Cops Want Warantless Searches On Your House With Drug Sniffing Dogs

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,133
3,033
258
Sunnydale
#1
Supreme Court considers reach of drug-detection dogs

The cases of Franky and Aldo hinge on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

3:49PM EDT October 31. 2012 - The Supreme Court appeared inclined to split the difference Wednesday when determining the appropriate use of drug-detection dogs: They're generally OK, but not at your doorstep.

Hearing arguments in two Florida cases, several justices seemed likely to accept the expertise of dogs with documented training to sniff out contraband, rather than demanding case-by-case evidence of their reliability.

But in a Halloween hearing, they drew a line at the entrance to private homes, arguing that crime-fighting dogs at one's doorstep are far different from Girl Scouts or trick-or-treaters.

The canines in question – retired drug detection dogs Franky and Aldo – weren't in court for the spectacle. But that didn't stop the justices from discussing their qualifications, motives and behavior.

Police "have every incentive to train the dog well," said Justice Antonin Scalia, questioning the Florida Supreme Court's demand for detailed training, certification and field performance records in Aldo's case. The liberal justices appeared less trusting of a dog's nose but similarly wary of using courts to determine each dog's qualifications.

On the other hand, Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to align with the court's four liberals against Franky, who detected marijuana in a Miami grow house only after spending several minutes sniffing around the front door. Justice Elena Kagan called that "a lengthy and obtrusive process." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it could lead to random searches of "any home, anywhere."

Both cases hinge on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches – a protection the high court held in high esteem during its last term, when it ruled unanimously that police should have obtained a warrant before placing a GPS device on a drug suspect's car.

Although modern technology didn't exist when the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, dogs certainly did – and they have been used reliably by police for a number of causes, including the search for victims of this week's superstorm Sandy. "Scotland Yard used dogs to track Jack the Ripper," said Gregory Garre, who represented Florida in both cases.

"These dogs are quite reliable," agreed Joseph Palmore, representing the U.S. Justice Department, which sided with the state.

But Glen Gifford, an assistant public defender representing one of the defendants, begged to differ. "Dogs make mistakes," he said. "Dogs err."
The guy who wrote this thinks we still have privacy rights.

 

Atomic Fireball

Well-Known Member
Donator
Jul 26, 2005
6,392
4,355
678
#2
What are you trying to hide? If you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't have any problem with the police and their pups taking a harmless look around your home.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,601
4,165
628
#3
What are you trying to hide? If you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't have any problem with the police and their pups taking a harmless look around your home.
That's exactly what every dictator in the history of the world said. There is absolutely nothing stopping some asshole cop from saying the dog alerted. Can't ask the dog, can you?
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,805
16,917
919
Your house, behind the couch
#4
What are you trying to hide? If you've got nothing to hide you shouldn't have any problem with the police and their pups taking a harmless look around your home.
Um, no. Nobody gets into my home without a warrant and I don't have anything to hide.

Now on the chance that you posted that to troll Kirk and
get his dander up, carry on. ;)
 

kidconnor

55gallon hog
Mar 16, 2005
5,416
1,163
678
brooklyn
#6
I don't get the picture. It's the cops fault for sending you to jail if you get caught?

Agree or disagree with the drug laws, specifically the marijuana laws, there is not one person that doesn't know the risk if they are caught carrying or smoking marjuana. Its a very recognizable smell, and in some cases very strong, even in little amounts. If you want to take that risk then just man up and accept the punishment if you get caught.

Now carry on about how cops get hard ons when they smell it and how they love to brag to each other how many people now have records because of their awesomeness.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,133
3,033
258
Sunnydale
#7
I don't get the picture. It's the cops fault for sending you to jail if you get caught?
The drug war is being ran under the guise that its to protect us from ourselves. But in reality the drug war creates crime and destroys lives.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,805
16,917
919
Your house, behind the couch
#9
I don't get the picture. It's the cops fault for sending you to jail if you get caught?
No, but it's the way you get caught here that's troubling. Wanna come into
my house? Go to court and get a warrant. Just a hit by a dog shouldn't
be enough to come into my house. A judge needs to make that decision.

