E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe idea that your home is your castle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. So what if the police bring a dog to sniff for evidence at the castle door?
Two cases from Florida, to be argued Wednesday, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide when the police need a search warrant to use drug-sniffing dogs at a house, and how much legal authority a dog's alert gives police to search a car.
The front-door case comes from Dade County, where police received a Crime Stoppers tip that occupants of a house were growing marijuana. After watching the house for about 15 minutes, police and federal agents sent for Franky, a drug-sniffing dog.
A police handler walked the dog up to the front door, where Franky alerted the officer by sitting down after sniffing at the base of the door. After using that result to get a search warrant, police entered the house and found marijuana plants growing.
Recommended: One week left: Ryan stops by traditionally blue Minnesota
But a judge threw the evidence out, ruling that "the use of a drug detector dog at the defendant's house door constituted an unreasonable and illegal search." In other words, the court said, the police should have gotten their search warrant before they sent for Franky.
The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of police, acting without a warrant, to use dogs at airports for sniffing the outside of luggage suspected of carrying contraband or to sniff the outside of cars at roadside checkpoints.
The devastation caused by Sandy has some wondering whether next Tuesday's election could be delayed, at least in the states suffering the most from the storm. NBC News Justice Correspondent, Pete Williams looks at the legal question.
But the court has also said that police, without a warrant, could not stand on the street and aim a thermal imaging device at a house to see if marijuana was being grown inside with heat lamps. Such an intrusion, it held, would reveal the private activities of a homeowner, including such intimate details as "at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath."
The state of Florida argues that there's no violation of privacy in a dog's sniff at the door because drug dogs alert police only to the presence of illegal substances, something in which a homeowner has no privacy interest.
But the state's supreme court rejected that argument, finding that the Fourth Amendment's protections are at their highest at a house. It found the dog sniff to be "a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home."
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers urges the Supreme Court to affirm that ruling. "Allowing suspicionless dog sniffs of houses would permit indiscriminate sweeps of residential neighborhoods, a practice that some law enforcement officials have already begun to employ," the group says in a legal brief filed in the case.
In the second case, a Seminole County deputy sheriff pulled over a pickup truck because it had an expired license. When he noticed that the driver was shaking and breathing rapidly, exhibiting behavior consistent with drug abuse, he asked for permission to search the truck.
The driver said no, so the deputy brought out Aldo, a drug-sniffing dog, from his patrol car to sniff around the truck. Aldo alerted on the driver's door handle. Considering that to be sufficient cause to search the car, the deputy found chemicals commonly used to make methamphetamines. The driver then admitted he bought them for that purpose.
The Florida Supreme Court threw out that evidence, too, concluding that there's no sure way to know exactly what caused the dog to alert. "There is no uniform standard in this state or nationwide for an acceptable level of training, testing, or certification for drug-detection dogs," it said.
The Obama administration is urging the court to rule for the deputy and Aldo. After all, the Justice Department argues, what a policeman sees, hears, and smells can often establish the legal justification for a search without a warrant.
Dogs, the government says, do it better. "An alert by a dog trained to identify certain odors provides an even stronger basis for probable cause to search a location for the odor's source," the Justice Department says in its brief supporting the state.
Leave a Comment:
I do not see how law enforcement should be allowed to set foot on anyones property without a warrant, much less go to the door. If they had a call from the house with a request or complaint that is one thing. Trespassing is not a resonable search.
Without probable cause they shouldn't. That's the gist of the case.
Nobody can come onto your property without warrant if you don't want them to, especially to build a case against you.
I agree, but the police state that is NYC does not follow many of privacy laws or honor any of your rights... As a completely certified and legal gun owner, you can't set foot on the Island with it. Random pat downs by police just because you LOOK suspicious, check.... Hell, they just outlawed large soda in the city... Police state all about control.....
Our government declared war against its citizenry years ago. That is the origin of the police state.
No warrant, no search. PERIOD.
Honestly... This and numerous other wanton usage of our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS sometimes makes me want to say "F! The Constitution!!!"
They aren't God given rights, they are bestowed upon us through the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution.
Ray, may I most respectfully disagree with your wording. The Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, in my [not so] humble opinion, the Bill of Rights enumerates for all time some (thought certainly not all) of the basic and fundamental rights of people.
If the First amendment didn't exist in writing anywhere, I still have the right to freedom of speech, just as were the Second nonexistent, I'd still have the right to keep and bear arms...I just might have to be prepared to fight a little more often and a little harder to assert those rights.
