All u.s. citizens are guilty in this country until proven innocent.

Quoted: Against and I might shoot my first dog.....I will feel bad doing it too.

That would end well for you.  If you don't get shot by the officer handling the dog you will probably spend every last cent you have trying to beat an attempted murder charge that they will slap you with for shooting in the direction of the officer.

Interesting point: Any dog can be trained to give a "false" alert.
If they want in, to check your guns or whatever, now we "claim" an informant gives info to justify the dog, then we do a "false" alert by the dog, bingo we're in for a search.

I find it curious that the Bildeberg Society is meeting in Virginia this week.
I hear there is a large military FEMA drill being run in Indianapolis, home of one of the largest FEMA camps, complete with gas incinerators and rail lines, helicopter landing pads and even "red" zone, "blue" zone signs............kiss your rights goodbye. This country is so gone.

Quoted: Interesting point: Any dog can be trained to give a "false" alert. If they want in, to check your guns or whatever, now we "claim" an informant gives info to justify the dog, then we do a "false" alert by the dog, bingo we're in for a search. I find it curious that the Bildeberg Society is meeting in Virginia this week. I hear there is a large military FEMA drill being run in Indianapolis, home of one of the largest FEMA camps, complete with gas incinerators and rail lines, helicopter landing pads and even "red" zone, "blue" zone signs............kiss your rights goodbye. This country is so gone.

Quoted: Interesting point: Any dog can be trained to give a "false" alert. If they want in, to check your guns or whatever, now we "claim" an informant gives info to justify the dog, then we do a "false" alert by the dog, bingo we're in for a search. I find it curious that the Bildeberg Society is meeting in Virginia this week. I hear there is a large military FEMA drill being run in Indianapolis, home of one of the largest FEMA camps, complete with gas incinerators and rail lines, helicopter landing pads and even "red" zone, "blue" zone signs............kiss your rights goodbye. This country is so gone.

Dude, the tinfoil is cutting off the flow of blood to your head.

As to this ruling, I don't like it, but the legal reasoning behind it is solid.

Along we stroll down the path towards tyranny.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Against. Wait what, I thought you were all about trampling citizens rights...I don't understand... I don't have a problem with knock and talks. bringing along the K9 is a bit much, IMO.

Agreed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This will go the same way as using thermal images to look for grow houses. Provided it gets appealed.  There is already existing precedence that will prevail here. Still an illegal search. Technically the cops have to trespass to do this. Its not like their in "hot pursuit" when they walk the pooch up to your door. If the property isn't posted and there is no gate/fence preventing Joe Random Citizen from accessing your front door please explain how a cop would be trespassing BEFORE you ask him/her to leave? Brian You can acess my front door only for legitimate business with me, it ain't a public park.  Wandering around my property for the purpose of a search is trespassing, and and invitation to get shot. Smith v Texas (125 S. Ct. 1726 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear this case on appeal from the State of Texas. By refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court let the ruling from the Texas court stand: Defendant’s privacy interests were not invaded when officer walked up the defendant’s driveway to allow drug dog to sniff defendant’s garage door, and thus drug dog sniff did not constitute improper search. Anyone approaching defendant’s house would have walked up the driveway and passed near the garage in order to reach the entrance of the house. Drug dog did not represent an enhancement of officer’s senses. The drug dog sniff did not explore the details of the house but merely revealed the presence of contraband. Record supporting finding that drug dog was well-trained, and thus dog sniff of the garage door did not constitute improper search. The dog was certified by a state canine association and the dog continued to be trained after certification. Warrant to search defendant’s house was supported by probable cause when the drug dog alerted after sniffing the garage door. Thanks Troubl3, If that is the law then that is the law.  I definatley don't like it and think it is a big step backward for the freedoms that have made this country great, and the erosion of which will contribute to our downfall.  Maybe a future supreme court will reconsider.

My biggest arguments here are going to be arguing from an ethical perspective instead of a legalistic one.

Quoted: United States v Donnelly (475 F. 3d 946 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit

Bummer #1.

Quoted: Smith v Texas (125 S. Ct. 1726 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court

Bummer #2.

I guess that shoots me down.

Quoted: Quoted: United States v Donnelly (475 F. 3d 946 (2007) U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit Bummer #1. Quoted: Smith v Texas (125 S. Ct. 1726 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court Bummer #2. I guess that shoots me down.

