Consent searches inherently raise three serious civil rights and civil liberties concerns. Consent is often granted on an isolated roadside in a one-on-one encounter with an armed law enforcement official. This setting is inherently coercive. Many civilians believe they must grant consent.
Other civilians fear the consequences of refusing to grant consent, such as the issuance of extra traffic citations, or the delay caused by further interrogation or bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the scene. Thus, the overwhelming majority of motorists consent to a search when asked.
See Terry v. Ohio , U.
Articles on Search and Seizure
From a management perspective, consent searches are particularly troublesome. Since they are subjective, they are not subject to meaningful supervisory review. Statewide in , black and Hispanic motorists were nearly twice as likely as white motorists to have their vehicles consent searched during traffic stops. There are similar disparities every year such data has been collected starting in See Exh.
On the other hand, when police in Illinois performed a consent search in , white motorists were far more likely than minority motorists to be found with contraband. Again, there are similar disparities every year such data has been collected starting in In , the ISP conducted 2, consent searches.
Sniffing out trouble
Hispanic motorists were 2. But white motorists were 2. In , the CPD conducted 1, consent searches. Other than the ISP, this was more than any other police agency in Illinois.
Related stories
Black and Hispanic motorists were more than four times more likely than white motorists to have their vehicles consent searched during traffic stops by the CPD in Specifically, black motorists were 4. On the other hand, when CPD officers performed a consent search in , white motorists were far more likely than minority motorists to be found with contraband. Specifically, white motorists were 2. Racial disparity resulted from the consent searches by many of these police agencies in Illinois. For example:.
- Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice.
- What Police Drug Dog’s Can And Can’t Do, A Criminal Law Resource.
- how do you find your friend code for wii;
- Racial Disparities in Illinois Traffic Stops;
- greenville county sc divorce records;
Black and Hispanic motorists were far more likely than white motorists to be consent searched 2. Aurora is the second-most populous city in Illinois, with , people.
Black motorists were 3. Springfield is the sixth-most populous city in Illinois, with , people. Lake County. Lake County is the third-most populous county in Illinois, with , people. Rockford is the third-most populous city in Illinois, with , people. Consent searches should be prohibited. The General Assembly should enact legislation banning the practice statewide.
Policymakers for individual police agencies should prohibit the practice, too. Consent searches are coercive and invasive of the privacy of motorists of all races. Moreover, consent searches will always cause racial disparity, given the very high level of officer subjectivity in deciding when to request consent, and the very high frequency that civilians grant consent. A dog alert ordinarily provides a lawful basis for police officers to manually search the interior of the vehicle. Dog sniff searches inherently raise three serious civil rights and civil liberties concerns.
First, dog sniffs are menacing, especially for minority motorists, in light of historical abuses committed with police dogs. Dog sniffs also are humiliating, taking place in full view of passing motorists, friends and strangers alike, many of whom probably conclude that the people subjected to dog sniffs must be guilty of something.
Rodriguez v. United States - Wikipedia
Full car searches based on false dog alerts are even more frightening and embarrassing. Second, dog sniffs are all too frequently unreliable. As shown below, dog alerts are wrong as often as they are right. Thousands of innocent motorists are subjected to lengthy, invasive, and humiliating vehicle searches by police officers as a result of erroneous dog alerts. Third, there is a substantial racial disparity in erroneous dog alerts, as shown below. Stated differently, false alerts by police dogs caused police officers to manually search the vehicles of 1, innocent motorists.
The K-9 handler explained that even though the dog did not sit down, its behavior indicated that it smelled drugs. The officer then searched the car. The court of appeals agreed. As the state conceded, since Illinois law did not require the driver to provide proof of insurance because the car was properly registered in Minnesota, the officer mistakenly believed that he was authorized to ask defendant 2 for proof of insurance.
Finally, the court held that there was no probable cause independent of the dog sniff to search the vehicle. The appeals court agreed. Even with more evidence of drug trafficking related to those cities, the court reasoned, merely driving from Chicago to Minnesota could not alone support probable cause to search for evidence of drug trafficking. On the whole, the evidence was insufficient to provide probable cause to believe that the three defendants were involved in drug trafficking. Harvatin Law Offices, PC will fight zealously on your behalf.
To learn more, and to set up a free initial consultation, contact the office online or call Contact Us Now: