Say Anything Blog

This doesn’t just end with drug dogs sniffing your house. I has a lot to do with the police’s ability to take items under forfeiture (the police are allowed to retain any items that the dog points as having come into contact with an illicit substance). The case with the cars was especially crazy--cops in Florida were stopping cars on I-95 for speeding or traffic violations and allowing the dogs to sniff inside, on the consent of the driver (because, hey, if you don’t have drugs in the car, what’s the harm in letting the dog sniff, right?). Because about 90% of paper money comes into contact with cocaine at some point in its life, the dogs would immediately point on the money, whether the guy being sniffed had drugs in the car or not. The police, under Florida forfeiture laws could then just take the money, because it was involved in the commission of a crime--a traffic violation. The Florida police collected millions.

The same is kinda true for the home stuff. A lot of times it is very difficult for the police to obtain search warrants for homes that they know belong to drug dealers--once in a while the police do funny things to get inside like place anonymous 9-1-1 calls, or something. Now, the police don’t need a warrant to search your house--all they need is a reasonable suspicion that you might be committing a crime inside(kinda hard for them to have with you in a house and all). Just knowing a drug dealer is in the house isn’t reasonable suspicion. A drug dog hitting on a house is. So they bring out the drug dog.

It isn’t the death of the 4th Amendment (its freedom from searches and seizures, not “privacy” though--privacy is supposedly in the 9th Amendment). It is shady though, and kinda leads one to believe that the drug interdiction policy is a little out of hand.

Let’s look at this a moment.

Suppose a drug sniffing dog passes by your home and reacts to what its handler perceives to be an indication of drugs.  The police enter your home, conduct a more detailed search and find no drugs.

Has a reasonable search been performed? No.  Have your rights under the 4A been violated? Absolutely.

You really have to question why Rob so willingly forfeit his civil liberties based on a dog getting excited about smelling a squirrel or something.

nd this opens up another whole can of worms when new technologies are created.  For example, this case has implications for thermal imagers or other imaging technologies.  Are you willing to allow law enforcement to randomly and `arbitrarily ‘peek’ into your home without suspicion of illegality?

Damn! This is a rare day! I have got to agree on this. If a cop is on my property without a warrant HE is in violation of the law. The whole issue of K-9 teams at traffic stops or randomly patrolling citizens homes is very troubling. If you don’t have grounds to obtain a warrant, then don’t try to backdoor through some questionable practices. As for the reliability of K-9s, a good handler can get a “hit” when and where they want. Good comment E.M., well said, JG. I am just as shocked as you, Mule!

I’m agreeing with Jadegold?  Somebody get this on film!

The question is, are they on my property?  If yes, then it’s illegal.  If no, then it’s not.

If the dog ‘hitting’ on something he/she smells in the air can convince a judge to issue a search warrant, so be it (tho I think a good attorney could win that one in court).

If the dog hitting on something is used to then enter my house for a warrantless search, we have a problem.

To Zanotti’s point, as long as they’re not in/on my property the dog can sniff all he/she wants.

I’m really with Jadegold on the new technologies issue.  Anything that let’s you ‘see’ inside my property without my permission scares the bejesus outta me.

All of the above is separate from the ‘in plain view’ doctrine that the courts have already ruled as permissable.

Regards…

Warrantless searches of open fields ,even those fenced and locked, is permitted.
“the Fourth Amendment protect “curtilage” the area to whichextends the intimate activities associated with the sanctity of the home. The court in U.S. v. Dunn had explained that the factors to determine whether an area is curtilage relate to the proximity to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure around the home, the nature of the uses of the area, and the steps taken to protect it. These factors were approved in Oliver. “

Apparently this is not so any longer.

The real question is why anyone would accept the ambiguous testimony off a DOG.  “Rover says there is contraband present or “It’s BACON”!!!

WOOF Out.

Oh my god. Jadegold and I agree. What is this? A sign of the coming apocalypse, thinks I. It is unreasonable. And I defend government actions all the time. Then again, I’m not into the War on Drugs, so personal preference might be showing there.

JG--the Supreme court is struggling right now with the issue of technological surveillance. The Patriot Act kind screwed over their authority on that, but make no mistake, we’ll be hearing about it.

WOOF--curtilage is a fairly old principle. Its one of those things that the Court determines on a case-by-case basis, whether its been violated or not.

Note that there were a number of garbage bag seizure cases where garbage bags taken from a closed garage were found to be lawful searches.  Viewed in light of the discretion the courts grant law enforcement in this area, and how strict Katz appeared to be when it was decided, I would say that yes, the Fourth Amendment is eroding to the pre-Katz era.

Ha ha, I think everyone is against Rob on this one…

I was gonna type the “I agree with JG???” thing but that’s what everyone’s doing, so I’ll just say it isn’t every day that I agree with Ruth Bater Ginsberg… :-D

Anytime the police search my house, or around my house, or under or in my house, without prior suspicion of a SPECIFIC crime being commited, we have a problem.

Oh well.  People disagree with me.  I don’t much care.  My opinions are what they are.

For the record, I clearly pointed out in the post that I was for this as long as the police do not trespass on my property prior to obtaining a warrant.  Further, I also feel that they must obtain a warrant in order to actually enter the home.  Same goes for the car.  It usually doesn’t take that long to get a warrant, so that shouldn’t be too much of a hardship for the officers even if the property they’re waiting to enter is a vehicle.

As for thermal imaging, I’m with you guys on that.  “Seeing” into a home is clearly off limits, though not if you leave a window open and I’m standing on public property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: