If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   News: SCOTUS rules in favor of the little guy. Fark: In a drug case. UltraFark: With Scalia writing the majority opinion. WTFark: And Thomas joining him   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 358
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, UltraFark, detection dog, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen Breyer  
•       •       •

16300 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 03:42:13 PM

Fizpez: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

If they want to go IN to the car, probably - but if you're on the side of a public road (having been pulled over) and the dog is walking around your car... probably not.

Of course we've all read the research on how K9 units can pretty much "read" their handler to know when to indicate a positive (in certain circumstances.)


A few weeks ago they ruled on roadside dog sniffs. Basically no matter how many false positives a dog has its nose still gives probable cause but you can attempt to argue in court that the cop lied/signaled the dog so there are reasonable protections against police abuse (LOL!)
 
2013-03-26 03:43:13 PM

Mercutio74: I'm shocked!  Shocked I say!

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising...  but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value.  That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz).  I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.


Really. 2$ and change per oz? Methinks your maths are a bit off.
 
2013-03-26 03:44:36 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

If the dog is an officer, and not just a tool or piece of equipment of law enforcement, then the dog can come testify at the trial under oath.  "Did you smell weed?  One bark for yes, two for no..." "bark bark"  "Double yes!!!"


Um, that's not the standard.  The signal of the dog can be testified to by the handler.  SCOTUS reaffirmed that.
 
2013-03-26 03:46:21 PM

Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.


The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.
 
2013-03-26 03:48:42 PM

macadamnut: police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search

Dog or no dog, what the fark are the police doing on my property without a warrant in the first place?


The dog is the key here.  The dog is not required for a normal "Go knock on the front door" so Alito's dissent is a bunch of bullox.  From my experience the dog generally stays in the car.

 I mean seriously:  Knock Knock.  Guy opens door  & see's officer with a dog.  Guy:  "um yeah".  Officer: "Can I  enter the premises with my dog?"

This cop was purposely fishing for evidence by bringing the dog with him.  He basically brought his "Binoculars" and peeked inside the house violating the curtilage.
 
2013-03-26 03:49:49 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.


He can take them with him, but he can't use them.
 
2013-03-26 03:50:27 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

The dog isn't saying anything.  The dog's handler is interpreting the dog's signals and claiming that he/she knows what the dog meant.

The dog is then just a tool like a vapor sniffing device or infrared scanner.


The dogs are trained, and SCOTUS reaffirmed that it is valid for the handler to interpret their behavior and testify to as much.

The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer in much the same sense that a human officer could be his partner.  I see the dog sitting at a smell the same as a human officer pointing to something that he saw.

Dog smells pot, dog sits, handler was alerted by partner that pot is present.

Human sees pot, waves to partner and points, partner is alerted by partner that pot is present.

Calling a dog an odor detection device is a bit of a stretch.  Is the cops human partner a visual detection device because he can see things and signal to his partner?
 
2013-03-26 03:52:36 PM

kindms: Silly Jesus: I'm torn.  I'm for drug legalization, so it's good in that sense, but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.  It would be tantamount to saying that police officers need to wear a blind fold if they go knock on someones door for an otherwise legal reason because they might see a pot plant sitting on the window sill.

The ruling doesn't say that at all. It says that the police cannot use enhanced techniques without a search warrant. A cop coming to your door viewing contraband in plain sight is fair game. A cop coming up to your door with a device that lets him see through walls as an example is not allowed without a warrant. . Taking a device (dog or whatever) on to someones property constitutes a search and requires a warrant.


I understand that.  I am taking issue with calling a dog a device and calling smelling an advanced detection technique.  I'm saying that a dog smelling it is no different from a human seeing it.  It also doesn't violate privacy in the sense that infrared does because you can see people with infrared and there is an expectation to privacy there.  There's no expectation to privacy associated with the smell of an illegal substance.
 
2013-03-26 03:53:59 PM

WhyteRaven74: Silly Jesus: but again it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location.

Actually the opinion of the court is that the dog is not legally allowed to be there without a warrant, period. If the cops want to use a dog to sniff for the presence of drugs inside of a house they first have to get a warrant to do so.


I disagree.  They aren't saying that the dog can't be there...that would be absurd, he's the partner of that officer.  They are saying that anything that he may smell can't be used against someone.
 
2013-03-26 03:57:38 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.


Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.
 
2013-03-26 04:02:49 PM

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!


Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.
 
2013-03-26 04:03:04 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.


The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!
 
2013-03-26 04:06:12 PM

Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.


Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.
 
