Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Because a cop can, intentionally or unintentionally, cause a dog to give a false positive, the use of a dog should not be sufficient evidenct to enter without a warrant. The court did well here.


2 posted on 03/26/2013 9:40:51 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cuban leaf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf


9 posted on 03/26/2013 9:46:56 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

I think if it’s true a cop can on purpose or unintentionally cause a dog to give a false positive, they should NEVER be able to use them without a warrant, ANYWHERE.

We’ve all known they can do this with their dogs and there is an incredible harassment power with it. Do not think the power has not been abused, or that it won’t be worse in the future. And there are plenty of cops who aren’t above planting a baggie somewhere then the dog “finds” it. And there goes your freedom, vehicle, and you’re done.


38 posted on 03/26/2013 10:42:00 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf
Because a cop can, intentionally or unintentionally, cause a dog to give a false positive, the use of a dog should not be sufficient evidenct to enter without a warrant. The court did well here.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled, only a month ago, that a drug-sniffing dog alerting to a car on a public street was sufficient grounds to search the car. Today's ruling was that bringing the dog onto the porch of a house was itself a "search" requiring a warrant. (The distinction is that, under prior SCOTUS rulings, a search of a car requires only probable cause, not a warrant, but that a search of a house requires both probable cause and a warrant).

67 posted on 03/26/2013 1:47:26 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

I agree, so why is it legal to use them on vehicles, and at schools for backpacks and lockers?


80 posted on 03/26/2013 2:42:42 PM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

Dogs act off of human body langauge far more than we think. If a cop wants to find drugs the dog may sense this and react in kind.


81 posted on 03/26/2013 2:44:11 PM PDT by LukeL (Barack Obama: Jimmy Carter 2 Electric Boogaloo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

Can he piddle on the corner post?


89 posted on 03/26/2013 5:36:59 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf; sickoflibs
Because a cop can, intentionally or unintentionally, cause a dog to give a false positive, the use of a dog should not be sufficient evidenct to enter without a warrant allowed for evidence anywhere.

just a couple edits for ya...

no different than a cop going fishin in yer car because he *smells alcohol* or *smells marijuana*...the dog is just a prop to use in case the fishing expedition comes up empty...

recently had a state trooper make me blow a breathalyzer on *his* smell...after laughing in his face and telling him he was a liar and a punk, i blew the bottom out of the lil straw and spit all over his arm...and informed him i havent drank in 7 yrs...

checkpoints on the road are no different than walking up on the porch...

95 posted on 03/27/2013 4:49:14 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

If it’s illegal for a police dog to sniff your porch....how come the TSA can fiddle with your junk?


106 posted on 03/27/2013 10:27:49 AM PDT by spokeshave (The only people better off today than 4 years ago are the Prisoners at Guantanamo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: cuban leaf

this is in keeping with other USSC cases.

Police can not use “tech enhancements” to bypass warrants. (infra red, sonar, dog training, robots)


127 posted on 04/01/2013 9:07:40 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson