Durg Sniffing dogs rules unconstitutional (See full article for details/specifics)...

[THCDDM4]

Didn't see anything posted here on this SCOTUS decision:

http://thepolicenews.net/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=37189&menugroup=Home

^From the article:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.

[GeorgiaBoy]

Good.

[Pork Chop]

Thank you! Finally, the Bill of Rights takes a gasp of air.

[citizensoldier16]

I wonder how this will affect the "side-of-the-road" sniffings. My vehicle is, by law, my personal property, and therefore protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Suffice it to say that I believe arbitrary "sniffings" of vehicles (especially during traffic stops) are unconstitutional as well.

Thoughts?

[C-grunt]

I never knew it was legal to begin with. I dont ever remember seeing a sniffing dog brought onto personal property without a warrant.

As far as cars go, I know if you want to go in the car you need a warrant but sniffing the outside is similar to leaving stuff in plain view.

[Bravo30]

Didn't see anything posted here on this SCOTUS decision:

http://thepolicenews.net/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=37189&menugroup=Home

^From the article:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.



The court did not rule drug sniffing dogs unconstitutional in any way whatsoever. Rather, the court ruled that the use of a drug sniffing dog inside the curtilage of the residence (in the case the porch) required a search warrant. If you read the actual decision, the court really didn't rule on the use of drug dogs at all. Instead, the court ruled that the police can not conduct a search for evidence within the curtilage of residence without a search warrant.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_5426.pdf


I wonder how this will affect the "side-of-the-road" sniffings. My vehicle is, by law, my personal property, and therefore protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Suffice it to say that I believe arbitrary "sniffings" of vehicles (especially during traffic stops) are unconstitutional as well.

Thoughts?

As for this the court stated in its opinion:
that canine inspection of luggage in an airport, chemical
testing of a substance that had fallen from a parcel in
transit, and canine inspection of an automobile during a
lawful traffic stop, do not violate the “reasonable expectation of privacy” described in Katz.

So, the court affirmed that for luggage, parcels, or vehicles there is no reasonable expectation of privacy like there is within your residence so dogs can be used in these instances.

[citizensoldier16]

sniffing the outside is similar to leaving stuff in plain view.

I disagree with this. In my mind, the use of canines to sniff for things is the same thing as using wiretaps, tracking emails, or searching a residence. They're tools in the toolbelt of law enforcement used to glean information not available to the general public...being humans.

Therefore, any tool used to glean information not available to the average bystander should require a warrant... pursuant to the 4th Amendment.

Using a dog to detect the an odor of drugs which is not discernible to the human nose is the same as using an electronic contraption to listen to my private phone calls.

I assert that anything not discernible by any of the human senses, and which requires an adjunct tool to uncover, is covered by the 4th Amendment, and therefore, requires a warrant.

[Chameleox]

I wonder how this will affect the "side-of-the-road" sniffings. My vehicle is, by law, my personal property, and therefore protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Suffice it to say that I believe arbitrary "sniffings" of vehicles (especially during traffic stops) are unconstitutional as well.

Thoughts?

SCOTUS, and state courts, have repeatedly held that the individual has a diminished expectation of privacy WRT vehicles, including K9 sniffs done from the exterior.

Combined with the Automobile Exception, commonly called the Carroll Doctrine, courts have usually upheld exterior sniffs of vehicles, so long as the officers have standing to be where the car in question is.

This only applies to traffic or investigatory stops; unoccupied vehicles on private property are closer to warrant-territory.

Every time I've asked a K9 officer to sniff a vehicle, I've documented my articulable, individualized suspicion as to why I wanted the sniff. Arbitrary? Not for me.

[Chameleox]

I disagree with this. In my mind, the use of canines to sniff for things is the same thing as using wiretaps, tracking emails, or searching a residence. They're tools in the toolbelt of law enforcement used to glean information not available to the general public...being humans.

Therefore, any tool used to glean information not available to the average bystander should require a warrant... pursuant to the 4th Amendment.

Using a dog to detect the an odor of drugs which is not discernible to the human nose is the same as using an electronic contraption to listen to my private phone calls.

I assert that anything not discernible by any of the human senses, and which requires an adjunct tool to uncover, is covered by the 4th Amendment, and therefore, requires a warrant.

Not the case. The odors of the drugs are not contained to the vehicle; they're being smelled from the outside, where the dog has a legal right to be. If the occupant seals the car airtight, then its a no-go.

Wiretaps are warrant/court order land because they require wiring into phone lines and signals, which require decoding, and often private property. Listening really hard to the phone line doesn't yield tangible results, unless you're using two cans and a string.

[citizensoldier16]

SCOTUS, and state courts, have repeatedly held that the individual has a diminished expectation of privacy WRT vehicles, including K9 sniffs done from the exterior.