2013-03-26 04:06:50 PM

pedrop357: Then the dog needs to take the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

 
2013-03-26 04:08:43 PM

Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!


I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device
 
2013-03-26 04:09:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason why Republicans continue to get votes. "Cuz they piss off the libs!"

You are a credit to your party.


before your posts I couldn't picture why that would be satisfying.

Lando Lincoln: Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!


What is this Captain Planet where the evil corporation makes money by just simply polluting?

media.comicvine.com
 
2013-03-26 04:09:24 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-03-26 04:11:18 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: shroom: AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean?  Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

Your logic is flawed. What you think I said and what I said are not the same.


No. What you purposely implied is what was correctly inferred. You were called out for being wrong, now you're backpedaling. You are being dishonest and unwilling to admit a mistake.
 
2013-03-26 04:12:30 PM

Silly Jesus: The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.



And in most cases, the former is likely brighter (and certainly more honorable) than the latter.
 
2013-03-26 04:15:06 PM

Silly Jesus: The officer's gun is a tool. As are his handcuffs. Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer. I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly. If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes. Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.


If the dog is another cop and their "word" is to be treated like the word of another cop, then it follows that their training and experience should be able to be directly questioned in court.

If a human cop says that he smelled marijuana and that justified the search, but on the stand it's revealed that he can't distinguish the smell of marijuana from the smell of a a couple dozen different, perfectly legal, plants, that's a problem.

If the "word" of the dog is going to be enough to justify a search, the person being searched should able to question the dog's qualifications directly.

in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search.  In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.
 
2013-03-26 04:19:23 PM

Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool                                   -

Correct
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device             - Correct
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device               - Correct

A dog's olfactory sense is (depending on breed) between 1,000 and 10,000 times more powerful than a human's.  Privacy laws are based on privacy from other individuals.  Anything in range of a human being's senses isn't private.  Your pot plant in the front yard, it is reasonable a police officer could see that.  The one in your basement, not so much.  If discovery requires the use of something beyond the senses of the human officer, that is considered using tools or devices.  This includes IR scanners, wiretaps, thermal imaging, and dog noses.
 
2013-03-26 04:21:43 PM

pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!

Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.


Feel free to provide some counter-examples which back up your claim.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:20 PM

pedrop357: in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search. In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.


I should have taken this point further.

The dog isn't being used any differently than a box that samples the air and blinks a light or beeps when it detects a certain chemical trace.

At least with the box we could analyze the circuitry, sensing equipment, and calibration to see how accurate and precise the device was.

The way the dog is used is almost like the police officer building his own vapor analysis device and then claiming that whenever it beeps "like that", it means it 'smells' drugs, yet the device is unable to be deconstructed to see if it indeed is as accurate and precise as is claimed.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:34 PM
AverageAmericanGuy is the kind of guy that prefers the company of farm animals to women.I never said AverageAmericanGuy has sex with farm animals.  Nor did I say that he's not into chicks.Stop putting words into my mouth.
 
2013-03-26 04:22:44 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: The officer's gun is a tool. As are his handcuffs. Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer. I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly. If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes. Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.

If the dog is another cop and their "word" is to be treated like the word of another cop, then it follows that their training and experience should be able to be directly questioned in court.

If a human cop says that he smelled marijuana and that justified the search, but on the stand it's revealed that he can't distinguish the smell of marijuana from the smell of a a couple dozen different, perfectly legal, plants, that's a problem.

If the "word" of the dog is going to be enough to justify a search, the person being searched should able to question the dog's qualifications directly.

in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search.  In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.


You're arguing with established precedent.  The training that the dog and officer go through is accepted by SCOTUS as sufficient for the handler to interpret the signals of the dog.  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something.  I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."
 
2013-03-26 04:24:15 PM

Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: pedrop357: Liberals are also surprisingly authoritarian about other people's lives too, they just tend to focus on different aspects.

Mmm hmm. Damn those hippies and their staunch belief in stopping corporations from happily polluting and making tons of money! Bunch of jack-booted thugs, all of them!

Yep, that's all liberals do.  How silly of me.

Feel free to provide some counter-examples which back up your claim.


Do things like restricting drink sizes, salt content, etc. count?

How about supposedly "well intentioned" leftie campaigns against pornography stores, strip clubs?

Then we have all the protecting people from themselves nonsense at hand when they rail against liquor stores, bars, menthol cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:36 PM

stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?  The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

The gun and cuffs are tools, but not detection devices; the dog is like an IR scanner or using his eyes to peer through the blinds. Those both require a warrant.
/Nice attempt at deflection
//and you even have a sycophant!

