Well, since this is a mostly Republican SCOTUS and Republicans say they distrust the government and think it has too much power I think they will find that not only isn't the search illegal but that anyone related to this person has also given up any and all Constitutional rights and is automatically guilty by association.....

/Too much power is only when applied to large corporations, don't you know.

It would seem that if the dog was actively working it would constitute a search, but it doesn't seem like there's a branch of government left that gives two shiats about the right of the individual any more, so most likely it will be deemed legal.

Only if the dog can go into court and testify that it smelled something. You can trust the dog to tell the truth.

There will be far too many cases where some douchebag cop claims the dog smelled something and uses that as an excuse to trash somebody's house.

bingethinker: Only if the dog can go into court and testify that it smelled something.

That's my problem with it. The dog may be reliable to a point, but its behavior is not what I would call proof.

I've had my car nearly torn apart when a dog thought he smelled drugs. I had never smoked pot then and had never even seen anyone smoke pot.

bingethinker: Only if the dog can go into court and testify that it smelled something. You can trust the dog to tell the truth.

Scalia: Officer Dog, what did you smell?
Dog: Roof.
Scalia: See? He said roofies. We rule in favor of Officer Dog.

What does that even mean? Illegal drugs. Is law enforcement still stuck in junior high school?

The Founders understood dogs when they wrote the Constitution.

They were, of course, elevated above women.

St_Francis_P: That's my problem with it. The dog may be reliable to a point, but its behavior is not what I would call proof.

But proof is not needed for a search warrant. Probable Cause is. So the question is whether the dog's reaction, which is consitent with what he was trained to do and what he has done in previous cases, was sufficient to establish probable cause when taken in context with the other information the police were provided with. Also, consider that the dog is sniffing air escaping from the house, not inside the house. It could be compared to plain view in that the cops had a lawful right to be on the guy's porch and the dog was reacting to what was outside the house.

TheOther: djkutch: The Founders understood dogs when they wrote the Constitution.

They were, of course, elevated above women.

The dog is the 'Founder'. The drug user is the 'Foundee'.

Don' you know nuthin' bout law?

Not enough to extrapolate to vendor/vendee relationships.

But, it makes me wonder about peanut butter producers.

skinnycatullus: I've had my car nearly torn apart when a dog thought he smelled drugs. I had never smoked pot then and had never even seen anyone smoke pot.

About a month ago I had a headlight out and didn't know it, as my route home from work at night is so well-lit by streetlights. So I get pulled over. Cop lets me know about the headlight and then tells me that, according to his records, I have a previous drug charge (I was arrested for having like a half-gram of pot and a dugout almost eight f*cking years ago and I haven't smoked in almost a year).

So he asks me if I will consent to a search of my car. I politely declined, as I had homework due online in less than an hour-and-a-half. So he has me step out of the car anyway. "Well, we have a dog in the other car so we're gonna let him have a pass," he said.

Lo and behold, the dog "hits" on something. So Officer Assbag tells me that this is probable cause, starts asking me all these questions ("When was the last time you used? [little under a year ago]" "Have you ever used in the car? [even when I smoked, I hated driving while high]" "Are you sure nobody else has used in the car? [I live alone, so no].")

Other cop tears my car apart, and all he finds is an old, empty prescription bottle from an adderall script I'd forgotten was in the glove compartment. There was no label on it because I got it from my store's pharmacy (the label peels off slowly on its own and it was annoying me so I pulled it out). Had I not had an unfilled script in my wallet, I could have gone to jail, been charged with a felony, lost my job and ended up having to go through an endless amount of bullsh*t and lawyer bills over something that is prescribed to me by a doctor, as generic adderall leaves a residue in the bottle.

Obviously pissed off that they can't arrest me, they let me go, telling me that "You should get rid of this bottle and not have anything like it in the car if you know what's good for you." Any time I get pulled over for anything, I get my car torn apart because I got busted with a half-gram of pot.

Eight. F*cking. Years. Ago.

So I pretty much have no Fourth Amendment rights thanks to the War on Drugs.

/yeah yeah, CSB
/I shouldn't have broken the law, pot is bad, blah blah blah for all of you haters out there.

If this is okay, then why can't the government unleash large numbers of drug-sniffing animals to implicate wrong-doers?

TheHighlandHowler: If this is okay, then why can't the government unleash large numbers of drug-sniffing animals to implicate wrong-doers?

Hey, anyone want to make a bet that Kyllo v. US will get cited in either the majority decision or dissent?

bingethinker: Only if the dog can go into court and testify that it smelled something. You can trust the dog to tell the truth.

There will be far too many cases where some douchebag cop claims the dog smelled something and uses that as an excuse to trash somebody's house.

^THIS

Eddie Adams from Torrance: TheHighlandHowler: If this is okay, then why can't the government unleash large numbers of drug-sniffing animals to implicate wrong-doers?

[i236.photobucket.com image 400x298]


Here you go. I couldn't figure out how to work this thing.

/damn those things are heavy!

Really, 18 posts and no telephonic search warrants?

