Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Says It's Illegal For A Police Drug Dog To Sniff Your Porch
Business Insider ^ | Mar. 26, 2013 | Michael Kelley

Posted on 03/26/2013 9:39:18 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies

The Supreme Court has ruled that police use of a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. [...]

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; badcopnodonut; donttreadonme; donutwatch; drugs; drugwar; govtabuse; lawsuit; ruling; scouts; supremecourt; ussc; warondrugs; waronliberty; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2013 9:39:18 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Because a cop can, intentionally or unintentionally, cause a dog to give a false positive, the use of a dog should not be sufficient evidenct to enter without a warrant. The court did well here.


2 posted on 03/26/2013 9:40:51 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Score one for the Constitution.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 9:41:10 AM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

What about the F’ing police dogs with wings in the skies?


4 posted on 03/26/2013 9:42:06 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

So when will they rule that cops have no right to chase people into their homes for the act of photographing them in public?


5 posted on 03/26/2013 9:42:31 AM PDT by MeganC (The left have so twisted public perceptions that the truth now appears pornographic.- SpaceBar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop

Scalia wrote the per curiam opinion.

Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor for; Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer against.


6 posted on 03/26/2013 9:45:29 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop
Score one for the Constitution.

Yep, but we've a long way to go.

7 posted on 03/26/2013 9:45:53 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Porch is curtilage.

Shouldn’t have even been a question about the warrant requirement.

Bringing the dog onto the property is a search.

OTOH, there were some grow operations that I could smell from three doors down. Didn’t need a dog, but I still went and got a warrant.


8 posted on 03/26/2013 9:45:55 AM PDT by SargeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

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


9 posted on 03/26/2013 9:46:56 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

How ‘bout the dogs at the border. When they hit on a vehicle the feds often literally dismantle the thing into a pile of scrap. I wonder what the ‘false positive’ rate is there. The dogs are very very good at their job, much better than Napolitano for sure.


10 posted on 03/26/2013 9:49:21 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Don’t I know it! Have a good day!


11 posted on 03/26/2013 9:49:54 AM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Cops routinely misuse police dogs in all sorts of situations as a pretext for further intrusions. I don’t buy the Dr. Dolittle routine.
Good decision, especially now that the police state is booming.


12 posted on 03/26/2013 9:49:58 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Shaky logic in Alito's dissent:

"According to the Court, ho wever, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of respondent’s house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule? Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years; they were ubiquitous in both this country and Britain at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment; and their acute sense of smell has been used in law enforcement for centuries. Yet the Court has been unable to find a single case—from the United States or any other common-law nation—that supports the rule on which its decision is based. Thus, trespass law provides no support for the Court’s holding today."

13 posted on 03/26/2013 9:50:07 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
I saw that Nebraska video WOW
14 posted on 03/26/2013 9:50:20 AM PDT by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

WTF?


15 posted on 03/26/2013 9:50:34 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Not surprised that Roberts would support such action, but Alito? That caught me offguard.


16 posted on 03/26/2013 9:50:42 AM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

IOW, using the dogs to sniff was the equivalent of a cop walking up to the window and doing the “peeping tom” thing.


17 posted on 03/26/2013 9:53:06 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: txnativegop

Scalia and Thomas respect the Constitution. I’m never sure about any of the others. Sometimes it works out OK.


18 posted on 03/26/2013 9:53:46 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Interesting breakdown of the votes:

Majority (Supporters of 4th Amendment)- Scalia, Thomas, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan

Dissent - Alito, Kennedy, Breyer, Benedict Roberts.

With this vote, after his Obamacare vote, Roberts is turning out to be a total disaster.


19 posted on 03/26/2013 9:54:13 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (The people have the right to tell government what guns it may possess, not the other way around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
So when will they rule that cops have no right to chase people into their homes for the act of photographing them in public?

They won't because the city is going to write a big check before the case goes to trial.

20 posted on 03/26/2013 9:54:35 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I would think this ruling might set a precedent for future rulings on searches/spying by drones, or at least give an inidcation on where the current Supreme Court members might stand on the issue.


21 posted on 03/26/2013 9:57:10 AM PDT by Above My Pay Grade (The people have the right to tell government what guns it may possess, not the other way around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

This was a real eye opener to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdOKUb0jQko

And I have not touched weed since 1977.


22 posted on 03/26/2013 9:59:05 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I can see both sides of the argument, but since the Bill of Rights is a constraint on government that was a condition for the adoption of the Constitution, I think it good that we set some pretty high barriers to government action. Good call by the Court.


23 posted on 03/26/2013 9:59:13 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Scalia and Thomas respect the Constitution.

Except when Scalia is putting Wickard v Filburn on steroids to fight the demon weed: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." - GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (concurring)

24 posted on 03/26/2013 9:59:26 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Sure, if he's sniffing for drugs.

What if it's just one of those things dogs do?

25 posted on 03/26/2013 9:59:28 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

No, he put it where it belonged, in the unlawful search category vice a trespass issue. The former requires a warrant or at least reasonable suspicion/probable cause which is much more specific than a simple matter of trespass.

In my mind, bringing a police dog on to my property is a de facto search. They exist for specific reasons, attack/hold, search. A dog in the control of a LEO is either a weapon or a search device, nothing more, nothing less. A cop and a dog standing on the right of way are fine, step on to my property/within my curtilage, and you’d better have a warrant! The dog exists for no other purpose. Police don’t get to bring Fuzzy the pet along for personal comfort.


