Will Supreme Court turn up its nose at drug-sniffing dogs?

[Crumley25]

I could think of alot better things to go to court on. I bet it was a drug dealer that brought this up.


http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-turn-nose-dog-sniffs-110522793.html

 

[gh1950]

I could think of alot better things to go to court on. I bet it was a drug dealer that brought this up.


http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-turn-nose-dog-sniffs-110522793.html

Who else would bring it up?

In both cases, if there had been no "alert" there would be no case.

 

[timbgtm]

Only those doing illegal activities should be worried.But on the other hand I don't agree with searching outside a home w/o a warrant.LEO's should have secured a warrant for search if the evidence was strong enough.

 

[jmullinix]

I think that there is a concern. I buy and build wrecked cars, but the same issue could apply with a used car.

The car you just bought had a previous owner that sold drugs from the car. You get stopped at a road block and the dog alerts. Where do we go from here. You are not a dealer and, other than the dog alerted, the officer has no probable cause.

 

[gh1950]

Only those doing illegal activities should be worried.

The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to protect persons engaged in illegal activities. People not engaged in illegal activities generally don't need the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

All of the drafters of the Constitution were engaged had been engaged in illegal activities and were outlaws.

 

[awjohnson2]

The whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to protect persons engaged in illegal activities. People not engaged in illegal activities generally don't need the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

I disagree. If we had no protection under the 4th amendment then anything you own could be seized without cause. How would you like to cops to show up at your house and search it just for gp? I wouldn't. I have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I want someone rumaging through my things.

 

[dunkel]

When they were talking about this on the radio, they said that only about half of "alerts" turned up actual drugs or drug paraphernalia. Hell, you'd have a better chance with simple random searches, I'd think.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

let's see here, a dog barking because he suspects you have an illegal PLANT, or substance give police the power to violate ones fourth amendment right? I think thomas jefferson would ***** slap the idiot who came up with that idea if he could.

 

[chucklenut]

dogs are not a reasonable cause for search. they are animals, albeit amazing and talented animals for some things, but as far as using them as probable cause to enter a residence......nope

a car, maybe, but then again cops can train the dog to "find"something given a signal they use

to ambiguous and not clear enough.

 

[gh1950]

I disagree. If we had no protection under the 4th amendment then anything you own could be seized without cause. How would you like to cops to show up at your house and search it just for gp? I wouldn't. I have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I want someone rumaging through my things.

Disagree all you want, what I said is history.