warrantless search case--Pot sniffing dog

[Fisher]

Saw that the SCOTUS will be hearing a case this term to decide if the police bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house without a warrant constitutes an illegal search. Opinions?

I think it does because the Court has always held back from inside the home except in plain sight cases.

 

[Tigger]

It probably DOES violate the current way the law is read. Personally, I have no problem with it.

 

[MaggieD]

Saw that the SCOTUS will be hearing a case this term to decide if the police bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house without a warrant constitutes an illegal search. Opinions?

I think it does because the Court has always held back from inside the home except in plain sight cases.

Interesting.

I'm attending a neighborhood fair and have parked my car in the parking lot. I have 5# of pot in my trunk. A K9 officer and his dog are walking through the parking lot to patrol at the fair. The K9 is trained to alert to drugs. As the K9 and his handler are walking past my car, the dog goes into full-on alert at my car. Does the officer now have reasonable cause to search my car? I'd say, "Yes."

 

[Fisher]

Interesting.

I'm attending a neighborhood fair and have parked my car in the parking lot. I have 5# of pot in my trunk. A K9 officer and his dog are walking through the parking lot to patrol at the fair. The K9 is trained to alert to drugs. As the K9 and his handler are walking past my car, the dog goes into full-on alert at my car. Does the officer now have reasonable cause to search my car? I'd say, "Yes."

Yes but you are not on your own property and are at a public event. If the car was parked in your garage in your house, I'd say no.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Saw that the SCOTUS will be hearing a case this term to decide if the police bringing a drug-sniffing dog to the front door of a house without a warrant constitutes an illegal search. Opinions?

I think it does because the Court has always held back from inside the home except in plain sight cases.

Was the dog a law enforcement officer? Yes.
Was he searching on someone's private property? Yes.

Case closed.

 

[Donahue]

Interesting.

I'm attending a neighborhood fair and have parked my car in the parking lot. I have 5# of pot in my trunk. A K9 officer and his dog are walking through the parking lot to patrol at the fair. The K9 is trained to alert to drugs. As the K9 and his handler are walking past my car, the dog goes into full-on alert at my car. Does the officer now have reasonable cause to search my car? I'd say, "Yes."

I think it depends on awfully lot on how the search is conducted.

I imagine it would legally be upheld if the police are working their dogs throughout the entire neighborhood and not specifically singling someone out but I would assume that probably isn't the case.

 

[Ikari]

Interesting.

I'm attending a neighborhood fair and have parked my car in the parking lot. I have 5# of pot in my trunk. A K9 officer and his dog are walking through the parking lot to patrol at the fair. The K9 is trained to alert to drugs. As the K9 and his handler are walking past my car, the dog goes into full-on alert at my car. Does the officer now have reasonable cause to search my car? I'd say, "Yes."

I say "no" as the dog in and of itself constitutes a search in the first place.

 

[MaggieD]

Was the dog a law enforcement officer? Yes.
Was he searching on someone's private property? Yes.

Case closed.

If a LEO comes to your front door and the smell of some of these home-made stylist drugs is reeking out the door, the LEO would have reasonable cause to search, in my opinion. The fact that the LEO Dog has a better nose? Just lucky. Ha!

 

[Donahue]

Was the dog a law enforcement officer? Yes.
Was he searching on someone's private property? Yes.

Case closed.

It doesn't really work like that though.

A police officer can most certainly come into your home and make an arrest if he is able to small marijuana coming from your home.

The whole dog thing is a bit of a gray area though.

 

[Fisher]

I don't know the details but the article says it was brought to the front door to sniff for drugs.

Big cases for Supreme Court term starting Monday - Businessweek

 

[Ikari]

If a LEO comes to your front door and the smell of some of these home-made stylist drugs is reeking out the door, the LEO would have reasonable cause to search, in my opinion. The fact that the LEO Dog has a better nose? Just lucky. Ha!

If an officer smelled it, then that's one thing. A machine that does it with higher sensitivity is another story all together. These dogs are for all purposes that machine. They are trained to react to certain "smells" and to alert the officer. A dog on its own does not do this, it is specifically manipulated such that it responds with higher sensitivity to that which they claim is "drugs". It is no different than if the cops had some form of hand held spectrometer which is more sensitive than the human nose to test the air around a place and from that search claim they then have proper cause to enter the property.

 

[Fisher]

The thing is the dog is effectually special equipment. The SCOTUS generally frowns up use of special equipment without warrants to eavesdrop, see through walls, etc. If they let this fly, they are opening the floodgates IMO to finally killing the need for warrants.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It doesn't really work like that though.

A police officer can most certainly come into your home and make an arrest if he is able to small marijuana coming from your home.

The whole dog thing is a bit of a gray area though.