Now carry on about how cops get hard ons when they smell it and how they love to brag to each other how many people now have records because of their awesomeness.
I've actually been thru a traffic stop where the cop smelled
something and didn't bust everyone in the car because we
were polite and didn't give him any shit. I never even got a
ticket. Just a warning. Pot makes you hungry, not stupid.
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,601
4,165
628
#11
It took years to get DNA admissible as evidence, by the dumb dog handled by a entirely fallible human? I think not.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,250
12,980
438
Atlanta, GA
#12
Now carry on about how cops get hard ons when they smell it and how they love to brag to each other how many people now have records because of their awesomeness.
They have no problem showing off how many drugs they confiscate while pretending that they're actually making a dent in the problem. That spells "douche" to me.
 

Atomic Fireball

Well-Known Member
Donator
Jul 26, 2005
6,392
4,355
678
#14
That's exactly what every dictator in the history of the world said. There is absolutely nothing stopping some asshole cop from saying the dog alerted. Can't ask the dog, can you?
Um, no. Nobody gets into my home without a warrant and I don't have anything to hide.
What kind of monkey business are Kirk and you guys up to anyway?
 

Sunsetspawn

Registered User
Dec 5, 2005
2,955
410
328
#15
I don't get the picture. It's the cops fault for sending you to jail if you get caught?
Come on now, don't be "that guy," especially on wackbag. I realize it often looks like a conservitard circle jerk around here, but it's actually a libertarian circle jerk.

Although I'll explain it just in case you didn't get it. It's the cops fault for giving a damn about it in the first place as the only danger in smoking cannabis is the legal ramifications.

However, there is a difference between "real life" and "theory." "In theory" cannabis smokers should be arrested, but in real life, cops tend to leave harmless, taxpaying potheads alone. Of course, I'm sure there are many factors that come into play here, but I know for certain that the battle-hardened cops of NYC will leave respectful white folks alone if nobody's rights are being violated.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
43,054
9,859
848
#16
fuck the dog beware of the owner
 

kidconnor

55gallon hog
Mar 16, 2005
5,416
1,163
678
brooklyn
#18
Come on now, don't be "that guy," especially on wackbag. I realize it often looks like a conservitard circle jerk around here, but it's actually a libertarian circle jerk.

Although I'll explain it just in case you didn't get it. It's the cops fault for giving a damn about it in the first place as the only danger in smoking cannabis is the legal ramifications.

However, there is a difference between "real life" and "theory." "In theory" cannabis smokers should be arrested, but in real life, cops tend to leave harmless, taxpaying potheads alone. Of course, I'm sure there are many factors that come into play here, but I know for certain that the battle-hardened cops of NYC will leave respectful white folks alone if nobody's rights are being violated.

But I am that guy. I certainly don't need the real life vs theory explination.

But my point was is definitely isn't the cops fault for making a legal arrest. His fault? The fault lies with the person who took the risk carrying or smoking in the first place when they knew the ramifications yet wants to sit in the cell bitching that the cop is at fault for not giving them a break. Don't put the cop in a position to decide on whether or not to give you a break. The only one at fault is yourself. Not society, not the money hungry towns, not the evil pot naysayers.. its the persons fault.


Now debating the use of dogs and whether its enough to enter a house is the issue.

There are a lot of cases that get decided in the supreme courts that affect what a cop can and can't do. It evolves and changes daily. I don't think the issue is cops walking up to every door with a dog hoping for a hit. Maybe they need cooberating evidence or a reason to be at the house. But its issues like this that need clarification as long as drug laws exist.

I get the article but the picture that accompanied it wasn't needed.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
143,288
50,552
644
#19
Russell Brand and PowerPoint Dave did an entire in depth analysis into this theory.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,207
27,695
898
Seattle
#20
Drugs to sniff your dog with a cop searching house.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#21
But I am that guy. I certainly don't need the real life vs theory explination.

