Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? - Page 5

leejo · 01-24-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

In Texas, I can mow my lawn with a loaded six-shooter on my hip and it's legal.

I like to wear a lime green speedo and cowboy boots when I mow the lawn. That's legal too. Whether it's a good idea or not I suppose is up for some debate. Leaning over slooooowly to pick up a stick....

Keeps the drug dogs away!

**=DdogG=** · 01-24-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Cops are people just like you and me. They can be paragons of virtue, or downright scumbags. I don't leave the later to chance.

In Texas, I can mow my lawn with a loaded six-shooter on my hip and it's legal. You are granted the same rights anywhere on your property. Obviously, it's easier for a cop to see you doing something illegal, but it's still your domain.

Your example was more a sign of a dirty cop than actual law. If the cops want to play dirty, you're screwed no matter what you do.

the differnce is he sent other cops with a bogus call to do the job for him... he was a deputy, they were city.....

**CingularDuality** · 01-24-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =DdogG=

it was years ago, and an attorney told me to do what I did....

without a warrant, the police cannot enter a residence (probable cause not withstanding, and in this case, that would be seeing the described child) and the police cannot enter your home to arrest you without a warrant.... thus, stepping outside removes that need.

your home is off limits without a warrant. period. I'm not sure where the BS is, but around here, unlawful search and seizure means they cant come in unless a judge says they can.

No, you're wrong. If police have the right to arrest you on your front porch (whether it's with an arrest warrant or for probable cause), then they have the same right if you're standing behind your locked front door. Either they can arrest you or they can't. Your attorney probably advised you to stay inside so the cop couldn't drum up some BS charges against you and put handcuffs on you for having low tire pressure on your pickup.

**TheFeniX** · 01-24-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

put handcuffs on you for having low tire pressure on your pickup.

Cingular, don't patronize him. You know as well as I do that's only a beating on the first offense. Although I still think driving a Civic is a "shoot on sight" violation.

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2005, 03:00 AM

Let the dogs sniff !!!

Quote:

U.S. SUPREME COURT LETS STAND TEXAS CASE THAT CONCLUDES THAT DRUGS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A DOG SNIFF OUTSIDE OF A RESIDENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case in which
drugs were found as a result of a dog sniff outside of a residence. The high
court's move means that the Texas court's ruling stands, and that the police's
action of using a drug-sniffing dog outside the home did not violate the Fourth
Amendment.
In this case, Houston police officers got a tip from a drug dealer that
David Gregory Smith was a methamphetamine supplier. Based on that information, a
narcotics dog handler and his canine partner drove to Smith's home, walked up to
the residence "in a manner that would be most commonly used by any
member of the general public," and walked next to the garage. The drug-sniffing dog,
Rocky, was allowed "to examine the garage door where air from the inside of
the garage could escape to the outside." Rocky gave a positive alert on the lower
corner of the garage door, indicating the presence marijuana, cocaine,
methamphetamine, or heroin inside the garage. The officers used this information to obtain a search warrant of Smith's residence, where they found, among other things, 660 grams of methamphetamine. Smith was subsequently found guilty of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine weighing at least 400 grams and sentenced to
37 years.

Smith appealed, claiming, among other things, that the affidavit
supporting the search warrant contained information garnered from an illegal search -
the drug-dog sniff - and therefore Smith's rights were violated under the
U.S. and Texas Constitutions. If the illegally obtained information was redacted
from the affidavit, Smith added, the search warrant would not have been
supported by sufficient probable cause. Thus, Smith argued that the trial court
erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his
house because the evidence was the product of an illegal search.

The Texas court, however, disagreed. It began by stating that a trained
drug dog's positive alert for drugs provides sufficient probable cause for a
search.
As for the officer and Rocky's entry onto Smith's property to conduct
the drug-dog sniff, the court stated that Smith's privacy interests were
not invaded because anyone approaching the house would have walked up the driveway and passed near the garage in order to reach the entrance of the house.

The court went on to point out that a drug-dog sniff can do no more
than reveal the presence or absence of contraband, i.e., narcotics. It stated that a
governmental investigative technique that merely reveals the presence of
narcotics - while revealing nothing about noncontraband items, activity
or information that would otherwise remain hidden from public view -
compromises no legitimate privacy interest and is thus not a "search" for Fourth
Amendment purposes. Accordingly, it concluded that the drug-dog sniff did not
constitute a "search" under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

Thus, the Texas court ruled that the drug dog sniff did not constitute
an improper search, and that the warrant to search Smith's house was
supported by probable cause. As indicated above, this ruling stands because the U.S.
Supreme Court declined earlier this week to review the case.

