If I understood correctly, The USSC has OVERTURNED a police operation, "random stop and search" of vehicles that had been operating in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The case arose out of a particular stop, and dog sniffing routine, where nothing was found. The driver of the vehicle objected to the proceedure as being unwarranted and excessive, and by a 6 to 3 vote, the USSC agreed.
The city claimed among other things, that persons in a vehicle had "a lesser expectation of privacy, than would someone who was walking along the street". I never thought that this made sense, and neither did the court, it would seem.
Of course, the "war on drugs" was involved, which was another reason for suspicion. This so-called war on drugs, has become an excuse for to many stunts, that never should have been thought of, let along carried out. Seems like it is "about time", in a situation where the police have taken "a step to far", or perhaps a whole bunch of steps.
The case arose out of a particular stop, and dog sniffing routine, where nothing was found. The driver of the vehicle objected to the proceedure as being unwarranted and excessive, and by a 6 to 3 vote, the USSC agreed.
The city claimed among other things, that persons in a vehicle had "a lesser expectation of privacy, than would someone who was walking along the street". I never thought that this made sense, and neither did the court, it would seem.
Of course, the "war on drugs" was involved, which was another reason for suspicion. This so-called war on drugs, has become an excuse for to many stunts, that never should have been thought of, let along carried out. Seems like it is "about time", in a situation where the police have taken "a step to far", or perhaps a whole bunch of steps.