And btw, I'm prepared to.
Remember it's "reasonable" search, and that shouldn't be the sticking point. It should be what should be done if the dog is wrong. Vehicles get scratched, and furniture chewed at, but if nothing is found we should be given a kings ransom over and above material costs, and this would slow the searches.
OG,
That seems like a pretty naive outlook. I'm willing to bet you never took any sociology or philosophy classes in college huh?
Ray,
I agree 100% that our rights are granted by the Constitution and protected by the freely elected government. My question, is why do you only count up to ten? Especially considering that the 14th and 19th amendments specifically grant rights to those who did not have them before that time.
respectfully, old gaffer, but for most of history, those are not rights most humans have enjoyed. actually, most of the people on this planet at this very minute do not enjoy protection from illegal search and seizure, or the right to free speech, or many of the other rights given US citizens. the bill of rights most certainly DOES grant those of us who live here those rights, and even with the bill of rights, those are not absolute rights. your home CAN be searched, even without due process. you freedom of speech CAN be censored....or silenced. your right to arm yourself CAN be infringed, limited, or outright taken away.
that is just in the united states- many humans don't really have any rights on a practical level. the idea of so called God-Given or inalienable rights sound really nice, but rights are only for those who have the power to grant them to themselves. for most of history, only the most powerful truly enjoyed freedom.
Ray and living,
Our rights are not "granted by the Constitution" in any way. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are negative-right documents telling the government what it cannot do. Thus, Congress cannot pass laws that infringe on the right to speech, religion, privacy, etc. By that very wording, one can imply that these rights are assumed to be natural and fundamental rights of all humans.
Living,
I'm not sure what sociology and philosophy classes have to do with it.
Some things are readily apparent to the thinking mind, even without formal indoctrination.
Formal indoctrination?!? I never said any thing about religion.
Talk about making a federal case out of growing a little weed!! The stuff should be legal anyway. Put a tax stamp on it, make a little money. Just think about it, Grover Norquest all up in arms about new a new sin tax. A new tax on the poor users?..., less costly than jail time for this non-sense.
I've seen the results of a little 'weed'. Despite the tin-hat rumors that the government is out to get you regarding your weed to save their government jobs, and despite the fact that it is no more addictive nor more dangerous than cigarettes, I've seen first hand quite the opposite.
I've seen where students who were once bright and hard working suddenly drop off and not work at all, beginning to fail all their classes. I have a neighbor who can't even figure out how email works and is incapable of learning new things.
Pot makes your lazy and stupid. Maybe over a long period of time, but it does. And don't try to sing the whole "It isn't addictive" nonsense. If your Soma wasn't addictive, you wouldn't be crying and whining so much for it to be legalized.
So, by your logic Skurfer, a policeman conducting a murder investigation in the neighborhood cannot walk up to your door, knock, and ask you anything without a warrant? Am I reading that right? That would be considered trespassing?
Wrong, wrong wrong, all wrong. Again.
In a few more years you will have no rights, you will be in a containment center awaiting termination.
The depopulation of the planet has already begun.
J70141 - Weed has ZERO physical addiction. You can get mentally addicted to it, much like alcoholism. But to put weed in the same category as other hard drugs is just plain wrong. Ill give you some credit, that weed can make people lazy, but so can video games, alcoholism, and just about anything else you can mentally addicted to. The issue, is weed is the only mentally addicting substance that's federally illegal. Instead of making it legal and offering counseling to those who abuse it, we spend billions of dollars trying to keep it under control.
Its unproven to be a gateway drug, its proven to not impair driving ability, its proven to not be not physically addicting, and its proven to not hurt the body in any way shape or form (when taken via edibles). You can still get minor damage from the smoking but its no where near as bad as tobacco.
There is some precedent for a search like this. A cop used some kind of swab to test a front door knob for drug residue, and it came up positive. The defendant argued "private property". The SC said no, the front door is not private, so the search was upheld.
My own feeling on this is if the front door is considered public property, fine, but that means drug residue found there is irrelevant to the private property adjacent to it. After all, if it is to be considered a public area, anybody with drug residue on his hands can touch your doorknob - so a dog alerting for drugs in the "public area" means nothing in regard to the adjacent private area.
