Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 6/5/2008 9:07:06 AM EST
Mich. ruling allows K-9 units to sniff without warrant


By Bryn Mickle and Shannon Murphy
The Flint Journal

GENESEE COUNTY, Mich. — Police - or at least K-9 units - now can go sniffing around outside your house even without a warrant.

A recent court ruling said police don't need a search warrant to take drug-sniffing dogs to the front door of homes, as long as they have a tip there are illegal drugs there.


Opponents say the decision whittles away the rights of citizens.

"The Fourth Amendment (protecting privacy at home) is just being eroded case by case," said Flint attorney Jeffrey Clothier.

But Genesee County Sheriff Robert J. Pickell said it gives police another weapon in the war on drugs.

"This will cause some sleepless nights for those people growing marijuana at home," said Pickell.

Don't expect, however, to see the half-dozen drug dogs working in Genesee County randomly trotting through neighborhoods.

The ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals says police can't unleash the dogs unless they have a tip that suggests drugs are inside a house.

If police get that tip, the appeals court has given officers the go ahead to have drug dog sniff around outside the house. They still need to get a search warrant to search inside the home if the dog indicates there are drugs.

The 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling came after a Wayne County judge suppressed evidence and dismissed marijuana possession charges against a Detroit man because he argued the sniffing was an illegal search.

Before the ruling, drug-sniffing dogs could search common areas, such as hotels or apartments, but were prohibited from sniffing for drugs outside of a home without first obtaining a warrant.

Flint resident Gary Metevier, 56, said he has no problem with the court ruling.

"With crime and everything else going on, police need all the leverage they can get," Metevier said. "If they have a reasonable suspicion, I would agree with it."

Clothier worries that police may use the recent ruling to search homes that were never under suspicion of drugs.

"They could basically take the dog up to any house on the block and if the dog hits, they could go in," Clothier said. "This gives police free rein to search."

But Grand Blanc Township police canine handler Sgt. Matt Simpson doesn't believe police will begin randomly walking through neighborhoods with dogs.

"We're not there to see what people are making for dinner," said Simpson. We want something that will guide us in a direction and the dog sniff is just another tool of that."

Flint attorney Erwin F. Meiers III, however, said police still have to prove the case despite what the dog smells.

Meiers said dog tracking alone cannot support a criminal conviction.

"They still have to prove that there was probable cause and that they had reason to believe drugs were there," he said.

The victory for police dogs, however, could be challenged. Muawad Elias, the attorney for the man whose case prompted the appellate ruling, has promised to appeal the Michigan Supreme Court.

"Your home is your castle," Elias told the Associated Press. "The precedent set here is ... dangerous in terms of conduct by law enforcement officials."

Copyright 2008 The Flint Journal

Copyright © 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy


So any TIP and they can search WITHOUT a warrant= bullshit
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:10:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:12:42 AM EST
Waht was supposed to be the last line of defense in liberty short of unspeakable things seems to be leading the attack
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:13:20 AM EST
No sir, I don't like it.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:16:16 AM EST
Another blow to the Bill of Rights brought to you by the War on Drugs.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:16:41 AM EST
What if you live in an area that's designated "high drug activity area"? Does that qualify as PC?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:16:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 9:18:26 AM EST by Bama-Shooter]
<Edit. Bama>
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:23:40 AM EST
DO NOT WANT.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:26:30 AM EST
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.

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:28:34 AM EST
Waiting for the "if you have nothing to hide" BS....
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:28:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By LancerMc:
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.



Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:29:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:30:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 9:32:00 AM EST by Leadbetter]
Bear traps + yard = no k-9 stress
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:31:41 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:31:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:32:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Leadbetter:
Beer traps + yard = no k-9 stress


There's beer traps? Oh shit.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:32:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By LancerMc:
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.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:32:54 AM EST
Great, thanks war on drugs supporters.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:33:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By 4Kilo12:
Waht was supposed to be the last line of defense in liberty short of unspeakable things seems to be leading the attack


so it would seem.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:34:24 AM EST
bad idea
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:35:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Procyon:

yep.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:36:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 9:37:00 AM EST by Mr_Dictionary]
I think the implications are state specific. In some states (like ND), curtilage is considered part of the house, so this action would in fact be an illegal search of your house.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:36:34 AM EST
Where's that thread about the guy who built a 8' concrete wall around his place?


------------



Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:38:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:39:07 AM EST
Motion activated lawn sprinkler, just sayin.