Yeah

Sorry

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dogs nose isn't specialized equipment like a thermal imager - K-9s can already sniff around a car w/o warrant as long as the t-stop doesn't take any longer than 'normal' because of the dog. Brian If the K9 isn't considered equipment then what is it? You have a reduced expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle, totally different circumstances compared to a dwelling. K9 isn't like a thermal imager, directional antenna, binoculars etc - those are specialized pieces of equipment.   Brian You didn't answer the question.  What is a K9??

It's a trained dog.  Is a seeing eye or assistance dog 'specialized equipment' or is it simply a well trained dog.  IMO 'specialized equipment' is something that is specifically DESIGNED for a particular application - a K9 wasn't designed specifically for sniffing drugs/bombs or officer protection.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: You didn't answer the question.  What is a K9?? Apparently the K9 is an officer if you kill it and a piece of meat if an officer leaves it in a hot car to die.

Got any evidence to support your claim that a K9 is treated the same as an officer if a suspect kills the K9 in the line of duty?  I'll wait.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Against. Wait what, I thought you were all about trampling citizens rights...I don't understand... I don't have a problem with knock and talks. bringing along the K9 is a bit much, IMO.

Serious question - Why is the K9 too much on a knock & talk?  Do you have an issue with a foot patrol officer having a K9 w/him?

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You didn't answer the question.  What is a K9?? Apparently the K9 is an officer if you kill it and a piece of meat if an officer leaves it in a hot car to die. Got any evidence to support your claim that a K9 is treated the same as an officer if a suspect kills the K9 in the line of duty?  I'll wait. Brian

I believe he was referring to something like this:

Police working animals

It's funny how there's no reciprocity for shooting citizen's animals.

843.19  Offenses against police dogs, fire dogs, SAR dogs, or police horses.--

(1)  As used in this section, the term:

(a)  "Police dog" means any dog, and "police horse" means any horse, that is owned, or the service of which is employed, by a law enforcement agency for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of criminal activity, enforcement of laws, or apprehension of offenders.

(b)  "Fire dog" means any dog that is owned, or the service of which is employed, by a fire department, a special fire district, or the State Fire Marshal for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of flammable materials or the investigation of fires.

(c)  "SAR dog" means any search and rescue dog that is owned, or the service of which is utilized, by a fire department, a law enforcement agency, a special fire district, or the State Fire Marshal for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of missing persons, including, but not limited to, persons who are lost, who are trapped under debris as the result of a natural, manmade, or technological disaster, or who are drowning victims.

(2)  Any person who intentionally and knowingly, without lawful cause or justification, causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or death to, or uses a deadly weapon upon, a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)  Any person who actually and intentionally maliciously touches, strikes, or causes bodily harm to a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(4)  Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5)  A person convicted of an offense under this section shall make restitution for injuries caused to the police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse and shall pay the replacement cost of the animal if, as a result of the offense, the animal can no longer perform its duties.

And this

And this

And others

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is a cop w/K-9 walking up to your door any different than the UPS guy walking up to your door?  It's not.  Doesn't sound like the K-9 can walk the perimeter of the dwelling or go onto the property to sniff other buildings. If a cop walks up to the front door and smells MJ is that grounds for a search warrant w/o complaints from the arfcom brigade? Brian Wrong. It is different. The UPS guy has a purpose for being there to fulfill the contracted service he provides. The police have no such invitation. Then put up a fence/gate around your front yard - if UPS/Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts/Etc can 'legally' access your front door so can a cop. Brian

NOT!

If you have a package sent to you by UPS to your home, then as part of the contract for delivery is for the UPS guy to bring it to your door.

If a cop wants to walk a dog around your house to try and see if it alerts, without good and sufficient cause (which would be the same good and sufficient cause to get a warrant), what gives him permission to do so? NOTHING!

Always wanting to increase job security?

Quoted: Quoted: If the house is my property they better have a warrant. Though if a person lives in rental property and the owner of the property gives consent then there nothing I can do about it. Police do not need a warrant to go onto your property. A rental property owner cannot give consent to search your leased property.

Scuse?

Unless they have a warrant, they have NO right to be on yours or anyone else's property. And you have every right to tell them to leave.