Combined with the Automobile Exception, commonly called the Carroll Doctrine, courts have usually upheld exterior sniffs of vehicles, so long as the officers have standing to be where the car in question is.

This only applies to traffic or investigatory stops; unoccupied vehicles on private property are closer to warrant-territory.

Every time I've asked a K9 officer to sniff a vehicle, I've documented my articulable, individualized suspicion as to why I wanted the sniff. Arbitrary? Not for me.

Understood. However, I assert that the current law and legal rulings overstep the bounds of law enforcement with regards to the 4th Amendment. It is my personal opinion that a dog, with a sense of smell over 1000x more sensitive than a human's, constitutes the use, by humans, of an adjunct search device. Being an adjunct search device, any discoveries by law enforcement which result from the use of canines is protected against (and should be ruled inadmissible) under the 4th Amendment.

I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong...I'm saying it should be unconstitutional....given a Libertarian sense of the law. I understand that moderate Conservatives and Liberals would disagree.

[Chameleox]

It is my personal opinion that a dog, with a sense of smell over 1000x more sensitive than a human's, constitutes the use, by humans, of an adjunct search device. Being an adjunct search device, any discoveries by law enforcement which result from the use of canines is protected against (and should be ruled inadmissible) under the 4th Amendment.


Tracking you. I'm actually A-OK with taking more and more narrow views of drug based searches.

WRT "search devices", the courts disagree, to an extent.

-Kyllo v US: Thermal evidentiary searches require a warrant.

-US v Riley and Dow Chemical v US: held that aerial observation of an area open to plain view from above is not a search.

-US v. Dellas: held that use of night vision from a place of lawful standing does not constitute a search.

The nutshell argument here seems to be that technology or devices that provide an enhancement to an officer's senses (enhanced vision by amplifying visible light), like night vision or a flashlight, do not constitute a 4th amendment search, so long as the officer has a legal right to be where he is when he is using that sense (apparently this includes the air- we'll see where this goes in 5 years). The sense of sight is a human sense; the degree to how sensitive that sense is, is irrelevant, apparently. Thermal imaging isn't a sense, at least for humans. It detects heat, and can provide rough visualization through barriers that can't be defeated by the naked eye, flashlights, binos, and NVGs.

Considering the canine as a search aid, it provides an enhanced human sense. I'm not sure if that's how SCOTUS lets them in, but the parallel is there.

Like I said, I'm OK with my search powers being limited. I'm also leery of policing based off the war on drugs. I'm a citizen first. But how I feel is irrelevant.

[citizensoldier16]

I'm a citizen first. But how I feel is irrelevant.

I'm not a law enforcement officer, but I work hand-in-hand with them on a daily basis as a paramedic.

My Libertarian viewpoint is what I'm pointing out, not what is factual law. In my Libertarian opinion, the use of modern technology (and the availability thereof) to augment human senses constitutes a search. Let us presume, for a moment, that there existed a handheld device for a human to detect a single marijuana bud from a drone at an altitude of 1000 yards using, lets say, "chemical imaging"....and such marijuana could be viewed using such technology through the opaque walls, windows, and roof of a private residence.

Would this constitute a "search"?

My point is this, and is based in pure Libertarian thought: searches by law enforcement should be limited to the gathering of intelligence and information through HUMAN senses alone, and not augmented by electronic or technologic means, or otherwise non-human means. If one human can readily discern the presence of a substance or an item in a situation deemed as normal human-to-human contact, then such evidence or cause for search should be legal. If not, then the ascertainment of such evidence or cause for search must have been facilitated by extraordinary means....technological, electronic, or otherwise. Therefore, such evidence or means should be deemed to be Constitutionally protected under the 4th Amendment, unconstitutional and inadmissible without a legal search warrant being in place before such extraordinary means were implemented in such a search. This includes everything from thermal imaging from a drone to a dog's nose.

That is my view as a Libertarian.

[Chameleox]

Gotcha.

I don't agree with everything you said, but we have some common ground. There has to be a limit, but where?

We can always go to PM if you want.

[kmrtnsn]

I disagree with this. In my mind, the use of canines to sniff for things is the same thing as using wiretaps, tracking emails, or searching a residence. They're tools in the toolbelt of law enforcement used to glean information not available to the general public...being humans.

Therefore, any tool used to glean information not available to the average bystander should require a warrant... pursuant to the 4th Amendment.

Using a dog to detect the an odor of drugs which is not discernible to the human nose is the same as using an electronic contraption to listen to my private phone calls.

I assert that anything not discernible by any of the human senses, and which requires an adjunct tool to uncover, is covered by the 4th Amendment, and therefore, requires a warrant.

I suggest that you look up the term, "reasonable expectation of privacy". As for your assertion, SCOTUS has consistently found otherwise where your examples are concerned.