If a LEO comes to your front door and the smell of some of these home-made stylist drugs is reeking out the door, the LEO would have reasonable cause to search, in my opinion. The fact that the LEO Dog has a better nose? Just lucky. Ha!

It comes down to what the intent of the officer was. The dog was brought in intentionally to SEARCH. If he was brought in to ring the doorbell and question someone, that might be a different situation. In the end, he's still searching on your property without a warrant. I know that the law is currently different, but I believe such a situation should only pertain to violence against individuals. IE: The LEO sees domestic abuse taking place.

 

[joko104]

Its been shown time and again that officers can cue their dog to "hit" on anything, anyone or any car if the officer wishes to. To rule this is legal is to rule police can search any home they want to merely by bringing a dog along and claim the dog told them there are drugs in the house.

As soon as they have a dog that can speak in a language we all can understand - including being cross-examined it court - then I'd be ok with it.

 

[joko104]

If an officer smelled it, then that's one thing. A machine that does it with higher sensitivity is another story all together. These dogs are for all purposes that machine. They are trained to react to certain "smells" and to alert the officer. A dog on its own does not do this, it is specifically manipulated such that it responds with higher sensitivity to that which they claim is "drugs". It is no different than if the cops had some form of hand held spectrometer which is more sensitive than the human nose to test the air around a place and from that search claim they then have proper cause to enter the property.

Its not the same as a mechnical sniffer as the results of a sniffer can be documented. What caused a dog to sit, scratch or bark cannot.

 

[Helix]

it's definitely a warrantless search.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Its been shown time and again that officers can cue their dog to "hit" on anything, anyone or any car if the officer wishes to. To rule this is legal is to rule police can search any home they want to merely by bringing a dog along and claim the dog told them there are drugs in the house.

As soon as they have a dog that can speak in a language we all can understand - including being cross-examined it court - then I'd be ok with it.

If a LEO comes to your front door and the smell of some of these home-made stylist drugs is reeking out the door, the LEO would have reasonable cause to search, in my opinion. The fact that the LEO Dog has a better nose? Just lucky. Ha!

It doesn't really work like that though.

A police officer can most certainly come into your home and make an arrest if he is able to small marijuana coming from your home.

The whole dog thing is a bit of a gray area though.

Joko is right. A dog can't testify in court as to what he smelled.

"Woof" (I smell bacon)
Can not be differentiated from.
"Woof" (I smell drugs)

Neither woofs give the government authorization for a warrantless search of my property.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Was the dog a law enforcement officer? Yes.
Was he searching on someone's private property? Yes.

Case closed.

Not even close to a full analysis:lol:

 

[ecofarm]

Its not the same as a mechnical sniffer as the results of a sniffer can be documented. What caused a dog to sit, scratch or bark cannot.

Joko is right. A dog can't testify in court as to what he smelled.

"Woof" (I smell bacon)
Can not be differentiated from.
"Woof" (I smell drugs)

That's not really true. The dogs are trained to give specific reactions to specific stuff. It could not have been bacon.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That's not really true. The dogs are trained to give specific reactions to specific stuff. It could not have been bacon.

Can you prove that without the shadow of a doubt? Nope. Dogs, like humans, are fallible, and a canine can not be questioned or speak a language that we understand.

 

[ecofarm]

Can you prove that without the shadow of a doubt?

Yes, they can. The dogs are very trained and give specific reactions to specific stimuli. The chance of a dog reacting so to bacon is nil.

I'm against this type of warrantless search, but indicting the dog on making a mistake does not fly in reality.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yes, they can. The dogs are very trained and give specific reactions to specific stimuli. The chance of a dog reacting so to bacon is nil.

You can not legally prove what a dog did, or did not smell. Training only goes so far. My dog is trained to sit when I tell him, but every once in a while he tells me to go f*** myself.

 

[ecofarm]

You can not legally prove what a dog did, or did not smell. Training only goes so far. My dog is trained to sit when I tell him, but every once in a while he tells me to go f*** myself.

Your dog is not a police sniffer dog. They will present statistics, video evidence of training and police action and the rest - and prove such a mistake is impossible.

 

[wolfman24]

If a LEO comes to your front door and the smell of some of these home-made stylist drugs is reeking out the door, the LEO would have reasonable cause to search, in my opinion. The fact that the LEO Dog has a better nose? Just lucky. Ha!

This is accurate. He does not necessarily have to see it just have reasonable suspicion. Here about this kind of thing all the time downhere.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Your dog is not a police sniffer dog. They will present statistics, video evidence of training and police action and the rest - and prove such a mistake is impossible.

Nothing is impossible. If you honestly think that a dog barking at the wrong time is impossible, you've never owned or met a dog in your life.