Replies

After reading the first page of responses, I thought I was in "Smirking Chimp" by mistake. So I went to the last page, and the same attitude prevailed.

There is a conservative side to this, folks, and it's the way the majority of the Supreme Court voted, so I speak without fear of major contradiction as I continue.

Who has reason to dislike this new ruling besides people who handle or use illegal drugs? That wouldn't be you, now, would it?

Illegal drugs fall under the legal category of "contraband". It is the duty of all law enforcement officers to confiscate contraband whenever it is discovered. Unlawfully discovered contraband is nevertheless still siezed, though cannot be used as evidence at trial. Suppose the perp in the title case did get a finding of illegal search. His MJ would not have been given back to him.

Contraband can be discovered by use of the five senses; sight; hearing; touch; taste; smell. The use of dogs to assist law enforcement has been accepted for many years now. So don't even try to argue against the use of dogs.

And a dog's senses are very much more acute that a human's. What a human can't smell, a dog can.

Please give an officer some credit for having reason to suspect behaviours that you wouldn't think were anything but normal. Even the choice of words by a detainee can be of major significance to an experienced officer. Particularly if a small lie is told. These guys have experience dealing with thousands of people, and they learn many, many things along the way, often through mistakes, about how certain behaviour indicates that "something" is wrong with this particular situation.

A cop routinely pulls over a speeder. He senses "bad vibes" (not evidence or even probable cause), but he feels the need to take the next step, especially since he can smell the overpowering smell of deodorizer coming from the car, which he, from his experience(and you, from yours?) knows is a common tactic used by people in the drug scene to mask the smell of drugs.

The courts accept ALL of this stuff, but the cop has to back it up in court, under oath. That's your protection.

All cops lie in court? Cops, who are hired on their honest backgrounds anyway, know they only have only one opportunity to lie under oath, the first time, since after that they'll be in prison if they get caught. If you're a cop with a family and a future, like almost all of them, lying is not a serious consideration.

Back to the traffic stop. Now the cop has reason to suspect (you wouldn't, but he does) that there's something fishy with the stoppee, and drugs is a good possibility.
If there's a canine unit available he calls on it to conduct a sniff test. In this case, Bingo!

Suppose the dog sniffed and didn't react to anything. Would you still be upset that a dog sniffed your car, if you were allowed to just drive off afterwards? If you were not carrying drugs at all, you would have minded the dog even less than the officer who stopped you for speeding. At least that's how the average "innocent" citizen might be expected to feel, IMO.

But not you? Hmmmm......

Smell of drugs on money can be insignificant, since studies showed that almost ALL US currency carries the smell. But....a large wad or roll of bills, big bills, big amount, jammed in a front pants pocket, is significant to the officer, and may be yet another indicator that he's got something there.

Could it be that some of you think this decision by the Supremes might make it easier for the cops to catch druggies? Well, it does just that! And if that bothers you, for one particular reason, then your laments should not be directed at the dogs, but at the law itself. But there's no hope there. Do the crime,.......

When I compare and contrast (ha) the dog-sniffing as per the subject incident, and the use of an infra-red heat detector, I don't see the difference (though I don't remember the specifics of the decision). In that case, the police had info that an individual was commercially growing marijuana in a warehouse, and used lighting to heat and illuminate the growing area so as to create a constant state of daylight to speed the growth of the plants.

There are times when just that amount of info is sufficient for a search warrant and raid, but not in this case. So the cops flew a helicopter over the building and the IR heat detector showed the roof of the warehouse lit up like a Christmas tree, many times brighter than any of the other buildings and residences in the area.

Somehow, the court decided that looking at someone's roof was in "invasion", and needed a search warrant to make it lawful. Compare and contrast that decision with the one on the use of sniffer dogs? *flapping my lower lip* Bubbidy bubbidy bubbidy......!

How do you "civil rights protesters" feel about the Patriot Act? It's working fine, you know. Caught some bad Muslims, etc. Bother you any?

'Cause if you approve of the Patriot Act, and lament about the dog-sniffing decision, your motive for the lament becomes pretty clear doesn't it?

Who has reason to dislike this new ruling besides people who handle or use illegal drugs? That wouldn't be you, now, would it?

That is the oldest, most worn-out -- and most incorrect -- cliche in the world.

I am a proud member of Narcotics Anonymous. I'm coming up on my second 'birthday'. I despise drugs, because I personally have seen what they can do to a person.

But what I despise just as much as drugs, and perhaps a little bit more than them, is the abrogation of the Bill of Rights. The War on Drugs has diluted or destroyed most of our guaranteed freedoms, and now it appears that the rights of a person to be secure in his person, home, papers and effects is under extreme assault.

Power and authoritarianism, fascist control and unyielding government are also addictive, and have a druglike effect on those who wield it.

I might rightly observe that you and your kind, who have little concern for rights but who place all trust in the Omniscient and Omnipotent State, are the TRUE ADDICTS in this equation.

But....a large wad or roll of bills, big bills, big amount, jammed in a front pants pocket, is significant to the officer, and may be yet another indicator that he's got something there.

I routinely carry large quantities of cash. I like to visit pawn shops to bargain hunt. Many of my "bargains" cost hundreds of dollars, and the pawn shops do not like checks/visa... And, I buy a lot of things.

As a long time conservative, your argument sucks. Just because I get stopped by some suspicious cop does not make me guilty of anything. I am hypoglycemic, and often get the shakes in mildly stressful situations. Following this logic, I should always be checked further. Or, if I appear nervous to him, it may be that I have had too many "stops", or fishing expeditions.

I always lock my car when asked to get out. I have never been expesed to a drug dog, but feel this is a wrong decision. But, the only options are armed revolt, or move to Belize (it's really warm there), or Canada (it's really COLD there).

Maybe you like living in a police state. I do not! If I break the law, punish me. But, make sure you do it properly, not playing some gung-ho cop trying out his "profiling"!

Of course they also have "revenue enhancement" posed as safety! Its all about the money!