October Term 2004 · Docket 03-923
Does a drug dog sniff during a traffic stop require probable cause?
Illinois argues a dog sniff is not a search. Cabales argues the sniff invaded his privacy rights.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Lisa Madigan argued the sniff is not a search. She cited Place and Edmond as precedent for this view.
Robert Wray stated the stop was lawful. He noted the stop lasted less than nine minutes.
Michael Meczyk argued the state lacked justification. He claimed the sniff invaded Cabales' Fourth Amendment interests.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a drug dog sniff during a lawful traffic stop counts as a Fourth Amendment search. Illinois claims the sniff needs no justification. Cabales claims the sniff violated his privacy rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 10, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
Illinois wants the Court to rule the dog sniff is not a search. This would let police use dogs freely during traffic stops.
Cabales wants the Court to rule the dog sniff is a search. This would require police to have a valid reason before using a dog.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
What each side says
Illinois argues a dog sniff is not a search. They cite prior cases saying sniffs need no Fourth Amendment justification.
Cabales argues the sniff invaded his privacy. He says the state offered no valid Fourth Amendment justification for the action.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if officers knew Cabales in advance. He noted they do not arrest every speeding driver.
Justice Kennedy asked if the location mattered more than the target. He questioned the nature of the place searched.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-13
Why it matters
This case defines police power during traffic stops. It determines if dogs can sniff cars without suspicion. The outcome shapes privacy rights on public roads.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 37-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 37-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-43 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.