-JTP
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:41:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/5/2008 9:43:54 AM EST by tony555]
Anybody remember how the Supreme Court ruled in the thermal imagining case???

That could weigh heavily on this ruling.


Here toy go
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:41:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By JakeThePimp:
Motion activated lawn sprinkler, just sayin.

yardlover.indigofiles.com/images/ecom/product_images/medium/scarecrow-sprinkler-box.jpg

-JTP


+1, or a gated fence.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:41:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:41:48 AM EST

But Genesee County Sheriff Robert J. Pickell said it gives police another weapon in the war on drugs.


Ah yes, making the job easier for police. Isn't that always the reason?

"Wah. There are too many legal barriers to us doing our jobs even better."
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:42:18 AM EST
I have to imagine there's some chemical out there that drives dogs nuts, makes them sick, distracts them, makes them run away... something. Some folks running grow operations aren't retarded and may employ such things.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:44:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:49:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By tony555:
Anybody remember how the Supreme Court ruled in the thermal imagining case???

That could weigh heavily on this ruling.


Here toy go


Opinion of the Supreme Court
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, attempted to expand citizens’ rights of privacy while dissenting Justices urged the majority of the Court to hold the line on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion believed that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between “off the wall” surveillance and “through the wall” surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a “firm but also bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the “‘entrance to the house’”[1]. This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was “unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment”[2] because according to Scalia’s previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined. Scalia, ever the originalist, interpreted the Fourth Amendment to mean exactly what it states: that the people shall be free from government intrusion in the home.

In the dissent Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the use of thermal imaging does not constitute a search, which requires a warrant, because any person could detect the heat emissions. He argued that this could be done by simply feeling that some areas in or around the house are warmer than others or observing that snow was melting quicker on certain sections of the house. Since the public could gather this information, the dissenting minority believed, there is no need for a warrant and the use of this technique is not unconstitutional. Moreover, Stevens asserted that the use of the thermal imaging device was merely "off the wall" surveillance because it did not detect any "intimate" details of Kyllo's home. Finally, Stevens commented on the absurdity of Kyllo's trying to incorporate something as intangible, fluid and public as heat into the private sphere. He explained, "Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building."

The decision did not break along the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court: the majority opinion was written by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, while Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Stevens dissented.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 9:58:43 AM EST
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
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:05:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By JakeThePimp:
Motion activated lawn sprinkler, just sayin.

yardlover.indigofiles.com/images/ecom/product_images/medium/scarecrow-sprinkler-box.jpg

-JTP




So what happens when they start using bomb-sniffing dogs next... And train them for nitrocellulose... Since it's used in terrorist-bombs, after all...
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:05:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:09:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


A dog trained to sniff drugs is a device used for searching. Dogs don't patrol on their own so it is presumed that they would be used to search.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:12:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lexington:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:12:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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.

Because I like the UPS guy. He brings me stuff. Today he brought me a couple pairs of Tevas. Cops don't bring anything but trouble.

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?

No. Of course not. Way to subjective.

Brian
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:13:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


A dog trained to sniff drugs is a device used for searching. Dogs don't patrol on their own so it is presumed that they would be used to search.


Sniffing the air isn't a search - whether it's around your car, your person or your house.

Brian
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:13:08 AM EST
Hey, is this pot of water getting warmer or is it just me?

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:14:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By sc_beerbarge:
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?

No. Of course not. Way to subjective.


The only real difference between a cop coming to the door and a cop w/dog coming to the door is the dog's much more sensitive nose.

Brian
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:15:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:

Originally Posted By Lexington:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


What he says is true.

Hence why I want my future home to have a Fortified Wall of Doom™ with a 100 yard killzone both in front of it and between it and my house... Great for the future zombie apocalypse and keeps everyone who annoys me at a distance (not just cops... The UPS guys, JW's, and other assorted asshats bother me more... They're always too goddamn curious).
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:15:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Mr_Dictionary:
I think the implications are state specific. In some states (like ND), curtilage is considered part of the house, so this action would in fact be an illegal search of your house.


I thought it was federally defined and refers to the immediate area in common usage surronding the house or any out buildings. ie your storage shed you reguarlly use is covered, the abandoned overgrown barn is not.

Curtilage is a legal term describing the enclosed area of land around a dwelling. It is distinct from the dwelling by virtue of lacking a roof, but distinct from the area outside the enclosure in that it is enclosed within a wall or barrier of some sort.

