"According to the Court, ho wever, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of respondent’s house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule? Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years; they were ubiquitous in both this country and Britain at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment; and their acute sense of smell has been used in law enforcement for centuries. Yet the Court has been unable to find a single case—from the United States or any other common-law nation—that supports the rule on which its decision is based. Thus, trespass law provides no support for the Court’s holding today."
No, he put it where it belonged, in the unlawful search category vice a trespass issue. The former requires a warrant or at least reasonable suspicion/probable cause which is much more specific than a simple matter of trespass.
In my mind, bringing a police dog on to my property is a de facto search. They exist for specific reasons, attack/hold, search. A dog in the control of a LEO is either a weapon or a search device, nothing more, nothing less. A cop and a dog standing on the right of way are fine, step on to my property/within my curtilage, and you’d better have a warrant! The dog exists for no other purpose. Police don’t get to bring Fuzzy the pet along for personal comfort.
well, yer honor, why dont we put fido on the stand and allow cross examination ???
answer, because its a friggen DOG...
The authority is in the fact that trespass, or right to enter, applies only to humans. A dog or a deer cannot trespass. An animal can be denied entry without explanation, except a very specific case of a guide dog, and only because the right belongs to the dog's owner. In some cases there are very sound reasons to keep animals out (allergy, cat in the house, a child, flower beds, phobia, live wires, rat poison, etc.)
Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years
He didn't have to throw a monkey wrench into his dissent. This phrase clearly indicates that dogs are instruments of humans. Instruments are used. In this case the dog was used for an illegal search.
It could be even understood if the LEO took the dog with him because the dog wanted to walk, or it was lonely in the car. But then the dog handler may not pay attention to what the dog indicates. As soon as he does that, the dog transforms from being a companion to being a tool.
An individual has the right to enter another person's porch if he reasonably believes that the other person would consider him welcome, but has no such right if he has no plausible basis for belief. Although a criminal charge of trespass would require that the accused have been notified that his presence was unwelcome, it would seem pretty clear that a cop who enters a porch in the hope of finding something he could use to justify his non-consensual entry into a dwelling should not expect be considered welcome by the occupant thereof.
The cop was trespassing not because he had a dog, but because his purpose for being on the porch is one which he knew or should have known the occupant would likely consider objectionable [and would almost certainly consider objectionable if there was anything for the dog to find].