Replies

I’m hardly an apologist for a police state. However, if a highly trained drug dog alerts at the outside of a vehicle, would a reasonable person conclude drugs are inside?

And the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, says yes...provided the court allowing the evidence seized to be used also looks at the total picture. The conviction probably had a lot to do with this:

“But it did reveal 200 loose pseudoephedrine pills, 8,000 matches, a bottle of hydrochloric acid, two containers of antifreeze, and a coffee filter full of iodine crystals — all ingredients for making methamphetamine. Wheetley accordingly arrested Harris, who admitted after proper Miranda warnings that he routinely “cooked” methamphetamine at his house and could not go “more than a few days without using” it.”

I’ve driven in cold weather at times, but I never drove around with 8,000 matches...

I would, however, be interested in what court cases you have won by overturning SCOTUS decisions. What were you charged with, and how did you manage to overturn Supreme Court precedence?

“However, if a highly trained drug dog alerts at the outside of a vehicle, would a reasonable person conclude drugs are inside?”

Other than the police’ claim that the dog was “highly trained”, how is it possible to interview the dog to ascertain that the “alert” it is indicating is bona fide?

The dog cannot be cross-examined re its behavior.

The dog is introduced into the situation to register an effect where there is a possibility that a certain stimulus might be present. But again, how do we ascertain that the hound actually received “the stimulus” to which it’s producing a response? How do we _know_ that the response is correct, and not a false positive?

However, if a highly trained drug dog alerts at the outside of a vehicle, would a reasonable person conclude drugs are inside?

Let's say I train my dog to always "alert", now what? Prove you're innocent, that's what.

The article is quite clear that accuracy results aren't necessary: "the Florida Supreme Court, in the 2011 decision that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned, said police should provide information about a dog's hits and misses."

Are you saying that police must already have a reasonable suspicion of drugs in order for a dog alert to permit a search?

Or, can an alert now allow a search of any vehicle? Vehicles going through a DUI checkpoint, for example.

I’m hardly an apologist for a police state. However, if a highly trained drug dog alerts at the outside of a vehicle, would a reasonable person conclude drugs are inside?

Lack of probable cause in a simple traffic stop. It would be like the cops being called for a noisy party, they arrive and it is not noisy at all, but they go ahead and search the house while they are there.

And SCOTUS can be quite schizo in that regard. In Kyllo v. United States they found thermal scans of a house - used to look for pot growing - to be unconsitutional. How is a thermal scan of a house different from a dog sniffing a car from the outside? Same intent, same lack of due cause, similar concept of remote sensing.

The SCOTUS matter was when I was called for federal jury duty. I vehemently disagreed with a recent SCOTUS decision that would have had bearing on the case in question. I voiced my disagreement in sidebar. And five years later, SCOTUS effectively reversed that decision. It's not that I had any direct bearing. But I can smell unconstitutional actions a mile off, even if SCOTUS sometimes cannot.