The case is Smith v. State, Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st
Dist.), No. 01-02-00503-CR, February 5, 2004, cert. denied by Smith v. Texas,
Supreme Court of the United Stated, No. 04-874, April 4, 2005.

FEDagent
Publisher: Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, P.C.
Consulting Attorney: Debra L. Roth
Editor: Susan S. McWilliams
Website: http://www.fedagent.com

================================================== ===========
To view past issues of the FEDagent E-Report visit our website,
http://www.fedagent.com.
================================================== ===========
Feedback? Comments? Suggestions? Send an email to
fededitor@fedagent.com. All
submissions become the property of the publisher and may or may not be
reprinted.
================================================== ===========
Technical problems? Send an email to fedsupport@fedagent.com.
================================================== ===========
FEDagent is a free, email newsletter copyright 2002-2004 by the
Washington, D.C.
law firm of Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, P.C.
(http://www.shawbransford.com). All rights reserved. Shaw, Bransford,
Veilleux
& Roth, P.C. authorizes reproduction of portions of FEDagent with the
following
credit line: "Reproduced with permission of FEDagent."

Root · 04-08-2005, 03:55 AM

The dog found drugs, so I'm biased in favour of the conviction. Objectively though, they had info from a druggie that there was a dealer there. Would it really have hurt to get a warrant before sending the dog in? It should have come down to how reliable the druggie was. I believe in human rights and civil liberties over making it easier for the police to get arrests. I've made my opinion of druggies and dealers pretty obvious in another thread, but the police should have had to catch him dealing rather than waltz in with the dog. We're getting a lot of changes in the law in the UK to make you guilty until proven innocent, and this just seems to be another facet of the same problem.

I've only had one experience of sniffer dogs. Sussex police were securing brighton station prior to the queen (actually it might have been blair) coming to town. The dog literally checked everyone in the station. Can a dog be trained for explosives *and* drugs? I know which I'd consider the biggest threat to a head of state, but this dog got 3 or 4 people for drugs in the space of 10 minutes. It checked my girlfriend, at which point I practically ran out of the station, not because I had anything illegal on me, but because I'm scared ****less of dogs, and I don't give a **** how well trained they are. Sussex police lived down to their reputation as the countries worst police force when the dog handler totally ignored me backing away. He didn't call another officer over to search me, he didn't even ask why I backed away, he just walked off.

Root

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2005, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookietester

Would it really have hurt to get a warrant before sending the dog in?

They didn't send the dog in anywhere. The officer and his canine partner were on their way to the front door when the dog "hit" on the garage while they were still outside, in a location where the general public have access.

Not only that, but I particularly like another argument brought up. If a dog only detects illegal contraband, can it ever invade your privacy? Privacy protections are intended to prevent the police from invading your privacy unnecessarily, NOT to protect you from being searched if you're committing a crime.

Quote:

Can a dog be trained for explosives *and* drugs?

I suppose it's possible, but all the K9's that I've had experience with have been one or the other...

Root · 04-08-2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

They didn't send the dog in anywhere. The officer and his canine partner were on their way to the front door when the dog "hit" on the garage while they were still outside, in a location where the general public have access.

I appreciate that. I could have worded my post better. The officer went to the front door because the police had been given information suggesting it was the home of a drug dealer. I guess what I should have said was shouldn't they have had to get a warrant to do this? If the information they had been given isn't sufficient to get a search warrant, perhaps the police officer should not have been allowed to take his dog with him to the front door. As it is, the dog did enough to negate the need for a warrant, and imo, short circuited the legal process. In fact why was the police officer going to the front door? Excuse me sir, are you dealing drugs from this house?

Root

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookietester

I appreciate that. I could have worded my post better. The officer went to the front door because the police had been given information suggesting it was the home of a drug dealer. I guess what I should have said was shouldn't they have had to get a warrant to do this?

A warrant for what? The officer wasn't planning on searching anything...

