Police Need Warrant for Dogs Sniffing Homes, High Court Says

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

I still think they should get a warrant to do the same for a vehicle

 

 

In the opinion for the court, Scalia said the justices didn’t need to decide whether the case raised privacy issues. Bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the door demonstrated that the police were conducting a search in an area protected by the Fourth Amendment, Scalia wrote.

 

 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Police-Need-Warrant-for-Dogs-Sniffing-Homes-High-4385592.php

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

Scalia once again confirms why he is my favorite justice. He is often considered as one of the reliably "conservative" or "right" leaning justices when reality he is one of the most protective of individual liberties even when it comes at the expense of the interests of the state or what are thought of as "conservative" positions.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Can't get much more to the point. Glad to see that one.

[frankmako]

drug dogs are over used these day.  i was going to go into more about this, but i will keep my mouth shut.  

[bigbabysweets]

I got searched when I was pulled over at 16. For some reason the dog hit on a bag of dirty clothes I had changed out of. There I was, 16 on the side of I-26, having a drug dog going to town in the ball sack portion of some dirty boxers. Lol I made some smart comment to the officer and he made me stand with my hands on the hood of his squad car.....

I also read where they are training bees to sniff for drugs. It takes like 15 min to train a bee. Apparently, they put the substance in a lidded cup with sugar water on the lid. After a few attempts the bee associates the sweet water with the smell of the drugs/bomb and sticks its tongue out every time it smells it, expecting to taste sweetness. The just put them under microscopes and when they stick their tongue out, bingo....

It's cheaper and quicker, but what happens when the bee genuinely smells something it wants to eat? Cavity searches all around! Edited March 27, 2013 by bigbabysweets

[Guest PapaB]

I don't think they could ever explain to me, in a satisfactory way, how it's legal to do this to a car but not a house. You either have the right tp privacy within your property or you don't. Allowing a dog to perform a search for you should always require a warrant. I cannot comprehend the idea that you can't search a car without probable cause but you can let a dog do an olfactory search of that car to provide the probable cause you need. SCOTUS got this one right but being right, and consistent too, would be nice.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't think they could ever explain to me, in a satisfactory way, how it's legal to do this to a car but not a house. You either have the right tp privacy within your property or you don't. Allowing a dog to perform a search for you should always require a warrant. I cannot comprehend the idea that you can't search a car without probable cause but you can let a dog do an olfactory search of that car to provide the probable cause you need. SCOTUS got this one right but being right, and consistent too, would be nice.

Because LE have to enter private property before the dog reaches the house. With a car it is on public property so the dog never enters private property while searching. Now if your car was on your property it would require the same rules as your house but on a public roadway not so much.

 

Personally I think LE should not be allowed on or in any part of your private property unless you call, invite them or they have a search warrant. They can stand at the end of the driveway and yell or call for your permission to enter. If they don't get permission to enter then they don't get to enter without a warrant.

 

I also believe the plain view rules should require a warrant to enter anything in order to search. Even if an officer looks into a car or home and sees something they believe is illegal they should be required to get a warrant signed by a judge before they can enter. The reason is they have no clue whether the item is illegal or not unless they are able to physically inspect it and to to do that they must enter which should require a search warrant. If a officer looks in a window and sees a bag he suspects is marijuana he cannot be sure unless he physically inspects it and to inspect it he needs a warrant. He can call a judge and explain he thinks he sees a bag of marijuana in plain view to get a warrant. But the officer cannot enter until he has a warrant in hand. The only exception would be if a life is in danger. There is no way an officer can know if a gun is a real gun or a airsoft gun. They cannot tell whether a bag of white powder is drugs or sugar or flour. They cannot tell whether a bag of green leafy substance is marijuana or some other legal substance. They are assuming the item they are seeing is illegal but they do not know until they test it and that should require a warrant.

 

Dolomite

[Randall53]

The shocker for me was the ones that sided with him. Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg while Roberts, Alto and Kennedy went against....Go figure. Edited March 27, 2013 by Randall53

[RichardR]

Dogs are great tools, but they are not "infallible witnesses" & as such they IMHO should never be considered reliable enough to invalidate a citizen's Constitutional protections.

There needs to be more than "the dog alerted on something" prior to a person's person, home, papers & things being gone through by agents of the State.

My dog is trained to bark on command, as a matter of fact any dog can be trained to bark or scratch or whine on command, that should tell you right there how easy that 4th Amendment can be breached.

Now we have to worry about an officer, looking through a magnifying glass watching a honey bee flick its tounge in/out to determine if we have any privacy rights to the stuff that is in our pockets or not.

*sigh* ...

[Garufa]

If they should turn loose of bunch of bees around me for some reason there's gonna be trouble.  Imagine wildly flailing arms and tourettes-like cussing.

[RichardR]

If they should turn loose of bunch of bees around me for some reason there's gonna be trouble. Imagine wildly flailing arms and tourettes-like cussing.

No bee's for you Garufa, you have your own personal Predator drone keeping an eye on you!

[Guest PapaB]

Dolomite, I still hold that the dog, while standing on public property, is actually searching private property, i.e. your vehicle. The dog's olfactory senses are so acute they can find hidden items in a vehicle. Since the dog is actually a member of law enforcement, he should be kept to the same restrictions as other members of LE.

 

I do think they should be allowed to approach a home under certain circumstances. At my house they could stand on the road with a bullhorn and I wouldn't hear them that far away. Once they start to come up the driveway my sensors will tell me they're approaching but by then they're within 125 yards. There are also times when they're legitimately checking on someones welfare.