I don't get why a nose on a dog is a super duper detection device all of a sudden.  It's not enhanced at all.  You really think that a dog nose is closer to an IR scanner than a human eye?

Human eye - Meh, not a tool                                   - Correct
IR Scanner - Super duper high tech device             - Correct
Dog nose - Super duper high tech device               - Correct

A dog's olfactory sense is (depending on breed) between 1,000 and 10,000 times more powerful than a human's.  Privacy laws are based on privacy from other individuals.  Anything in range of a human being's senses isn't private.  Your pot plant in the front yard, it is reasonable a police officer could see that.  The one in your basement, not so much.  If discovery requires the use of something beyond the senses of the human officer, that is considered using tools or devices.  This includes IR scanners, wiretaps, thermal imagin ...


Good explanation.  That makes more sense to me now.

Still a little iffy on a dog nose being a super duper high tech device, but using the privacy standard of privacy from other humans does clear things up a bit.
 
2013-03-26 04:24:57 PM

pedobearapproved: before your posts I couldn't picture why that would be satisfying.


Don't lie. You totally could.

pedobearapproved: What is this Captain Planet where the evil corporation makes money by just simply polluting?


Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Corporations make money by polluting and nothing else. Ayup.
 
2013-03-26 04:25:14 PM
Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.
 
2013-03-26 04:26:33 PM

pedrop357: pedrop357: in reality, the partner of the dog is telling you what they THINK the dog is indicating, and then suggesting that this interpreted indicator is enough to justify a search. In this case, the dog is much more like a tool.

I should have taken this point further.

The dog isn't being used any differently than a box that samples the air and blinks a light or beeps when it detects a certain chemical trace.

At least with the box we could analyze the circuitry, sensing equipment, and calibration to see how accurate and precise the device was.

The way the dog is used is almost like the police officer building his own vapor analysis device and then claiming that whenever it beeps "like that", it means it 'smells' drugs, yet the device is unable to be deconstructed to see if it indeed is as accurate and precise as is claimed.


Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general?  Just curious.  You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.
 
2013-03-26 04:28:03 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 04:28:33 PM

JustGetItRight: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

Almost certainly not.  The real issue here is that they were on the front porch of the house, clearly part of the property and used the dog to detect the drugs.  The ruling really isn't terribly different from the Kyllo case.

A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.


Cars move too.   Making it easier for the bad guys to get away.   Houses don't move very fast.
 
2013-03-26 04:29:53 PM

Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner,

"Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.
 
2013-03-26 04:30:35 PM
It's almost like there is another explanation to conservative views other than "they hate poor people and want to see them dead."  Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:09 PM

Silly Jesus: Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general? Just curious. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.


I'm against their use as justification to search without a warrant, as well as being against their "word" being valid in obtaining a warrant.

If a warrant has been obtained, use dogs, IR equipment, chemical analyzers, etc. all you want.  No warrant-no dog, IR, chemical analyzers.
 
2013-03-26 04:31:46 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]


You're the one who wants the dog's "word" treated the same as the word of a human partner.
 
2013-03-26 04:32:06 PM
fark John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.  Authoritarian douchebags.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:15 PM

Silly Jesus: You're arguing with established precedent. The training that the dog and officer go through is accepted by SCOTUS as sufficient for the handler to interpret the signals of the dog.


Meh. Things change.

Separate but equal were fine until it was shown that separate couldn't be equal.

Just wait until drug dogs are shown to have a higher false positive rate than polygraph.
 
2013-03-26 04:33:33 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]


BTW, if a cop could search a location based solely on the word of his human partner, would you support questioning that partner on the stand as to his/her qualifications and to determine accuracy of their senses?
 
2013-03-26 04:33:49 PM

Gdalescrboz: Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.


wut
 
2013-03-26 04:35:41 PM

TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.


Excellent conspiracy theory.
 
2013-03-26 04:37:52 PM

jaytkay

Gdalescrboz: Woudl be more shocked if a liberal could come up with anything than anything the SCOTUS rules on.

wut


Reword. I would be more shocked if a was able liberal came up with a reason than how shocked I would be regarding any SCOTUS ruling.
 
2013-03-26 04:39:46 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Are you for or against bomb sniffing / drug / tracking dogs in general? Just curious. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on their supposed inaccuracy.

I'm against their use as justification to search without a warrant, as well as being against their "word" being valid in obtaining a warrant.

If a warrant has been obtained, use dogs, IR equipment, chemical analyzers, etc. all you want.  No warrant-no dog, IR, chemical analyzers.


So the dogs at airports sniffing for bombs are bad?

