Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? - Page 2

**CingularDuality** · 11-11-2004, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

In almost any traffic stop situation, the officer would have suspicion: you're breaking the law (that's why he pulled you over). This isn't an issue of cops walking out to your car while your stopped at a light for a "sniff down" or when you're parked at the mall.

Quit playing the big brother card.

Absolutely untrue. Pulling someone over for speeding, in and of itself, gives the officer absolutely zero suspicion that someone is trafficking drugs. Reasonable suspicion would allow the officer to do much more than just walk a dog around your car...

Quote:

Please don't nitpick my arguement. It's a red herring because homes != cars. It also combines "slippery slope," with a hint of "moving the goalpost."

Sigh... I was simply pointing out that it's the same principle. I know that the laws are different, but this entire argument is about throwing a law out, so if we're going to argue right and wrong, let's do it. And please don't throw silly debating terms at me (at least not without defining them for me...).

**Pokerface** · 11-12-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Please don't nitpick my arguement. It's a red herring because homes != cars. It also combines "slippery slope," with a hint of "moving the goalpost."

You like to throw around terms, but you don't seem to get the crux of the argument here. The argument is constitionality, and that document doesn't make ANY mention of cars. You want to talk red herrings... look within.

The matter at hand is the right to privacy that is implied in the constitution, and whether or not what a dog smells constitutes a "search" in the absence of any other suspicion.

Quote:

In almost any traffic stop situation, the officer would have suspicion: you're breaking the law (that's why he pulled you over). This isn't an issue of cops walking out to your car while your stopped at a light for a "sniff down" or when you're parked at the mall.

That's patently false and you know it. Speeding is no more a reason for suspicion of further crimes (particularly the kind a dog would sniff for) than eating Cocoa Puffs for breakfast would be.

**RandomGuy** · 11-12-2004, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

well you see now your law on this really does require some reform, that is a ridiculous law that only benefits the suspect not the police. im sorry but i am always under the notion that if i have nothing to hide i have nothing to fear.

i have been pulled over on my bike 15 times in 2 years, why? becauuse my area has a very very high rate of thefts on my kind of bike. do i mind? well it is an inconvinience but no, because i do not carry drugs or drive illeagally. therefore the officer has done his jobe (even if he searches) and can go away knowing i am totally clean.

now when one day my bike is pulled and i am not the driver i am going to thank that police officer for doing his job, and that goes for drugs recovery too, a large proportion of violent crims and most other crimes are committed because of drug addiction. now if simple acts like this one takes another dealer off the street. then for the good of the law abiding citizens who should not mind the occaisional inconvinience they should thropw this out of court.

Wow. I was hoping that was sarcasm. It really discourages me from ever visiting England: you make it sound like some kind of authoritarian police state utopia. In any sane country the police serve the law and NOT the other way around.

As for the topic I agree sniffing is not searching. The dog is detecting particles of whatever has "already left your car". Of course this argument could be extended to police who might want to apply an infrared video camera to the walls of your house to detect infrared rays that have "already left your house". I doubt that is legal without a warrant, but how is the line drawn?

Another thought: the dog can't with certainty determine where any smell came from. Just becuase the smell is detected "near your car" is that enough for a search?

Hmmm, maybe I'm not so sure about this one... seems to fall right on the boundaries.

**CingularDuality** · 11-12-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

As for the topic I agree sniffing is not searching. The dog is detecting particles of whatever has "already left your car". Of course this argument could be extended to police who might want to apply an infrared video camera to the walls of your house to detect infrared rays that have "already left your house". I doubt that is legal without a warrant, but how is the line drawn?

If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I'd argue that any officer can smell pot, while no officer can see through walls. Using technology to see into someone's house is a "search". Using an officer with a better sense of smell to detect whether or not someone has drugs on them is not a search.

Quote:

Another thought: the dog can't with certainty determine where any smell came from. Just becuase the smell is detected "near your car" is that enough for a search?

It doesn't take long for a dog to triangulate the source of a smell...

Quote:

Hmmm, maybe I'm not so sure about this one... seems to fall right on the boundaries.

Yes, and that's why the US Supreme Court is hearing it.

**TheFeniX** · 11-13-2004, 11:08 PM

I had a long and thoughtful post typed out friday to respond to Poker and Cing, then my PC decided that it didn't want to post it and gave me an error.

I don't feel like retyping it all up (had to have been a page long). Plus, I don't feel like arguing a nitpick of my main arguement, so I'll concede the statement "it doesn't affect the average citizen." But I still stand by my arguement that "sniffing != search."

**DudeMan** · 11-14-2004, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

"You're under arrrrrrrrrest for rrrrrrrobbery and wrrrrrreckless endangerment! Rrrrrook him, Rrrrano!"

So how does officer nibbles testify in court? Does he swear to tell the whole truth for a treat and a pat on the head, or do you just whack him on the nose with some newspaper if he tells a fib?

