[NJ_gent]

"If I'm driving along and violating no law and the cops set up checkpoints in order to have dogs sniff my car, the situation is quite different."

Interestingly enough, I wonder if you could argue against a police dog search at a checkpoint. If we assume, for a moment, that a checkpoint is not a seizure as such, then this comment by Stevens would seem to go toward making a dog search an infringement. Consider:

"The dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent's car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation."

Stevens seems to be saying that the search by the dog was ok because it was done while the individual operating the car was lawfully seized. In other words, he's done something wrong and has been seized as part of the policing process. When you're going through a checkpoint, I can see an argument that you're not seized at all because there's no presumption of wrongdoing. (Yes, you and I know the reality is the exact opposite, but this is the BS logic they used to justify a crap decision).

[Doctor Stochastic]

What about insurance checkpoints? There have been some checkpoints set up to see if the drivers are properly insured. This does cause some delays.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Big problem is how arbitrary the "alert" of the dog is.

I said it earlier, but it is simple to teach a dog to alert on a command or signal, even the wink of an eye.

Once we are in the position that a dog bark is on a par with conviction, nobody is free or safe from ilegal siezure.

"Pull over please."

"Oh, it's that John Lenin guy. Seabiscuit, Who is it?" "wink"

"Woof!Woof!"

"Ok, tear the guy's car apart, cuff him and rip his things to pieces, he's a felon, Seabiscuit finds him guilty."