| Illinois v. Caballes | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 10, 2004 Decided January 24, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Illinois, Petitioner v. Roy I. Caballes |
| Citations | 543 U.S. 405 (more) 125 S. Ct. 834; 160 L. Ed. 2d 842; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 769; 73 U.S.L.W. 4111; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 100 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | People v. Caballes, 207 Ill. 2d 504, 802 N.E.2d 202, 280 Ill. Dec. 277 (2003); cert. granted, 541 U.S. 972 (2004). |
| Subsequent | Judgment affirmed on remand, People v. Caballes, 221 Ill. 2d 282, 303 Ill. Dec. 128, 851 N.E.2d 26 (2006). |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Souter |
| Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.
In the case, Illinois native Roy Caballes was stopped by a state police officer for speeding on an interstate highway. As the officer was writing the ticket, another officer arrived on the scene, who walked a drug-sniffing police dog around Caballes's car. The dog alerted to the odor of narcotics at the trunk of the car, which the police opened and found marijuana. Caballes was charged with narcotics trafficking, but tried to suppress the evidence found by the police dog, arguing that the use of the dog violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure because the officers did not have a warrant to search his car.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that it was not an overstep of police power to use a police dog during a routine traffic stop, because a well trained police dog will only alert to the presence of illegal substances that no citizen has the right to possess. 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.[1]
- ^ "Illinois v. Caballes". The Oyez Project. Retrieved May 25, 2022.