"..miss read that, thought it said pooch"
Posted on 03/26/2013 9:39:18 AM PDT by 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.
That’s a really odd combination of justices on both sides.
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..........
That is an excellent summary. The purpose of the police dog is very clear. There can be no question that it is a pet.
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)
What a handsome boy.
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.
When someone files a suit against a Law Enforcement Agency that does this.
Amazing grouping of justices.
Scalia and Thomas because they respect the original intent.
Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor because they support the pot-heads.
Alito and Roberts supported the search because it would have supported “law and order.”
Kennedy because Roberts went that way.
Breyer’s reasoning? Who can tell?
Roberts is now a full-fledged Statist.
Another W Bush failure.
If you refuse to allow LEO to search your car without a warrant, the will call for a drug sniffing dog, usually just any old dog will work for this, then they claim the dog “indicated” something giving them probable cause.
SCOTUS ping.
"..miss read that, thought it said pooch"
Interesting line-up. The conventional wisdom about "liberal" and "conservative" justices doesn't always apply. Scalia often votes with the defendant's side in criminal cases (Thomas much less often), and Breyer very often votes for the prosecution in criminal cases. Alito is almost always pro-prosecution.
Better not sniff my pouch. The woman next door got exclusive rights. Ohh ...Wait... She don’t.
Already done. :)
Very funny analysis.
Both Obama appointees voted in the (pro-4th Amendment) majority in this case.
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.