republic Jan. 25, 2005 12:00 AM Arizona law enforcement agencies praised a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday allowing the use of drug-sniffing dogs during traffic stops even when they have no reason to suspect the presence of controlled substances. Officers said the ruling allows them to continue a practice they already follow in an unspecified number of situations, although most Valley police departments do not expect to expand the use of dogs in traffic stops. The 6-2 ruling allows officers to use a police dog to conduct an outside sweep of the car as long as the search lasts no longer than a routine stop. Police estimate a traffic stop takes 10 to 20 minutes. Civil rights advocates in Arizona and across the country worried about the ruling, saying it gives police too much power and further erodes Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches and seizures. But police were pleased with the ruling. "We are happy the decision came out the way it did because we have a major drug problem in our society and most drugs are transported in vehicles and hidden in vehicles," said Mesa police Detective Bryan Soller, state president of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police. "The key is it has to be a legal traffic stop, and we don't detain the person longer than the traffic stop," he added. "You are not going to see a major change in the way police work is done." Phoenix civil rights attorney Joe Zebas said the ruling removes the officers' need for probable cause for a dog-sniffing search and "can lead to future rights being eliminated or being reduced and more expansive searches. "I'm scared of it," Zebas said. "It potentially leads to a slippery slope." Criminal defense attorney Greg Parzych agrees the ruling is "good news" for police but not for individual rights. "If you get stopped tonight and a canine unit is in the area, they can sniff your car because you were driving six miles over the speed limit," he said. "And if there is a false positive, you are going to be there a lot longer than a ticket and the search becomes much more intrusive." Phoenix police Lt. Vince Piano, who oversees the investigative unit of the agency's drug enforcement bureau, said his agency pulls over far too many people to have the decision make a real difference. He said police will still need a reason to call for a dog. The Supreme Court sided with Illinois police, who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 for driving six miles over the speed limit. Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, but troopers brought over a drug dog when Caballes appeared nervous. Caballes argued that the Fourth Amendment protects motorists from searches such as dog sniffing, but Justice John Paul Stevens reasoned the intrusion was minimal. "The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation," Stevens wrote. In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the use of drug dogs will make routine traffic stops more "adversarial." She was joined in her dissent by Justice David Souter. Arizona Department of Public Safety Lt. Mike Corbin, who oversees the department's canine unit, said the DPS rarely uses sniff dogs during routine traffic stops unless they already suspect drugs. "It (Monday's decision) just gives us more credibility of what we are doing and backs us up," Corbin said. "We don't run our dogs on vehicles unless we have a reason to do so. Doing indiscriminate searches would use up a whole lot of time on a lot of cars we don't need to search." Glendale police said it will take some time to decide if Monday's decision will change the way they do business. But the ruling should have little affect in Gilbert, where town police follow strict guidelines for using the dogs. "We can't hold the person there beyond the normal limits of a traffic stop," Gilbert police Officer Greg Thomas said. When making a traffic stop in the nation's interior, U.S. Border Patrol agents need a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be transporting undocumented immigrants to bring out a canine to sniff for people, said Andy Adame, a spokesman in the agency's Tucson sector. At checkpoints north of the U.S.-Mexican border, agents can meet a lower standard, "mere suspicion," to use a dog, Adame said. Pinal County Sheriff Roger Vanderpool called the decision "a good thing for the good guys." "It just reaffirms the way we were operating and that a sniff of the outside of the vehicle in a public place wasn't unreasonable," Vanderpool said. Associated Press and reporters Emily Bittner, Susan Carroll, Lindsay Collom, Josh Kelley, Katie Nelson and Brent Whiting contributed to this article.