While I believe in animal rights being equal to people's (except for livestock, which must be killed to be eaten, so no murder there) :

I must say the dog that's trained to find something is a tool. The dog sniffing is not reasonable cause, it's the search in progress. No warrant, nothing the dog does while on said property should be legally cause for anything.

Even if the dog suddenly turns into a werewolf, stands up, puts on glasses and and a tie and gives a speech like unto MLK in his prime about how important it is the police search the house and every major news network has cameras on and interviews that dog, it should be inadmissible.

There's rights for a reason. They oughtn't be violated unless people are actually in danger. Even then, no charges should come of it unless it's a violent crime.

Firemen catch a rape in progress, the rapist goes to the slammer.
Firemen find a pot growing operation. The suspect can be arrested and yelled at for a few hours(Less than 8) , and their illegal crap confiscated with receipt, but no court.

Well at least these guys wanna use the 'dogs', wasn't there a bunch of warrants for grow ops based on the cop 'walking by' being able to smell the pot growing?

Is the answer to this question even in doubt with this USSC? Woo Republican court and their version of "rights."

CruiserTwelve: St_Francis_P: That's my problem with it. The dog may be reliable to a point, but its behavior is not what I would call proof.

But proof is not needed for a search warrant. Probable Cause is. So the question is whether the dog's reaction, which is consitent with what he was trained to do and what he has done in previous cases, was sufficient to establish probable cause when taken in context with the other information the police were provided with. Also, consider that the dog is sniffing air escaping from the house, not inside the house. It could be compared to plain view in that the cops had a lawful right to be on the guy's porch and the dog was reacting to what was outside the house.

This. There is also case law where convictions have been thrown out because the dogs were prone to false alerts. It's the same legal theory as when DUIs or speeding tickets get thrown out because the Breathalyzers or radar guns haven't been calibrated or maintained on schedule.

I can't remember was there a time the Supreme's said a search was unreasonable?

Just thought of something... Polygraphs, administered by trained, actual humans, are probably just as (or less) subjective. But, they're not allowed as evidence.

So, in the overall scheme, we trust a dog's "word," but not that of a human?

untaken_name: Man, I'm already pissed that cops can snoop around outside your house, on your property, without warrants. Little by little, and in Indiana's case, lot by lot, they are working toward police having the ability to enter anyone's home at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Of course, it's for your own good, citizen. Because the War on Drugs is working soooooooo well. I mean, before 1937, marijuana was America's #1 cash crop, producing more cash domestically than wheat, corn, soybeans, or cotton. Then the WoD came along, and now marijuana's existence is barely even known by the general populace. Oh, no, wait, I got those backwards. Great job, War on Drugs. Tell you what I want - I want a War on Freedom. A real, declared, government-funded War on Freedom. That's because every non-country that the US government has ever declared "war" on has proliferated and grown exponentially. War on Poverty = more poverty. War on Illiteracy = more illiteracy. War on Drugs = more drugs. So, when do we get that War on Freedom?


/We don't, I fear it has to get worse before it gets better.
//Sad thing is it may get so bad it'll take 500 yrs to get better.

CruiserTwelve: But proof is not needed for a search warrant. Probable Cause is. So the question is whether the dog's reaction, which is consitent with what he was trained to do and what he has done in previous cases, was sufficient to establish probable cause when taken in context with the other information the police were provided with. Also, consider that the dog is sniffing air escaping from the house, not inside the house. It could be compared to plain view in that the cops had a lawful right to be on the guy's porch and the dog was reacting to what was outside the house.

Cool. I have a special device. It's a sodomy detection system (SDS). You wear it in a small chest pack. It can detect acts of sodomy within 15 meters. So, if I was on your porch and you were farking your wife in the ass, the (SDS) would give me probable cause that sodomy is occurring. Since sodomy is still against the law in a number of places, it should be OK for me to use it as probable cause to have a warrant served on you, right? How about a nice no-knock warrant with guns blazing?

Or, is there MAYBE a legal presumption that citizens have a right to be free from such unreasonable searches? Maybe?

I mean Jesus Effing Christ, people. What kind of country do you want to live in?

CitizenTed: CruiserTwelve: But proof is not needed for a search warrant. Probable Cause is. So the question is whether the dog's reaction, which is consitent with what he was trained to do and what he has done in previous cases, was sufficient to establish probable cause when taken in context with the other information the police were provided with. Also, consider that the dog is sniffing air escaping from the house, not inside the house. It could be compared to plain view in that the cops had a lawful right to be on the guy's porch and the dog was reacting to what was outside the house.

Cool. I have a special device. It's a sodomy detection system (SDS). You wear it in a small chest pack. It can detect acts of sodomy within 15 meters. So, if I was on your porch and you were farking your wife in the ass, the (SDS) would give me probable cause that sodomy is occurring. Since sodomy is still against the law in a number of places, it should be OK for me to use it as probable cause to have a warrant served on you, right? How about a nice no-knock warrant with guns blazing?

Or, is there MAYBE a legal presumption that citizens have a right to be free from such unreasonable searches? Maybe?

I mean Jesus Effing Christ, people. What kind of country do you want to live in?

That's easy. Being on the porch is trespassing. Please improve the range of your sodomy detection system and then come back