Illinois V, Roy Caballes

Supreme Court Issue

Illinois v. Roy Caballes

When Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding, the police officers were fully with the law and their jurisdiction, however, when they delayed the stop and preformed a sniff search they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

In 1998, while Roy Caballes was moving to Chicago, he was pulled over for going six miles an hour over the speed limit. It was November 12; he was driving a 1998 Grand Marquis along Interstate 80 in La Salle County. Being a routine traffic stop, Officer Daniel Gillette informed Roy Caballes that he was being stopped for speeding. He then requested a driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. He also asked for permission to search the vehicle which was declined by Roy Caballes. When contacting dispatch to see if the papers Roy Caballes had given him were valid, he also asked dispatch to check if Roy Caballes had any outstanding warrants or previous criminal records. Dispatch then told the officer that Roy Caballes had been arrested twice for distribution of marijuana. When the officer asked Roy Caballes if he had any prior arrests, he said no. While Officer Gillette was writing the ticket another officer along with a dog arrived; they were from Drug Detection Team. When walking around the car the dog alerted to the smell of drugs. Upon further investigation, the two officers found marijuana in the trunk. Roy Caballes was then arrested for one count of cannabis trafficking. Roy Caballes, prior to trial, filed a motion to suppress the marijuana found in the trunk. His motion was denied. When the bench trial was finished, he was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in prison as well as a street value fine of $256,136.

Roy Caballes' lawyers then appealed with an argument stating the motion to suppress the marijuana should have been granted due to the fact that the officer prolonged the traffic stop based on time required to complete the "business portion" by requesting previous criminal records. Also the officer issued a written warning, when a verbal warning was within discretion. The lawyers made a final argument that a search was not warranted because of the unreliability of dog alerts. In a unanimous decision the Illinois Appellate court concluded that the officer was allowed to detain Roy Caballes during a speedy warrant check. The court stated that the officer had enough suspicion to conduct a search, Roy Caballes was dressed up for traveling cross-country without a job, the vehicle smelled of air freshener, and Roy Caballes acted nervous through out the entire stop.

On November 20, 2003, Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision with a 4-3 outcome. The court stated that there was no cause for a drug detection dog during any routine traffic stop, and the officers had no reasonable suspicion to search the car. The court also stated, the search was violated Roy Caballes' fourth amendment rights. Justice Robert Thomas disagreed, stating that a dog sniff is not considered a search and therefore Roy Caballes' fourth amendment rights were not violated. ON April 6, 2004 the US Supreme Court accepted review of this case.

In my opinion, the Illinois officers overstepped their boundaries by bringing a drug detection dog to the scene to do a walk around of the car. Roy Caballes had previously denied the officers the right to search his car. Since the dog was alerted to something inside the car, it is therefore classified as a search of the car. As there was no probable cause for a search and no permission was given to conduct a search, the evidence found in the trunk of the car should be thrown out.

There are many supporting arguments for this decision. The officer who pulled Roy Caballes over prolonged the time needed to make a routine stop, to issue a warning or a ticket when given in written form. Since the warning could have been given verbally, the stop was even prolonged in order to give the other officer time to arrive with a drug detection dog. The officers then used the dog to sniff the car to detect any illegal substance within the car. The officer had previously asked Roy Caballes permission to search the car; Roy Caballes did not grant the officer this permission.

...