26 posted on 03/26/2013 10:00:10 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Scalia’s vote on South Dakota v Dole was bad too.


27 posted on 03/26/2013 10:04:36 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

28 posted on 03/26/2013 10:07:06 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Another day and proof positive the ultra inferior, not supreme, court proves once again they are nothing but political hacks.

Now before you go and attack me because you agree with the decision please note SO DO I.

5-4 decision. Just how inferior are these black robed morons that there seem to be 4 who can never agree what a very short document with back up in the form of the Federalist papers, means when it comes to REQUIRING a warrant?

All it will take is for one more of these morons to retire and the NAPA in the White Hut to appoint another traitor to the constitution.

The 4 who voted against this should be immediately removed, tried for treason, and receive the proper penalty for said treason.

How much longer are we going to allow the government to erode the rights WE DID NOT give them?

We allowed them to conduct warrantless searches in airports, train stations, government buildings so they INFRINGED on the 4th Amendment and we did nothing.

This decision is simply a bump in the road for this government until the NAPA in the White House can tilt the court towards communism.


29 posted on 03/26/2013 10:09:15 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

“The dogs are very very good at their job, much better than Napolitano for sure.”


Better looking too!


30 posted on 03/26/2013 10:10:04 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

FYI, apparently this is Franky, the police dog in question:


31 posted on 03/26/2013 10:20:33 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Doggie ping
32 posted on 03/26/2013 10:24:32 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Supreme Court Says It's Illegal For A Police Drug Dog To Sniff Your Porch

Then why is it not illegal for a police drug dog to sniff your car?

33 posted on 03/26/2013 10:28:16 AM PDT by South40 (I Love The "New & Improved" Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SargeK

Could have been the “fake” stuff you burn to educate people what it smells like instead of the real thing . How did you know ?


34 posted on 03/26/2013 10:30:20 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: South40

They also “illegally” sniff your ass when you go through customs.


35 posted on 03/26/2013 10:31:48 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
I wonder what the ‘false positive’ rate is there.

Decades ago when I was still enlisted I was in my barracks room on a day off. It was around noon and I was making a ham and cheese sandwich at my desk.

Law Enforcement came through the barracks with the drug dog and it went nuts at my door. The cop encouraged the dog to enter and it came over to me. The cop tried to get the dog to sniff around and give the "alert" again but it had smelled the ham and placed his head on my leg and begged me for a bite.

I guess that would be a false positive.

36 posted on 03/26/2013 10:35:56 AM PDT by OldMissileer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer
I guess that would be a false positive.

Not from the dog's point of view.

37 posted on 03/26/2013 10:41:38 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I think if it’s true a cop can on purpose or unintentionally cause a dog to give a false positive, they should NEVER be able to use them without a warrant, ANYWHERE.

We’ve all known they can do this with their dogs and there is an incredible harassment power with it. Do not think the power has not been abused, or that it won’t be worse in the future. And there are plenty of cops who aren’t above planting a baggie somewhere then the dog “finds” it. And there goes your freedom, vehicle, and you’re done.


38 posted on 03/26/2013 10:42:00 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

He’s more than a search tool. You don’t get “murdering an officer” for destroying a search tool. Cops get nothing done to them for using the dog “search tool” incorrectly either.


39 posted on 03/26/2013 10:44:51 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; Titan Magroyne; Badeye; SandRat; arbooz; potlatch; afraidfortherepublic; ...
WOOOF!

Computer Hope

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

40 posted on 03/26/2013 10:51:38 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I’m glad to see the precedent set now, because in another few years the police will be able to fly a humming bird size drone complete with microphone, infrared, thermal and night vision camera right up to your windows and watch what your doing.


41 posted on 03/26/2013 11:01:06 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

That’s a really odd combination of justices on both sides.


42 posted on 03/26/2013 11:02:32 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Supreme Court Says It's Illegal For A Police Drug Dog To Sniff Your Porch

IMHO the ruling was too narrow. They should have ruled that it isn't only illegal for a police dog to sniff your porch but to hump your leg as well..........

43 posted on 03/26/2013 11:04:05 AM PDT by varon (USA Nationalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

That is an excellent summary. The purpose of the police dog is very clear. There can be no question that it is a pet.


44 posted on 03/26/2013 11:06:28 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man; fattigermaster
if it’s true a cop can on purpose or unintentionally cause a dog to give a false positive

It's true:

Handlers' Beliefs Influence Drug Sniffing Dogs' Performance-UC Davis Study-18 Dog Detection Teams, Over 200 False Positives (thanks to fattigermaster)

The original paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html (amusing discussion of same at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2991974/posts?page=114#114 and following)

45 posted on 03/26/2013 11:07:41 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

What a handsome boy.


46 posted on 03/26/2013 11:09:38 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

A border inspection doesn’t require any level of suspicion. They are using dogs to screen which vehicle they choose to search. Having a clean car dismantled is a raw deal, but a lot of times these days they will run it through a back scatter X-ray first.


47 posted on 03/26/2013 11:10:11 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
So when will they rule that cops have no right to chase people into their homes for the act of photographing them in public?

When someone files a suit against a Law Enforcement Agency that does this.

48 posted on 03/26/2013 11:14:28 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (The Constitution does not guarantee public safety, it guarantees liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
NSFW: No wonder the dog is sniffing the porch!
49 posted on 03/26/2013 11:15:12 AM PDT by Daffynition (The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition
He smelled pot.
50 posted on 03/26/2013 11:17:31 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-130 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson