People have rights – even, or perhaps especially, when the police are investigating them. However, an out-of-state driver in Atlanta could hardly benefit from the Constitution when a police officer stopped him on October 5, 2022 in Cherokee County, South Carolina.
There were no outstanding warrants for the driver’s arrest and the deputy did not witness any crime. The driver was stopped for allegedly following another vehicle too closely on Interstate 85 in Spartanburg County, South Carolina.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to “security in person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It should have protected the driver from lengthy interrogations, but courts have gradually excused aggressive police tactics on U.S. streets.
Public records from Operation Rolling Thunder show how this escalation is unfolding. The annual blitz that the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and partner agencies conduct each year since 2006turns law enforcement into a competitive sport with a music box and Scoreboard. Then the police show confiscated property like a championship trophy at a post-game press conference.
Referee from hometown
During Operation Rolling Thunder, courts assist law enforcement most of the time by acting as on-the-ground arbitrators. The losers are the innocent travelers who are searched without cause. Incident reports from the 17th annual blitz, Oct. 2-6, 2022, show that officers seized nothing and made no arrests in 102 of 144 searches. More than 70 percent of the vehicles were clean. The failure rate worsens when you include searches that found nothing but cash—which is not illegal to carry.
The Institute for Justice received these records about South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as part of our Project on the Fourth Amendment.
What happened to the Drivers from another state The charge of tailgating reflects the modus operandi of law enforcement. When the deputy contacted the driver, he ordered him to get out of his vehicle and sit in the front seat of the patrol car.
Refusing to comply could have landed the man in prison. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that officers concerned for their safety may ask drivers of lawfully stopped vehicles to exit. Maryland v. Wilson This regulation has also been extended to passengers.
Speculations and allusions
As the driver sat in the patrol car on the shoulder of I-85, he was alone and without an attorney and had to answer questions unrelated to the traffic stop: What were his travel plans? What was his occupation? Did he have marijuana in his vehicle?
This bait and switch from civil to criminal enforcement undermines the purpose of the traffic regulations, which are actually intended to ensure road safety. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in Whren v. United States in 1996 that fake surveillance measures are permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Despite the aggressive pressure tactics, the Atlanta driver refused to consent to a search. The Supreme Court still allows people to do that — at least for now. But the justices are giving police a Plan B: They can call in a sniffer dog unit and conduct an outdoor search.
The 2005 decision in Illinois vs. Caballes allows the use of drug-sniffing dogs in mock stops, as long as the sniffing does not prolong the stop longer than necessary to fulfill the ostensible reason for the stop. But the courts never say how long that might mean.
Even if a sniffer dog unit is slow to arrive, the Supreme Court has ruled that officers can extend traffic stops if they develop a “reasonable suspicion” of another crime before the first stop time expires. This was the result of the 2015 ruling Rodriguez v. United States.
Reasonable suspicion is a low hurdle. In the case of 2020 Kansas vs GloverThe Supreme Court ruled that speculation is enough. The police certainly used innuendo during Operation Rolling Thunder.
Unreliable drug sniffer
The deputy who arrested the Atlanta driver portrayed all of the driver’s actions as sinister. The driver looked “visibly shaken,” and this was obviously suspicious. The driver claimed to occasionally work for his father’s Georgia-based landscaping company, which had clients in Virginia — this too was considered “odd.” The driver avoided eye contact and acted surprised when asked about marijuana, which suggested drug possession, according to the report.
The driver observed a handler reporting a “positive indication” of drugs. In reality, there was nothing in the vehicle except THC vaporizers, which may have been empty. The report does not provide information on the status of the vaporizers, nor does it claim that narcotics were found.
Regardless, dog alarms are notoriously unreliable. Several studies have error rates of nearly 50 percent — making them about as useful as a coin toss. Yet the Supreme Court allows them to establish probable cause; one step above reasonable suspicion.
In the case of 2013 Florida vs. Harristhe court ruled that field results don’t matter. If drug-sniffing dogs are certified by a reputable organization in a controlled environment, they can fail repeatedly in the real world and still be good enough for public service work.
Using the dog alarm as probable cause, police entered the Atlanta man’s vehicle and found about $13,000 in cash he claimed to have from gambling. Police did not arrest him, but did confiscate his money and turn it over to the Department of Homeland Security for civil forfeiture.
In 102 other cases in the same week, police officers searched for cars but found nothing. The courts leave these drivers and their passengers defenseless. Police work becomes a competitive sport during Operation Rolling Thunder, but not on an equal footing.
