The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-2 to uphold the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police during routine traffic stops, even if the police have no reason to suspect that narcotics are in the vehicle.

The case involved Roy Caballes who was stopped on I-80 in 1998 by Illinois police for driving six miles over the speed limit. When Cabelles seemed nervous, police called in a drug-sniffing dog that found found $250,000 worth of marijuana in the trunk of the car. Caballes argued that the use of the dog violated his fourth amendment rights.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent's privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement."

"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Stevens wrote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice David H. Souter voted against the ruling, which gives police much broader search powers.

"Under today's decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population," Ginsburg wrote.

Source: Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop