Replies

The fundamental point is that the sniff is simply not a search [you have let the drug particles out into the general PUBLIC air]. Lots of earlier cases have said that a dog sniff from the PUBLIC areas of a self-storage facility (can't go INTO the unit); from the aisle of a pullman car (Can't go INTO the compartment); or from OUTSIDE a parked car are simply not searches. This just confirms the same principle. Doesn't mean that the dog (or cop) can go inside the car, unless other tests are met (safety -- visible weapons, incident to an arrest, etc).

You may or may not like the line of cases, but this is really no change -- not even an extension -- from past cases.

As was noted a few posts up, the Supreme Court DID make a big change a few years back when they said you could NOT use outside heat detectors (thermal imaging), which had been common practice for a while

While your point is well-taken, consider this:

In my view, this is a potentially troubling development. The Fourth Amendment traditionally has focused on how the surveillance occurred, rather than the nature of the information obtained. Under the traditional approach, the government could not invade your property without a warrant no matter what information it wished to obtain. Under the rationale followed by the Court today, the government may be free to invade your property so long as they only obtain "non private" information. This is particularly troubling in the context of computer searches and seizures. Can the police send a computer virus to your computer that searches your computer for obscene images, or images of child pornography, and then reports back to the police whether such images are on your computer — all without probable cause, or even any suspicion at all? The traditional answer would have been no: the police cannot enter your private property to search even for non-private stuff. But thanks to the increasong focus on the nature of the information rather than how the information is obtained, it's no longer so clear.

For a full discussion of this analysis, ClikenzeeMousenMovir.

The fundamental point is that the sniff is simply not a search [you have let the drug particles out into the general PUBLIC air].

If they can sniff from the roadside, you might have a point (imagining Cheech and Chong's smoke-emitting Impala).

But this guy was forced by government power to stop (for a minimal traffic violation that was a mere pretext). Big difference. I'd feel better if they used drug dogs in shopping mall parking lots or gas stations where people stop to fill up. But of course, they can't have the fun pf pretending that the dog actually alerted, because they don't know who is of the right race.