Conversely, can regular bobbies sniff their own crotches?

Here in the USA drug dogs are dogs, but I do believe if you kill one you can be prosecuted the same as if you'd killed a regular cop, but I'm mostly basing that on my understanding of the movie Half Baked, in which a pothead kills a police horse with hilarious consequences.

and the point of taking the piss was,

aint got anything constructive to say zip it bud.

yes in my country a police dog has his own call sign, ofcourse he has a handler, but they are officers and as reguards to rights to seach, if you walk into a train station in this country with the smell of canabis or other banned substances on your person, the dog will bark at you immidiatly. does not need the permission of the handler it informs its partner that something is not right.

do i see this as a threat to my privacy? no, because i have nothing to hide.

changing the law in this way would only benefit the criminal not the innocent person.

**DudeMan** · 11-14-2004, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Wow. I was hoping that was sarcasm. It really discourages me from ever visiting England: you make it sound like some kind of authoritarian police state utopia. In any sane country the police serve the law and NOT the other way around.

then dont visit quite frankly, yes i am very glad that we have an incredably vigilant police force. and why the hell do people find it such a damn hardship to cooperate with the police. if your all fine you can go on your way, they target certain areas and certain suspects to maintain a high visability strategy. and thanks to that crime has dropped substatially in my area.

further more beause they are so vigilant with motorcycles i know 4 people all had their bike nicked and got it back. for that one reason alone i dont mind the police checking that my lock isnt barrlled with a quick stop.

leejo · 11-14-2004, 09:20 AM

Rrrrrrelax, rrrudeman! It was just a rrrrroke!

**luna** · 11-14-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

then dont visit quite frankly, yes i am very glad that we have an incredably vigilant police force. and why the hell do people find it such a damn hardship to cooperate with the police.

Because we're Americans, Dudeman! We love to complain. The man is always keepin' us down!

**DudeMan** · 11-14-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Rrrrrrelax, rrrudeman! It was just a rrrrroke!

see intent on being an arse.

well then if i wanted to hear from an arse next time ill fart.

**DudeMan** · 11-14-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

Because we're Americans, Dudeman! We love to complain. The man is always keepin' us down!

well that maybe true, but which society do you think this reflects worse on, one where the police are heped to convict a criminal in any way possible, or one that would even entertain a criminal calling a search that actually found ileagle substances un-constitutional?

leejo · 11-14-2004, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

see intent on being an arse.

well then if i wanted to hear from an arse next time ill fart.

Nice! Uh...let's see....uh....no you are! There! Haha!

The supreme court will allow this, I think. The standard of protection for people in their homes is far higher than a person in his car. Plus there's a lot of precedent: school lockers, dui checkpoints, etc. But they sure do surprise on occasion.

Rrrrumbody needs a nap! He's grrrrupmy!

**luna** · 11-14-2004, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

well that maybe true, but which society do you think this reflects worse on, one where the police are heped to convict a criminal in any way possible, or one that would even entertain a criminal calling a search that actually found ileagle substances un-constitutional?

I'm agreeing with you, Dudeman!

**DudeMan** · 11-14-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

The standard of protection for people in their homes is far higher

oh yeah obviously, i think i would be pressed to let any old bobby into my house without reasons.

**RandomGuy** · 11-14-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

well that maybe true, but which society do you think this reflects worse on, one where the police are heped to convict a criminal in any way possible, or one that would even entertain a criminal calling a search that actually found ileagle substances un-constitutional?

I think it reflects worse on the society where the police are heped to convict a criminal in any way possible and not the one where criminal calling a search that actually found illegal substances un-constitutional. I'm assuming you meant the opposite, so I guess were are so far removed that I probably shouldn't bother trying to convince you.

I still have hope that a reading of your laws would not reflect your position regarding police powers, but I'm not from the UK so I'll drop it at that. (btw I'm not American)

11-13-2004, 11:08 PM	#20 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,414	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? I had a long and thoughtful post typed out friday to respond to Poker and Cing, then my PC decided that it didn't want to post it and gave me an error. I don't feel like retyping it all up (had to have been a page long). Plus, I don't feel like arguing a nitpick of my main arguement, so I'll concede the statement "it doesn't affect the average citizen." But I still stand by my arguement that "sniffing != search." __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

11-14-2004, 09:20 AM	#23 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,421	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? Rrrrrrelax, rrrudeman! It was just a rrrrroke!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TG Servers gone to the dogs	DudeWheresMyAK47	Battlefield 2142 - General Discussion	2	11-10-2006 08:15 PM
*Warning:Graphic* Dogs vs. Bull in Louisiana + Gator vs. Python!	CingularDuality	The Sandbox	31	10-25-2006 03:13 AM
Dogs	flux	Pictures & Screenshots	5	08-16-2006 10:41 AM
Scientists Create Zombie dogs!	Spyder	The Sandbox	5	07-05-2005 02:14 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links