What a Recent Supreme Court Case Means for You

In my last piece, I provided some basic warnings about traffic stops and other encounters with law enforcement. Now we have an update, hot off the bench of the nation’s highest court. In late April of 2015, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Rodriguez v. United States that will affect many traffic stops. Although I am not under the impression that the police in Maine often use drug-sniffing dogs, it is a widespread practice elsewhere. Basically, if a cop who has stopped a motorist suspects the presence of illegal drugs in the vehicle, he or she may call for another cop to bring a specially-trained dog to locate the drugs. As an American Bar Association article notes, a 2005 decision had meant that the practice did not violate the US Constitution. That is no longer true.

What does this mean for the layperson? First, you should know that a primary means of enforcing certain procedural and substantive protections in the Constitution—such as the right to counsel during criminal prosecution or the right to confront accusers—is through a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Such motions often are based on the argument that a defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated and, therefore, certain pieces of evidence or witnesses should not be allowed to be part of the prosecution’s case. Otherwise, law enforcement officials and prosecutors would have little or no incentive to heed the right against self-incrimination, the presumption of innocence, and so on. Then, such constitutional rights would be virtually worthless. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures, laid out in the Fourth Amendment, is a common basis for motions to suppress. In simplistic terms, if someone’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is violated, evidence that is the “fruit” of the violation is inadmissible in a criminal court case.

Second, you should keep in mind that an officer on patrol does not need a warrant to stop a motorist when he or she witnesses, for instance a stop-sign violation. The traffic stop, though, is supposed to be brief and limited in nature—not an extended attempt to catch a possible criminal in the act based on no more than a hunch (or a racist profile)—so that the officer can give the driver a citation or warning. There is, in theory, a kind of trade here: the police can pull over motorists and write simple tickets without an arrest or search warrant, and motorists do not have to endure outrageous detentions.

Law enforcement officials across the country are now on notice that they cannot stop vehicles for routine traffic violations and then compel their drivers to submit to a long wait while, on the basis of sheer speculation, not reasonable suspicion, a special search with a dog commences. The Court stated its position as follows: “We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” The nation’s highest court in recent years has veered, from case to case, between strengthening and weakening the people’s protections from law enforcement agencies. The most recent decision, of course, enhances our freedom from unreasonable governmental interference in our daily lives.

What Our Clients Say

I can't tell you how much it meant to me to have all of you on my side. When I was unsure of myself and of my circumstances. You were so kind, thoughtful and reassuring. When I was called, I got nervous to all of my questions. It was the best experience ever with an attorney and crew.

A.G.

Millinocket, Maine

This Law Office offers the utmost in making a client feel comfortable and able to communicate without feeling intimidated or nervious. Kind, friendly and very professional service. I would never go anywhere else and proudly recommend this law firm.

Rochelle Waycott

Baileyville, Maine

Can't say enough not only about the professionalism of the whole office and attention to detail but the fact you make us feel we were always your highest priority even though you have many other clients. We also felt we were treated like family and never a bother. Everyone eager to please.

David Goldsmith

Bangor, Maine

I was very well satisfied with the work you had done for me, and I would highly recommend you to anyone.

David West

Steuben, Maine

I feel safe in your care. Your firm handled my case with full support of me. If in the future I need a lawyer, I will go to your firm. I also will refer my friend to you.

Darlene Kilton

Medway, Maine

I would recommend the Law Office of Carl D. McCue LLC to anyone that has a legal issue. They are compassionate, efficient and very informative.

Gail M.

Carmel, Maine

Web Design & Development © 2019 Links Web Design, Bangor, Maine | Sitemap

Website Content Copyright © 2019 McCue Law