Posted on 02/27/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by Kaslin
Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general
public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously
have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance
is a Fourth Amendment search, and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/case.html
“In 1991 Agent William Elliott of the United States Department of the Interior came to suspect that marijuana was being grown in the home belonging to petitioner Danny Kyllo, part of a triplex on Rhododendron Drive in Florence, Oregon. Indoor marijuana growth typically requires high-intensity lamps. In order to determine whether an amount of heat was emanating from petitioners home consistent with the use of such lamps, at 3:20 a.m. on January 16, 1992, Agent Elliott and Dan Haas used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex.”
Horsecrap.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
Effects covers automobiles:
Papers encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. Effects encompass all other items not constituting houses or papers, such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than property; thus, an open field is not an effect.
And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.
And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.
“Effects covers automobiles”
No, it does not - not when you are driving down the road. However, you might be correct if your car is parked in your garage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception
And even your own link requires probable cause for a search. Using a drug sniffing dog is a search, plain and simple. The dog should not be used unless there has been probable cause from other means, such as observing the driving smoking pot.
The lack of a response here is quite telling.
“Does an alert now allow a search of any vehicle - vehicles going through a DUI checkpoint, for example - ‘yes’ or ‘no’?”
If a drug dog happens to be there, and it alerts on a vehicle going thru a checkpoint, then yes - there may well be enough probable cause for a search. The threshold for searching a vehicle is low.
Remember, this is NOT a case about warrantless searches of cars. It is a case involving probable cause: would a reasonable person, if they see a drug dog alert on a vehicle, suspect drugs are inside?
The standard is very different for a house, or for a person sitting inside the car.
In most jurisdictions the dogs are considered to be police officers, theoretically if you harm one it is the same as if you had harmed an officer.
Contrast that with the idea if an officer harms a civilian’s dog it is considered property- usually of little or no value, instead of considering the dog as a member of the family.
Wrong. The dog itself is a search method. Probable cause to use the dog should come from elsewhere.
Why are dogs routinely used in search and rescue missions?
Because search and rescue missions aren't usually performed with the aim of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.
Dogs are used in search and rescue missions because of their acute sense of smell, in fact positively affecting a persons life, liberty and property.
A dog is not a method.
Bottom line: the courts disagree with you. The Supreme Court disagrees 9-0. It isn’t close.
Besides:
“Officer Wheetley pulled over respondent Harris for a routine traffic stop. Observing Harriss nervousness and an open beer can...”
“It is unlawful and punishable as provided in this section for any person to possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage or consume an alcoholic beverage while operating a vehicle in the state or while a passenger in or on a vehicle being operated in the state.”
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/316.1936
Why are dogs routinely used in search and rescue missions?
In search and rescue missions, false positives don't generally trigger violations of privacy rights.
How many false positives have triggered violations of privacy rights? Are there credible statistics to which you can point?
Every single one of them, by definitions of the terms.
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.