[NJ_gent]

"only those that invade a Constitutionally protected zone of privacy. According to the SCOTUS, this one didn't."

The SCOTUS decided to look past the fact that this was a trunk and that the human cops apparently didn't smell anything. It's more an issue of what constitutes 'plain view', in my opinion. Personally, I see far too many problems with extending 'plain view' past what a human being can detect with his or her senses during the normal course of events. Apparently, the SCOTUS wants to extend it to anything that can be detected by anyone or anything without physical contact. Yes, they try to dance around it neatly by saying the air comes out and is no one's property, but it's still wrapped up in the neat little package of willfully ignoring the consequences of not restricting plain view to human sensory capabilities.

"I'd suggest the following: since drug-sniffing dogs aren't infallible"

It's a tempting road to march down, and it solves the immediate problem. The problem is, what happens when science builds a better mouse trap (or dog's nose, in this case) and makes it well enough that it's nearly impossible to find fault with it? My problem isn't that the dog might find beef jerky - my problem is that a location with reasonable privacy expectations was searched by police without probable cause or a warrant by means that extend beyond the range of human sensory capabilities; thus making it not plain view.

[MisterKnowItAll]

'The SCOTUS decided to look past the fact that this was a trunk and that the human cops apparently didn't smell anything. It's more an issue of what constitutes "plain view", in my opinion.'

Sure, and that's a much better argument than the claim that the Court redefined the word 'search'.

However, I think the main problem is still that -- 'plain view' aside -- there doesn't appear to have been a legitimate privacy interest in this case at all. _If_ the Court was right that the dog sniff could reveal only the presence or absence of contraband, then the only information at issue was unprotectible in the first place. And if so, that falls under a _different_ exception to the Fourth Amendment from the 'plain view' exception.

'Personally, I see far too many problems with extending "plain view" past what a human being can detect with his or her senses during the normal course of events. Apparently, the SCOTUS wants to extend it to anything that can be detected by anyone or anything without physical contact.'

I don't think that's their argument in this case. Here, they argue (rightly or wrongly; again, you may disagree with them) that the possession of contraband simply isn't information that falls within reasonable privacy expectations in the first place.

'The problem is, what happens when science builds a better mouse trap (or dog's nose, in this case) and makes it well enough that it's nearly impossible to find fault with it?'

According to the Court's logic in this case, it still has to be precisely tailored to collect _only_ unprotectible information in order to pass Constitutional muster. I don't see thermal imaging and wiretaps and such meeting that standard now or ever. (Again, this isn't currently a 'plain view' issue since it falls under a different exception to the Fourth Amendment.)