Also, just curious, what is your problem with them?  Is it that you believe that they are inaccurate and/or manipulated by their handler or is it that you think that the playing field should be level in the hide and seek criminal game...as in human senses vs. human senses?  Would this continue for as long as there are advances in technology?  Law enforcement can never use any tool other than their innate senses to aid them in looking for anything?  In 100 years whatever technology is built into our clothes / glasses / bodies would need to be turned off so that there is a level playing field in the criminal cat and mouse game?  Interesting to ponder.
 
2013-03-26 04:40:38 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]

You're the one who wants the dog's "word" treated the same as the word of a human partner.


SCOTUS has agreed that it can be treated as such.
 
2013-03-26 04:40:40 PM
Do things like restricting drink sizes, salt content, etc. count?

I'd say no. Mayor Bloomberg is the only person I know that wants to limit people's drink sizes. The rational people I know want to be given information on how much salt is in the food we buy, but as for limiting it in some way, no. As long as people are informed on their food choices, then they can choose whatever they want to buy.

How about supposedly "well intentioned" leftie campaigns against pornography stores, strip clubs?

What?! I think you're confusing "liberals" with "Baptists."

Then we have all the protecting people from themselves nonsense at hand when they rail against liquor stores, bars, menthol cigarettes, fatty foods, etc.

Again, I think you're thinking of Baptists or some other hard-core evangelical group. Show me some liberal group's website that is promoting the banning of liquor stores, bars or menthol cigarettes.

As for the "fatty foods" thing, the only thing I can think of is the banning of trans-fats, not the banning of fatty foods. People have successfully changed the diets of children in our public schools away from such fatty foods, but that was a parent thing, not a liberal thing.
 
2013-03-26 04:42:45 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus:  All the dog is doing is smelling something and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing something and saying to his partner, "hey, look over there at that pot plant on the window sill."

Then the dog should have no problem explaining that on the stand.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x259]

BTW, if a cop could search a location based solely on the word of his human partner, would you support questioning that partner on the stand as to his/her qualifications and to determine accuracy of their senses?


Sure.  Because that "tool" is able to be questioned.  You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted.  Not sure what you're getting at.
 
2013-03-26 04:44:49 PM

Silly Jesus: TwoHead: Silly Jesus: All the dog is doing is smelling something responding to the cue from his trainer and essentially "saying", hey, I smell something I'd like my reward. I don't see that as far off from a human officer seeing  not hearing something and saying to his partner, "Did you hear a scream?" and kicking in the door.

Excellent conspiracy theory.


It would a less compelling conspiracy if counting horses and the like weren't popular frauds.
 
2013-03-26 04:47:27 PM

Silly Jesus: Sure. Because that "tool" is able to be questioned. You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted. Not sure what you're getting at.


You can't question them directly, but you can take them apart and deconstruct the hardware and (at least in some cases) decompile the software to see just how accurate the readings are.
 
2013-03-26 04:58:48 PM

Silly Jesus: pedrop357: Silly Jesus: stonicus: Silly Jesus: Brainsick: Silly Jesus: it's pretty asinine in the sense that an officer (dog) who is legally allowed to be there is essentially being told that he can't use his senses in that location

Officer(dog)
Officer/Dog
Officer Dog

A Dog isn't an officer, can't be reasoned with, can't use arbitration for defense, can't join the union.
(I know you get charged with assaulting an officer if you hurt one, but that's a loophole) A dog is not a person who has judgement and 'uses his senses'. A dog (and by extension, that dog's sensory organs) is a tool, is what I'm trying to say.

The officer's gun is a tool.  As are his handcuffs.  Should he remove those when he legally approaches a porch?The dog is the partner of the K-9 officer.  I don't see it as unreasonable for it to travel with him as a human partner would.

He can take them with him, but he can't use them.

Yeah, that's what they are saying, which is silly.  If the dog's nose is a tool then so are the officer's eyes.  Maybe they should approach doors blindfolded.

Then the dog needs to the stand and explain how he/she knew that what they were smelling was marijuana, as well as explaining any official training they've received.

Not sure if serious.


I smell Irony.  With a human nose that's apparently every bit as good as a dog's.
 
2013-03-26 05:01:06 PM

pedrop357: Silly Jesus: Sure. Because that "tool" is able to be questioned. You can't question an intoxilyzer machine or a radar gun, but the "testimony" of those is accepted. Not sure what you're getting at.

You can't question them directly, but you can take them apart and deconstruct the hardware and (at least in some cases) decompile the software to see just how accurate the readings are.


The software for the intox machines is proprietary and defense attorneys can't analyze it.
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report