Court Opinion

ID: 9469419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:40:04.754887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:22.743412
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I have previously made clear my regulatory-view position in regard to the so-called drug courier “profile.” United States v. Place, 660 F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1981) (concurring opinion), cert. granted, - U.S. —, 102 S.Ct. 2901, 73 L.Ed.2d 1312 (1982); United States v. Vasquez, 612 F.2d 1338, 1352 (2d Cir. 1979) (dissenting opinion), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 2991, 64 L.Ed.2d 857 (1980); cf. United States v. Barbera, 514 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1975) (border stop case). While I adhere to that position, the majority’s non-reliance on the profile but reliance on the able, canny canine, Kane, with the perfect record — all hits and no misses — accords with the precedents of this court-and common sense. I therefore join happily in Judge Winter’s opinion as well as the judgment.