What are they going to do if you have a gated driveway?  Just open your gate and let themselves on in?

Quoted: Quoted: Great, thanks war on drugs supporters.   You are welcome! Dopers belong in prison.

Tell that to the Founfing Fathers, some of whom grew weed! And thank them for using hemp paper to write the Constitution and Bill of Rights so so they are still here on the original document for you to piss on!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is a cop w/K-9 walking up to your door any different than the UPS guy walking up to your door?  It's not.  Doesn't sound like the K-9 can walk the perimeter of the dwelling or go onto the property to sniff other buildings. If a cop walks up to the front door and smells MJ is that grounds for a search warrant w/o complaints from the arfcom brigade? Brian Wrong. It is different. The UPS guy has a purpose for being there to fulfill the contracted service he provides. The police have no such invitation. Then put up a fence/gate around your front yard - if UPS/Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts/Etc can 'legally' access your front door so can a cop. Brian NOT! If you have a package sent to you by UPS to your home, then as part of the contract for delivery is for the UPS guy to bring it to your door. If a cop wants to walk a dog around your house to try and see if it alerts, without good and sufficient cause (which would be the same good and sufficient cause to get a warrant), what gives him permission to do so? NOTHING! Always wanting to increase job security?

If your average person goes walking around in your yard right next to your house, walking right by your doors and windows, what do you suppose his purpose is?  

If I see anyone doing that, I'm going to tell them to leave.

Quoted: -snip- The K-9 isn't sensitive to a particular item - it's been trained to alert the handler when it smells a particular item using it's 'god given' senses.So,is it trained tosniff out pot, or is it given the gift by God? Dogs have to be trained to respond to a particular odor. Hence it falls into a technological catagory. If a dog just naturally reponded to the odor of pot, then it would be using it's 'God given sense'. In this particular case the courts said the LEO must have a 'tip' before using the K-9. Oh, you mean the baseless 'tip' that is NEVER used to secure a warrant? Is it disingenous for a cop to use better than average eyesight/hearing/smell when walking around? If a COP has the ability, then no. But if he is using a tool to give him that advantage, then yes The only issue here is coming to the front door - and even then that's not a trespass/violation of the 4A in ~99.9% of situations.If a person has no buisness being there, how is it NOT tresspass? Brian

Quoted: Quoted: -snip- The K-9 isn't sensitive to a particular item - it's been trained to alert the handler when it smells a particular item using it's 'god given' senses.So,is it trained tosniff out pot, or is it given the gift by God? Dogs have to be trained to respond to a particular odor. Hence it falls into a technological catagory. If a dog just naturally reponded to the odor of pot, then it would be using it's 'God given sense'. In this particular case the courts said the LEO must have a 'tip' before using the K-9. Oh, you mean the baseless 'tip' that is NEVER used to secure a warrant? Is it disingenous for a cop to use better than average eyesight/hearing/smell when walking around? If a COP has the ability, then no. But if he is using a tool to give him that advantage, then yes The only issue here is coming to the front door - and even then that's not a trespass/violation of the 4A in ~99.9% of situations.If a person has no buisness being there, how is it NOT tresspass? Brian

I'm pretty sure it is tresspass if you tell them to leave and they don't.  IANAL and I think that may vary by state.