But my point was is definitely isn't the cops fault for making a legal arrest. His fault? The fault lies with the person who took the risk carrying or smoking in the first place when they knew the ramifications yet wants to sit in the cell bitching that the cop is at fault for not giving them a break. Don't put the cop in a position to decide on whether or not to give you a break. The only one at fault is yourself. Not society, not the money hungry towns, not the evil pot naysayers.. its the persons fault.


Now debating the use of dogs and whether its enough to enter a house is the issue.

There are a lot of cases that get decided in the supreme courts that affect what a cop can and can't do. It evolves and changes daily. I don't think the issue is cops walking up to every door with a dog hoping for a hit. Maybe they need cooberating evidence or a reason to be at the house. But its issues like this that need clarification as long as drug laws exist.

I get the article but the picture that accompanied it wasn't needed.
I'm with you on this one. Sorry guys, most of us feel that the drug laws are in need of an overhaul, but to fault a police officer for upholding the laws on the books is retarded. Just because you don't believe the law should be there doesn't mean you can ignore it.

I used to smoke pot here and there. I had an eighth that lasted me 6 months. That's how rarely I smoked. Now that I have my license to carry, it can be revoked immediately if I get caught with even the smallest amount of pot. It's been 2 or 3 years since I have smoked up and I don't miss it. My concealed carry license means more to me than the ability to smoke up every so often.



Back to the topic of the thread, using a dog to sniff around front doors amounts to a fishing expedition in my eyes. There are too many problems with it. Like Don mentioned, the dog could be trained to give a false hit on command. I don't believe it's that nefarious though. A dog could unwittingly be trained to give a false hit here and there. Doesn't the dog get a reward after giving a hit? Lets just say the dog learns that behavior and wants a reward? I'd say the chances are small, but it could happen. That small amount of doubt in my mind is enough to say that a hit on someone's front door doesn't automatically give you probable cause for a search.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,738
37,904
628
In a porn tree
#22
I trust the cops to properly use drug sniffing dogs about as much as I trust them to properly use their polygraph "lie detectors"... none. I trust them none much.

The cops us lie detectors as a pseudoscientific tool of intimidation, and I can totally see them using drug sniffing dogs as a probable cause golden ticket... like a blank check search warrant. It's totally up to the opinion of the K-9 handler to discern what constitutes a drug dog "hit", and a dog can't be calibrated like a breathalyzer or a lidar gun... matter of fact... a dog could EASILY be trained to give a false "hit" signal at its handler's bidding.

It's fucking insane handing this kind of broad search authority to the police.

Whatever incriminating evidence is found as a result of a "drug sniffing dog search", should be no more admissible in court as the results of a polygraph.

Shit... why don't we hand cops dowsing rods, so they can scan houses for probable cause to search?

"My paranormal witchin' stick is a' twitchin', boys... bust the door down!"

Fucking bananas.
 
Last edited:

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,738
37,904
628
In a porn tree
#23
Now carry on about how cops get hard ons when they smell it and how they love to brag to each other how many people now have records because of their awesomeness.
You're going to sit there and pretend like those cops don't exist?
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,601
4,165
628
#25
I trust the cops to properly use drug sniffing dogs about as much as I trust them to properly use their polygraph "lie detectors"... none. I trust them none much.

The cops us lie detectors as a pseudoscientific tool of intimidation, and I can totally see them using drug sniffing dogs as a probable cause golden ticket... like a blank check search warrant. It's totally up to the opinion of the K-9 handler to discern what constitutes a drug dog "hit", and a dog can't be calibrated like a breathalyzer or a lidar gun... matter of fact... a dog could EASILY be trained to give a false "hit" signal at its handler's bidding.

It's fucking insane handing this kind of broad search authority to the police.

Whatever incriminating evidence is found as a result of a "drug sniffing dog search", should be no more admissible in court as the results of a polygraph.

Shit... why don't we hand cops dowsing rods, so they can scan houses for probable cause to search?

"My paranormal witchin' stick is a' twitchin', boys... bust the door down!"

Fucking bananas.
You'll get arrested, then they confiscate your house, like in the other thread. Not out of the question at all.