[Cprb] police dogs and supreme court

[J. Wason]

At 08:37 AM 04/07/04 -0600, you wrote:

>on Monday the supreme court agreed to hear a case on whether the police need
>a special reason to subject a car they have stopped for a traffic violation
>to a drug-sniffing dog (NYTimes story, 4/6) --
>
>this is an appeal from our home state of Illinois where our very own supreme
>court voted 4-3 that it's an unconstitutional broadening of the scope of a
>routine traffic stop.
>
>this is something that needs to be addressed locally, imho.
>
>Cope

I'm curious what exactly you'd address locally, Cope, and how you'd propose
addressing it.  If the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the cops need
probable cause - or a search warrant; your summary of the case doesn't make
it clear - before they turn loose a drug-sniffing dog on a stopped auto,
then that's the law unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise, and I
presume that no Illinois police departments are doing it.  Am I being
naive?  Are you aware of local abuses of this practice?

John