It is typically treated as being legally coupled with the dwelling it surrounds despite the fact that it might commonly be considered "outdoors".

This distinction is important under US law for cases dealing with burglary and with self defense under the Castle Doctrine. Under Florida law, burglary encompasses the English common-law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, a homeowner does not have to retreat within the curtilage under Florida's Castle Doctrine.

The curtilage (like the home) provides a reasonable expectation of privacy and hence is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Open fields doctrine for how courts distinguish curtilage and "open fields", with the latter not providing privacy.




Open fields doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Open-field (disambiguation).
The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States[1], which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields."[2] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."

This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable'."[4] Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

In Oliver v. United States[5], the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [6]

Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field--whether trespass or not--is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.


[edit] Distinguishing open fields from curtilage
While open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.

An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[7] Courts make this determination by examining "whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by." Theoretically, many structures might extend the curtilage protection to the areas immediately surrounding them. The courts have gone so far as to treat a tent as a home for Fourth Amendment purposes in the past. [9][10][11] It is possible that the area immediately surrounding a tent (or any structure used as a home) might be considered curtilage.

Despite this rather broad interpretation of curtilage, the courts seem willing to find areas to be outside of the curtilage if they are in any way separate from the home (by a fence, great distance, other structures, even certain plants).[12]



There seems to be very large regional differences between states' (and court's) interpretations of what is curtilage. (There is a Supreme Court ruling that curtilage enjoys 4th amendment protections, but definitions of what exactly is curtilage can be modified by states.) Here in ND, they significantly expanded the definition so that more of the farmyard was included (not just the immediate area around the actual dwelling). This change was originally made for tax purposes, but apparently had applications in other areas.

In relatively urban areas, you're going to have difficulty getting 3-4 acres declared as curtilage, but here that's considered a moderately sized yard. We also have some interesting laws regarding trespassing that come into play. Hell, we still have unmodified open-range laws.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:17:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:

Originally Posted By Leadbetter:
Beer traps + yard = no k-9 stress


There's beer traps? Oh shit.


Those terrorists have been getting more and more clever.

Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:21:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
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
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:34:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By brian4wd:

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


A dog trained to sniff drugs is a device used for searching. Dogs don't patrol on their own so it is presumed that they would be used to search.


Sniffing the air isn't a search - whether it's around your car, your person or your house.

Brian


That's bullshit. I don't care how legal it is, using a device that is sensitive to a particular item and wandering around looking for it "by chance" is disingenuous. How long before they use it on CCW holders since only LEOs can "safely" carry weapons?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:36:09 AM EST
How many police dogs are trained to give false alerts?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:37:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


A dog trained to sniff drugs is a device used for searching. Dogs don't patrol on their own so it is presumed that they would be used to search.


Sniffing the air isn't a search - whether it's around your car, your person or your house.

Brian


That's bullshit. I don't care how legal it is, using a device that is sensitive to a particular item and wandering around looking for it "by chance" is disingenuous. How long before they use it on CCW holders since only LEOs can "safely" carry weapons?


See my post above. SC ruled that canvasing a neighborhood with thermal imagining is unconstitutional without a warrant. The K9 thing will eventually be ruled the same.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:38:38 AM EST
{JBT} Any infringement on your rights is acceptable in the war on drugs! How dare you protest warrantless dog searches around the outside of your house? It's not like we're installing cameras in your houses.....yet. {JBT}

Hooray war on drugs.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:44:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By tony555:

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:

Originally Posted By Troubl3shooter:

Originally Posted By brian4wd:
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


A dog trained to sniff drugs is a device used for searching. Dogs don't patrol on their own so it is presumed that they would be used to search.


Sniffing the air isn't a search - whether it's around your car, your person or your house.

Brian


That's bullshit. I don't care how legal it is, using a device that is sensitive to a particular item and wandering around looking for it "by chance" is disingenuous. How long before they use it on CCW holders since only LEOs can "safely" carry weapons?


See my post above. SC ruled that canvasing a neighborhood with thermal imagining is unconstitutional without a warrant. The K9 thing will eventually be ruled the same.


I know, but the mindset that what isn't proscribed is allowed should only apply to personal rights not public servants in the pursuit of further funding and better toys.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:45:41 AM EST
Against and I might shoot my first dog.....I will feel bad doing it too.

It is like I tell you policeman X he has pot in there.

Policeman X goes in with my expert eye witness informant tip

No pot in there but I did scare ex girlfriends parents.

What charges are there for informants people who say they have seen something but nothing is found?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top