Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Colts fan & Stoker owner
Joined
·
8,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, it looks like the Supreme Court still recognizes the Fourth Ammendment - they just ruled the use of drug sniffing dogs, prior to the issuance of a warrant, to be unconstitutional. In other words, police can no longer use a dog to sniff around without first getting a warrant, as a means of creating probable cause to get a warrant - they now must have probable cause, and a warrant, to deploy the dog.

I wonder what this will mean for motorists. Most courts have seen the sanctity of one's car to be pretty darn near equal to that of one's home. It's not to be searched without a warrant, which cannot be obtained without probable cause. Seems to me that if police can no longer use dogs without a warrant at one's home, they probably cannot do so with one's car, either. No more holding motorists at the side of the road, awaiting the arrival of the dog, if they need a warrant to deploy the dog in the first place.

I see this as a significant victory for our liberty over the continued over reach of the police state. Score one for the good guys.


Supreme Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search | Politics | The Seattle Times
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,300 Posts
Police can and will do whatever they want , honestly , they will find a way around this as they always do ! In this world it's "us and them "
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,975 Posts
Well, it looks like the Supreme Court still recognizes the Fourth Ammendment - they just ruled the use of drug sniffing dogs, prior to the issuance of a warrant, to be unconstitutional. In other words, police can no longer use a dog to sniff around without first getting a warrant, as a means of creating probable cause to get a warrant - they now must have probable cause, and a warrant, to deploy the dog.

I wonder what this will mean for motorists. Most courts have seen the sanctity of one's car to be pretty darn near equal to that of one's home. It's not to be searched without a warrant, which cannot be obtained without probable cause. Seems to me that if police can no longer use dogs without a warrant at one's home, they probably cannot do so with one's car, either. No more holding motorists at the side of the road, awaiting the arrival of the dog, if they need a warrant to deploy the dog in the first place.

I see this as a significant victory for our liberty over the continued over reach of the police state. Score one for the good guys.



Supreme Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search | Politics | The Seattle Times
Wonder how this will affect airports? I'm thinking it only pertains to local law enforcement. Feds and the military can still shit all over your constitutional right with impunity. In the name of "national security" of course.:)sphss



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Blown, OHBA Member
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
Hell I came out of the casino Monday evening and the tribal police was walking their drug dog around the cars in the parking lot. 30 years ago he would have fell over dead at mine.:D I just smiled and drove off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts
Well, it looks like the Supreme Court still recognizes the Fourth Ammendment - they just ruled the use of drug sniffing dogs, prior to the issuance of a warrant, to be unconstitutional. In other words, police can no longer use a dog to sniff around without first getting a warrant, as a means of creating probable cause to get a warrant - they now must have probable cause, and a warrant, to deploy the dog.

I wonder what this will mean for motorists. Most courts have seen the sanctity of one's car to be pretty darn near equal to that of one's home. It's not to be searched without a warrant, which cannot be obtained without probable cause. Seems to me that if police can no longer use dogs without a warrant at one's home, they probably cannot do so with one's car, either. No more holding motorists at the side of the road, awaiting the arrival of the dog, if they need a warrant to deploy the dog in the first place.

I see this as a significant victory for our liberty over the continued over reach of the police state. Score one for the good guys.


Supreme Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search | Politics | The Seattle Times
Driving around in our car or mo ho is a completely different deal and the decision was intended to apply to someones home....
The guy had a small forest and he was thieving electricity...it was only a matter of time before he got locked up...if for nothing other than the smell....I bet he still got tagged for stealing electricity...probably a felony too.

What happens to people covicted on drug dog evidence now?
He wasn't convicted because of the dog. Use of the dog on someones property was used to obtain the warrant that got leo access to his home. Now that the SC has made a decision it will only apply to whatever date forward.I doubt that happens very often anyway.

Besides...pc to get a warrant is a joke anyway....all it takes is one neighbor to say 'that looks like a drug house. I see people coming and going at all hours and they only stay a few min. at a time..'
 

·
Floatin dirty
Joined
·
4,831 Posts
I would agree with this ruling but seems to be limited to homes. Cars are typically stopped for a traffic violation and during the lawful stop, the dog sniffs around the outside (or inside with consent or PC). There is also an "exclusionary rule" which may be applicable at times to searching cars without a warrant. Entering someones property is still held in high regard for the 4th by the courts in my opinion.You guys should see some of the other stuff they do now with scent evidence at crime scenes. Using technology to get scent off evidence items like shell casings and link it to a suspect.
 

·
Marine Organism
Joined
·
12,743 Posts
Police can and will do whatever they want , honestly , they will find a way around this as they always do ! In this world it's "us and them "
Unless you have witness(s) to back up your testimony, the judge will side with the cop every time. So yea, they can pretty much do what they want. Been there done that!

Forget the dogs though, check this out:


LEAWOOD, Kan. (AP) — Two former CIA employees whose Kansashome was fruitlessly searched for marijuana during a two-state drug sweep claim they were illegally targeted, possibly because they had bought indoor growing supplies to raise vegetables.
Kansas couple: Indoor gardening prompted pot raid

The suit filed in Johnson County District Court said the couple and their two children — a 7-year-old daughter and 13-year-old son — were "shocked and frightened" when deputies armed with assault rifles and wearing bulletproof vests pounded on the door of their home around 7:30 a.m. last April 20.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top