Skip to comments.Supreme Court Says It's Illegal For A Police Drug Dog To Sniff Your Porch
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 ...
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.
Score one for the Constitution.
What about the F’ing police dogs with wings in the skies?
So when will they rule that cops have no right to chase people into their homes for the act of photographing them in public?
Scalia wrote the per curiam opinion.
Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor for; Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer against.
Yep, but we've a long way to go.
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.
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.
Don’t I know it! Have a good day!
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.
"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 respondents 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 casefrom the United States or any other common-law nationthat supports the rule on which its decision is based. Thus, trespass law provides no support for the Courts holding today."
Not surprised that Roberts would support such action, but Alito? That caught me offguard.
IOW, using the dogs to sniff was the equivalent of a cop walking up to the window and doing the “peeping tom” thing.
Scalia and Thomas respect the Constitution. I’m never sure about any of the others. Sometimes it works out OK.
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.
They won't because the city is going to write a big check before the case goes to trial.
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.