Quoted: NOT! If you have a package sent to you by UPS to your home, then as part of the contract for delivery is for the UPS guy to bring it to your door. UPS won't bring it to the front door if there is a locked gate in the way.... If a cop wants to walk a dog around your house to try and see if it alerts, without good and sufficient cause (which would be the same good and sufficient cause to get a warrant), what gives him permission to do so? NOTHING! Pretty sure the article was specific about coming to the front door (or other areas that are readily accessible to the public at large) - see the previous case about the dog alerting on the garage door.  The police DO NOT have authority to enter the back yard or other 'secured' areas. What is 'good & sufficient' cause?  Anybody can walk up to your unfenced/secured front door and knock on it or stand there - until you order the person to vacate your gonna have a hard time pressing trespassing charges. Always wanting to increase job security? Nothing to do with job security.  I just enjoy listening to some of you guys try to spin what you don't have a clue about.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You didn't answer the question.  What is a K9?? Apparently the K9 is an officer if you kill it and a piece of meat if an officer leaves it in a hot car to die. Got any evidence to support your claim that a K9 is treated the same as an officer if a suspect kills the K9 in the line of duty?  I'll wait. Brian I believe he was referring to something like this: Police working animals It's funny how there's no reciprocity for shooting citizen's animals. 843.19  Offenses against police dogs, fire dogs, SAR dogs, or police horses.-- (1)  As used in this section, the term: (a)  "Police dog" means any dog, and "police horse" means any horse, that is owned, or the service of which is employed, by a law enforcement agency for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of criminal activity, enforcement of laws, or apprehension of offenders. (b)  "Fire dog" means any dog that is owned, or the service of which is employed, by a fire department, a special fire district, or the State Fire Marshal for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of flammable materials or the investigation of fires. (c)  "SAR dog" means any search and rescue dog that is owned, or the service of which is utilized, by a fire department, a law enforcement agency, a special fire district, or the State Fire Marshal for the principal purpose of aiding in the detection of missing persons, including, but not limited to, persons who are lost, who are trapped under debris as the result of a natural, manmade, or technological disaster, or who are drowning victims. (2)  Any person who intentionally and knowingly, without lawful cause or justification, causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or death to, or uses a deadly weapon upon, a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (3)  Any person who actually and intentionally maliciously touches, strikes, or causes bodily harm to a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (4)  Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (5)  A person convicted of an offense under this section shall make restitution for injuries caused to the police dog, fire dog, SAR dog, or police horse and shall pay the replacement cost of the animal if, as a result of the offense, the animal can no longer perform its duties. And this And this And others

Sorry, I don't have a problem with increased penalities/protections for people or animals acting in the course of official duties.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the house is my property they better have a warrant. Though if a person lives in rental property and the owner of the property gives consent then there nothing I can do about it. Police do not need a warrant to go onto your property. A rental property owner cannot give consent to search your leased property. Scuse? Unless they have a warrant, they have NO rightauthority to be on yours or anyone else's property after being told to vacate the 'public' areas of the property - ie the front walkway to the front door. And you have every right to tell them to leave. What are they going to do if you have a gated driveway?  Just open your gate and let themselves on in?

Brian

A police dog is no different than a police cruiser or a set of cuffs or a department issue gun.

Its property.  Just like your dog.  Or anyone else's dog.

Flame on.

End the insane war on drugs.

Quoted: Quoted: -snip- The K-9 isn't sensitive to a particular item - it's been trained to alert the handler when it smells a particular item using it's 'god given' senses.So,is it trained tosniff out pot, or is it given the gift by God? Dogs have to be trained to respond to a particular odor. Hence it falls into a technological catagory. If a dog just naturally reponded to the odor of pot, then it would be using it's 'God given sense'. In this particular case the courts said the LEO must have a 'tip' before using the K-9. Oh, you mean the baseless 'tip' that is NEVER used to secure a warrant? Is it disingenous for a cop to use better than average eyesight/hearing/smell when walking around? If a COP has the ability, then no. But if he is using a tool to give him that advantage, then yes The only issue here is coming to the front door - and even then that's not a trespass/violation of the 4A in ~99.9% of situations.If a person has no buisness being there, how is it NOT tresspass? Brian

Guy walks up to your front door, stands there for a second and turns and leaves (because he realized it's not his buddies house).  Was that trespassing?  Generally, the front walk/door is considered 'public' and it isn't trespassing unless it's posted and/or the person is told to leave and refuses.

Brian

Quoted: A police dog is no different than a police cruiser or a set of cuffs or a department issue gun. Its property.  Just like your dog.  Or anyone else's dog. Flame on.

Except the dog is doing a job that society has deemed to require additional 'protection' due to the nature of the job - ie potential for violence against the dog.

Do you honestly believe someone that clubs an on-duty/in uniform officer over the head while the officer is trying to put on cuffs on drunk should only face 'standard' battery charges/penalities?

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: A police dog is no different than a police cruiser or a set of cuffs or a department issue gun. Its property.  Just like your dog.  Or anyone else's dog. Flame on. Except the dog is doing a job that society has deemed to require additional 'protection' due to the nature of the job - ie potential for violence against the dog. Do you honestly believe someone that clubs an on-duty/in uniform officer over the head while the officer is trying to put on cuffs on drunk should only face 'standard' battery charges/penalities? Brian

No.  That would be assault with a weapon.  Not a trivial offense, regardless of whom it is committed against.  That would be assault and interfering with blah blah.