Quote:

If the information they had been given isn't sufficient to get a search warrant, perhaps the police officer should not have been allowed to take his dog with him to the front door.

The dog is his partner. His partner goes everywhere with him. His partner provides backup and assistance in various aspects of police work.

Quote:

As it is, the dog did enough to negate the need for a warrant, and imo, short circuited the legal process.

Again, the argument was made that since the dog can detect nothing, no activities, no possessions, nothing except illegal contraband (drugs), then there is no invasion of privacy. There is no "search" when a dog detects drugs. The legal process does not exist to protect criminals, it exists to protect innocent citizens. Since a drug dog (assuming an accurate nose and behavior) can't detect anything on innocent people, only on people involved in illegal drugs, then the legal process has not been bypassed in any way.

Quote:

In fact why was the police officer going to the front door? Excuse me sir, are you dealing drugs from this house?

Yes. A very common form of police work. We call it a "knock and talk". Why shouldn't the police go to the front door and have a chat with the suspected drug dealers?

leejo · 04-08-2005, 02:13 PM

A year or two ago the Supreme Court ruled against allowing police to use infrared scanning devices to look into homes from the street (for signs of grow lights, etc.). I don't understand why the police can't use a scanning device to "look" inside a home without a warrant but they can use a dog to "look" inside a home without a warrant.

Now if they could train the dogs to use the infrared scanning devices they'd really be in business.

**CingularDuality** · 04-08-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

A year or two ago the Supreme Court ruled against allowing police to use infrared scanning devices to look into homes from the street (for signs of grow lights, etc.). I don't understand why the police can't use a scanning device to "look" inside a home without a warrant but they can use a dog to "look" inside a home without a warrant.

Now if they could train the dogs to use the infrared scanning devices they'd really be in business.

Because a drug dog can detect NOTHING except illegal contraband. IR scopes can watch you showering, crapping, making love to your mistress while the wife is out of town, etc... It can invade the privacy of innocent people. A drug dog cannot. The only think a dog will "see" when it "looks" inside your home is illegal stuff...

Some of you might know that I keep tropical fish and plants. In order to successfully grow aquatic plants, high intensity lighting is often used. Not coincidentally, it's the same type of lighting that is used to grow marijuana indoors. I know a guy in Toronto that was investigated because his "grow lights" were picked up on a IR scope by the police. Everything turned out OK, but not before the police showed up at his door with a warrant. He showed them his beautiful aquarium and they apologized and explained their mistake.

**Clardog** · 04-09-2005, 07:05 AM

Alot of post on this topic, and I've not read them all so I don't want to "argue" for either side. I only want to say that I'm a law abiding kind of guy, and I tend towards the public servant side as far as jobs go. I served six years in the Marines and three years with my local Sheriffs Deptment.

BUT!

I don't like any type of "laws" or "actions" that move us (The USA) any closer to a police state. I'm sure Hitler had some very good arguments why Germany would be much safer if the private citizen had no access to firearms, and after that it was most likely a short skip to having SS officers on every corner asking the law-abiding citizen to show their papers to PROVE they were in fact law-abiding.

I know that sounds a bit paraniod but its the small steps that take your freedoms one by one untill one day, maybe not you and maybe not your kids, but thier kids are cowering before thier own government.

leejo · 04-09-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Because a drug dog can detect NOTHING except illegal contraband. IR scopes can watch you showering, crapping, making love to your mistress while the wife is out of town, etc... It can invade the privacy of innocent people. A drug dog cannot. The only think a dog will "see" when it "looks" inside your home is illegal stuff...

Some of you might know that I keep tropical fish and plants. In order to successfully grow aquatic plants, high intensity lighting is often used. Not coincidentally, it's the same type of lighting that is used to grow marijuana indoors. I know a guy in Toronto that was investigated because his "grow lights" were picked up on a IR scope by the police. Everything turned out OK, but not before the police showed up at his door with a warrant. He showed them his beautiful aquarium and they apologized and explained their mistake.

Yeah well if the dog were out taking a crap and happened to smell drugs, that would be one thing, but in this case the police used a dog to obtain information about the contents of a citizen's home that they couldn't have otherwise gotten without securing a search warrant first. That doesn't sit right with me.

Da Supreme Court has spoken though, so we can gas on about it but it won't change much.

