Illinois v. Cabelles
The stopping of the vehicle by the traffic officers was lawful and constitutional according to the law recommendations of Illinois. However, there is a doubt that arises as the sniffer-dog gets involved in the scene of the traffic activity. Our first account concerns the traffic officers stopping Caballes because he was over speeding thus we agree with the action. The lawful act of preventing road accidents due to over speeding by drivers is well explained through the police practicing their rightful job in the road. The achievement of the police in scrutinizing further the vehicle while another case is being handled is unconstitutional according to the fourth chapter of the constitution whereby the police go beyond the requirements of the constitution.
With another orientation to the case involving the United States and Jacobsen, the increased time spending by the officers is unjustified due to the consideration of time factor. This is because, traffic rules do not allow much prolonging of vehicles in the road due to effects such as traffic jam and other hazardous events in the road. This gives Caballes a defense factor that can helps him to overcome the case laid against him. Therefore, with this reference, we come up with an assumption that the work of the dog in the road traffic was unlawful for it did what it not expected of it. This is called interruption for it comprises an unwarranted search done without notice. Therefore, with comparison of the two cases we come up with a defense for Caballes that could declare him of only one offence.
The traffic laws of the Illinois have declared Caballes guilty of all the offenses because there is concession of both the cases. This comes with the fact that the occurrence of the radio transmitter timing relatively coincided with the action of sniffing by the dog. However, the defense built on the other side concerning this case might be invalid due to the lack of concise prove about the intention of over speeding. The conclusion that would be made on this case would be merely because Caballes was over speeding because he was carrying marijuana, which is a prohibited drug in the Illinois. Therefore, the earlier action of the dog is approved in this case because it led to the evolvement of the probable cause of over speeding in the roads. In other words, the work of the dog in the road assisted the police to establish the cause of over speeding in the road. Hence, the clear scrutiny by the judge resulted to the same conclusion hence with this basis, Caballes was declared guilty of the two offenses.
The sniffing of the dog that was performed during the lawful traffic investigation was perceived to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court investigations about the case give credit to the work of the dog in a poor perspective. This is because, sniffing was done outside hence the dog did not come into contact with the vehicle or enter in the vehicle. In addition, it brings about controversy about the work of the dog because earlier it was thought the dog interrupted in the work of the traffic offices. The action of the dog sniffing the vehicle was unlawful since there was no deliberate intension of the police in stopping the vehicle. It is still doubted about the intention of the police in stopping the vehicle. This is because they seem to be suspecting nicotine. It seems that they had no genuine purpose in stopping the vehicle hence they had many personal interest in stopping the vehicle of which it was violation of privacy rights in Illinois. The intension of the police in stopping the vehicle disqualifies the case hence categorizing it unconstitutional.
According to the laws of Illinois, the action of the dog to sniff the nicotine in the truck was lawful because the dog only hence it did not get involved in locating the nicotine. The dog also was trained for sniffing nicotine and other illegal drugs and so it was lawful for the dog to sniff the drug. Therefore, with the fact that dog does not have human intelligence, it did not intend to sniff hence it did not violate the fourth constitutional amendments.