I don't think you understood the nature of my flame.  I don't consider property to be a person.  And you can't be a policeman if you aren't a man.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: -snip- The K-9 isn't sensitive to a particular item - it's been trained to alert the handler when it smells a particular item using it's 'god given' senses.So,is it trained tosniff out pot, or is it given the gift by God? Dogs have to be trained to respond to a particular odor. Hence it falls into a technological catagory. If a dog just naturally reponded to the odor of pot, then it would be using it's 'God given sense'. In this particular case the courts said the LEO must have a 'tip' before using the K-9. Oh, you mean the baseless 'tip' that is NEVER used to secure a warrant? Is it disingenous for a cop to use better than average eyesight/hearing/smell when walking around? If a COP has the ability, then no. But if he is using a tool to give him that advantage, then yes The only issue here is coming to the front door - and even then that's not a trespass/violation of the 4A in ~99.9% of situations.If a person has no buisness being there, how is it NOT tresspass? Brian Guy walks up to your front door, stands there for a second and turns and leaves (because he realized it's not his buddies house).  Was that trespassing?  Generally, the front walk/door is considered 'public' and it isn't trespassing unless it's posted and/or the person is told to leave and refuses. Brian

What we were taught in school is "Can the UPS/Mail/Jehovah's witnesses go there when their delivering stuff"

If yes, we can go there without a warrant, if No then we need a warrant.

Just another ruling to circumvent those pesky Constitutional Amendments for the sake of the War of *some* Drugs.

Quoted: So which is a trespass and which isn't - have you given the Scouts implied consent, what about Jehovah's Witness? A cop walking up to your front door is not trespassing 99.9% of the time. Heck, what if it was fireman? Brian

Simple, if you were not invited or not wanted its trespassing and I will demand you get the fuck off my property. That includes the UPS guy, the Girlscouts, Jehavoah Witnesses, everyone.

Quoted: -snip- Sorry, I don't have a problem with increased penalities/protections for people or animals acting in the course of official duties. Brian

So, should there be an increased penalty for hitting a police car in an accident, or for making a cop soil his uniform? After those items are used in the course of official duties......

Quoted: If the house is my property they better have a warrant. Though if a person lives in rental property and the owner of the property gives consent then there nothing I can do about it.

Police need a search warrant to search apartments as well.

Quoted: Quoted: Tell that to many of those college students out there. Students that live in student housing have no rights. I was an RA for 2 1/2 years. Student would always try to use the warrant rule and doesn't apply to them. State laws on this topic maybe different. They signed away those rights as part of the housing contract.

Thats why I'd never live in on-campus housing. I don't have to worry about it now but a lot of universities force freshmen to live in dorms, they don't have a choice

Quoted: Quoted: Dogs nose isn't specialized equipment like a thermal imager - K-9s can already sniff around a car w/o warrant as long as the t-stop doesn't take any longer than 'normal' because of the dog. Brian If the K9 isn't considered equipment then what is it? You have a reduced expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle, totally different circumstances compared to a dwelling.

thats what this is, an attempt to put your home on the same 4th amendment footing as a vehicle

Anonomous caller:  "I'd like to report that the whole neighborhood I live in is growing pot!"

Police dispatcher:  "Release the hounds!"



Yeah, no way this could ever be abused!    And then there is only "the word" from the K9 handler that the dog alerted.

Quoted: Against.

Nah, I think we just need to put in anonymous tips on every politician's house in the state.  Solve that real quick, and probably get a few crooks off the street.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A police dog is no different than a police cruiser or a set of cuffs or a department issue gun. Its property.  Just like your dog.  Or anyone else's dog. Flame on. Except the dog is doing a job that society has deemed to require additional 'protection' due to the nature of the job - ie potential for violence against the dog. Do you honestly believe someone that clubs an on-duty/in uniform officer over the head while the officer is trying to put on cuffs on drunk should only face 'standard' battery charges/penalities? Brian No.  That would be assault with a weapon.  Not a trivial offense, regardless of whom it is committed against.  That would be assault and interfering with blah blah. I don't think you understood the nature of my flame.  I don't consider property to be a person.  And you can't be a policeman if you aren't a man.