**CingularDuality** · 04-09-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Yeah well if the dog were out taking a crap and happened to smell drugs, that would be one thing, but in this case the police used a dog to obtain information about the contents of a citizen's home that they couldn't have otherwise gotten without securing a search warrant first. That doesn't sit right with me.

Da Supreme Court has spoken though, so we can gas on about it but it won't change much.

I see your point kinda, but the argument is that this process (sniffing dogs) can not disturb anyone but criminals. There's just no way to invade the privacy of an innocent citizen in this manner. If you have a technique that would catch criminals without disturbing innocent people, why would that not sit right with you? I'm trying to understand, but I don't...

leejo · 04-09-2005, 04:06 PM

Would you be ok with the police walking the dog up and down neighborhood streets, sniffing at each door until they happened upon someone who had some drugs inside?

In this case, the police didn't have a strong enough case to enter the suspect's home on the evidence in hand, and they didn't have a strong enough case to secure a warrant, so they used this dog to obtain information about what was inside the house and strengthen their case.

I need to read the opinion on this case, but if all that's required for a drug dog to sniff at my door is a police officer's whim, I consider that an unreasonable search of my house. And I need to flush a few things.

04-08-2005, 03:55 AM	#66 (permalink)
Root Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: South east england Posts: 8,838	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? The dog found drugs, so I'm biased in favour of the conviction. Objectively though, they had info from a druggie that there was a dealer there. Would it really have hurt to get a warrant before sending the dog in? It should have come down to how reliable the druggie was. I believe in human rights and civil liberties over making it easier for the police to get arrests. I've made my opinion of druggies and dealers pretty obvious in another thread, but the police should have had to catch him dealing rather than waltz in with the dog. We're getting a lot of changes in the law in the UK to make you guilty until proven innocent, and this just seems to be another facet of the same problem. I've only had one experience of sniffer dogs. Sussex police were securing brighton station prior to the queen (actually it might have been blair) coming to town. The dog literally checked everyone in the station. Can a dog be trained for explosives and drugs? I know which I'd consider the biggest threat to a head of state, but this dog got 3 or 4 people for drugs in the space of 10 minutes. It checked my girlfriend, at which point I practically ran out of the station, not because I had anything illegal on me, but because I'm scared **less of dogs, and I don't give a ** how well trained they are. Sussex police lived down to their reputation as the countries worst police force when the dog handler totally ignored me backing away. He didn't call another officer over to search me, he didn't even ask why I backed away, he just walked off. Root __________________ BFCL TF2 league admin

04-08-2005, 02:13 PM	#70 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,411	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? A year or two ago the Supreme Court ruled against allowing police to use infrared scanning devices to look into homes from the street (for signs of grow lights, etc.). I don't understand why the police can't use a scanning device to "look" inside a home without a warrant but they can use a dog to "look" inside a home without a warrant. Now if they could train the dogs to use the infrared scanning devices they'd really be in business.

04-09-2005, 07:05 AM	#72 (permalink)
Clardog Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Asheville NC Posts: 23	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? Alot of post on this topic, and I've not read them all so I don't want to "argue" for either side. I only want to say that I'm a law abiding kind of guy, and I tend towards the public servant side as far as jobs go. I served six years in the Marines and three years with my local Sheriffs Deptment. BUT! I don't like any type of "laws" or "actions" that move us (The USA) any closer to a police state. I'm sure Hitler had some very good arguments why Germany would be much safer if the private citizen had no access to firearms, and after that it was most likely a short skip to having SS officers on every corner asking the law-abiding citizen to show their papers to PROVE they were in fact law-abiding. I know that sounds a bit paraniod but its the small steps that take your freedoms one by one untill one day, maybe not you and maybe not your kids, but thier kids are cowering before thier own government.

04-09-2005, 04:06 PM	#75 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,411	Re: Sniffing dogs unconstitutional? Would you be ok with the police walking the dog up and down neighborhood streets, sniffing at each door until they happened upon someone who had some drugs inside? In this case, the police didn't have a strong enough case to enter the suspect's home on the evidence in hand, and they didn't have a strong enough case to secure a warrant, so they used this dog to obtain information about what was inside the house and strengthen their case. I need to read the opinion on this case, but if all that's required for a drug dog to sniff at my door is a police officer's whim, I consider that an unreasonable search of my house. And I need to flush a few things.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links