Despite arfcom's attempts to create reality from fiction, K9's are not treated the same as a human police officer.

Brian

Quoted: What we were taught in school is "Can the UPS/Mail/Jehovah's witnesses go there when their delivering stuff" If yes, we can go there without a warrant, if No then we need a warrant.

+1

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: So which is a trespass and which isn't - have you given the Scouts implied consent, what about Jehovah's Witness? A cop walking up to your front door is not trespassing 99.9% of the time. Heck, what if it was fireman? Brian Simple, if you were not invited or not wanted its trespassing and I will demand you get the fuck off my property. That includes the UPS guy, the Girlscouts, Jehavoah Witnesses, everyone.

At least in CA it's trespassing if the person refuses to leave when ordered to do so - it's not trespassing just by being on the property (unless posted in accordance with whatever regulations are controlling). Basically, the person has to be told to leave.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: -snip- Sorry, I don't have a problem with increased penalities/protections for people or animals acting in the course of official duties. Brian So, should there be an increased penalty for hitting a police car in an accident, or for making a cop soil his uniform? After those items are used in the course of official duties......

Come back to reality and we'll discuss - there's a big difference between knowingly attacking a LEO/FF/EMS to prevent them from fulfilling their duties and a traffic collision w/zero intent.

Brian

Quoted: Quoted: Hey, is this pot of water getting warmer or is it just me? I would say 'no'.  I don't see a significant difference between a K-9 sniffing around a car, person or front door AS LONG AS the Officer/K-9 have the authority/right to be there.   Somewhat of an example:  Bob Smith lives on a corner lot with a 5 ft fence bordering the sidewalk.  Bob is growing a new non-stinky type of  MJ in his backyard.  I'm walking a foot beat with my partner who is a 4'11" female - she can't see over the fence but for whatever reason I happen to look over the fence, I'm 6'4", and see 15 fully mature MJ plants.  We contact Bob and end up arresting him for his grow operation because he doesn't have a Medical MJ card that allows him to grow 15 plants for 'personal' use. Was it an illegal search?  Nope.  I was in a place I was allowed to be and didn't take any extraordinary measures to peer over the fence.  Now, my 4'11" partner couldn't claim that she hadn't taken extraordinary measures and it would be an illegal search on her part (most likely). Brian

so, are you saying that being tall is like being a domesticated animal?

or are you saying that being tall is the same as having a super-human sense of smell?

if it's neither, you'd better get back to us with a better analogy from the land where police officers like to tackle and beat frail old women in storm ravaged areas of the US...

I admittedly have not read the decision in issue here but it seems that it may run afoul of Kyllo v. United States.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: -snip- Sorry, I don't have a problem with increased penalities/protections for people or animals acting in the course of official duties. Brian So, should there be an increased penalty for hitting a police car in an accident, or for making a cop soil his uniform? After those items are used in the course of official duties...... Come back to reality and we'll discuss - there's a big difference between knowingly attacking a LEO/FF/EMS to prevent them from fulfilling their duties and a traffic collision w/zero intent. Brian

LE put a DOG on the same level as a LEO with the enhanced penalties, so way not make your soiled underoos have the same 'enhanced penalty?

I think it would be best if the .gov would just quarter a agent in my home.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: -snip- Sorry, I don't have a problem with increased penalities/protections for people or animals acting in the course of official duties. Brian So, should there be an increased penalty for hitting a police car in an accident, or for making a cop soil his uniform? After those items are used in the course of official duties...... Come back to reality and we'll discuss - there's a big difference between knowingly attacking a LEO/FF/EMS to prevent them from fulfilling their duties and a traffic collision w/zero intent. Brian LE put a DOG on the same level as a LEO with the enhanced penalties, so way not make your soiled underoos have the same 'enhanced penalty?

The legistlature passed the bills, not the police.  Show me one state that has the same penalty for killing a police dog and killing a police officer.  I'll wait.

It says more about the decline of parts of society than anything when laws have to be enacted that require stiffer penalties for acts against LE/FF/EMS/Meter readers/school teachers/etc/etc.

Can you bring the topic back to reality or are you going to continue to go down the absuridty path?

Brian