Of course, the SC won't rule this way - I'll bet my next year's salary they'll uphold the search. Here's what they'll say: there's no difference between scent molecules that a dog can smell, and light photons a human can see. They're "out there" for the sensing.
Isn't this the same illegal cause for search issue about illegal aliens in Arizona? Anyway if a man's home is his castle why can't he grow and enjoy marijuana in it?
That's why they are called PIGS ....
Really! Try going to Somalia or Syria and even in the Northern Provinces of Afghanistan and "enumerate for all time (love that) some of the basic and fundamental rights of people." Tell them that Bill of Rights represent the universal rights of mankind, LMAO!
They'll cut your happy head off and send it home to your mamma! How about that for all time "enumeration"!
LMAO! (I can't stop laughing at the naivety of your post!)
Guess one could argue the use of one's eyes is no different........
Nothing is illegal in the eyes of the criminal.........
@Ray in Jax: Those rights are ours BEFORE the constitution. Our rights are NOT "given to us" by our government. VERY important distinction you should be aware of. Too many people think the GOVERNMENT grants US our rights. It's the other way around. Stand up for YOUR rights.
@Dawg pound: Irrelavant. Those other countries have nothing to do with anything here.
DAWG,
Those rights are our natural human rights. Those areas you mentioned suppress those human rights.
The United States Constitution protects those natural human rights; it does not grant them.
I am saddened that I have to repeat this argument with my fellow citizens.
No way Angry- the SIDEWALK is public property, whether you be a renter or owner.
swabbing a door knob would be like swabbing our money so I agree with you there, theh dog would mean the same thing.
livinginthewoods, is it through your sociology courses in college that you "learned" that rights come from government, through documents such as the constitution?
Never mind that Jefferson, when he spoke of "unalienable rights", spoke of them as endowed by God, and if you don't believe in Him that's fine, consider them natural to the human condition. But if you accept that government is the source of your rights, then get ready to lose them on a whim and have no recourse to get them back.
Natural rights? What rights exist in nature. The right to be born and die? Those are the only two guarantees in nature.
Rights are something we created.
If someone thinks god gave them rights then that is their constitutionally protected right to believe so but, it is also the end of any ration conversation on the matter.
If rights were automatic and devine in nature then this would not even be an issue anyway because you could damn sure grow pot in your own home if that was the case!
The problem with considering a front door "public property" is that it discounts the fact that the front yard of your property is "private property" Legally, a person cannot "trespass" on private property, and that includes a front yard or porch, which is required to be traversed in order to reach the door.
As for marijuana making people lazy and stupid (even though this part of the conversation has strayed far off topic, which is whether police should be able to take drug dogs to your door), the only scientific studies that show that there is any lingering effect involve adolescents, as the chemicals in marijuana affect brain development. Virtually every study invovling actual adults shows that those effects are temporary (only during usage), and not even universal.
Any vote for Obama or Romney is a vote in favor of even more intrusions into our lives.
Please vote LIBERTARIAN with me; even if only this once. Lets give freedom a chance
The Constitution enumerates the POWERS WE GIVE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Bill of Rights was simply a re-reminder of what ISN'T in the Federalista's power. Of course, over time and it's perversion, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stands as what we are supposedly protected from, and what isn't in the Bill of Rights are fare game for the Federals, and even when it IS in the Bill of Rights they find creative ways around it.
The Constitution isn't all that long, and I suggest people give it a read, keeping mind that it lists EXACTLY what the Federal Powers are. Therefore if it is not stated what the Federals can do, then they CAN'T (it even says so right in it that that which not clearly spelled out is reserved to the States). Then compare that to the ever present nature of the Federal government in your life and ask yourself how did this come about? Warrant-less gathering of data into databases, no-knock forced entry into people's houses, no requirement to declare yourself as an agent of the State, intervention into every aspect of the productive sector simply because they may operate over state lines and therefore can be blanketed by an extremely broad interpretation of the commerce clause.
And ask yourself why, of all the taxes one pays, the vast majority goes to the level furthest away to fund making treaties and raising armies in times of need. How in the heck we ever got to the point where 20+% of the GDP goes to the Federalistas, and a goodly % more in regulation. Just how we now have perpetual war for perpetual peace, troops stationed around the world, how we have an ~$16,000,000,000,000 debt and a heck of a lot more when unconstitutional unfunded entitlements are added on, the present value of which is at LEAST another ~$40,000,000,000,000 (with some estimates FIVE times that amount).
In addition, where in the Constitution does it say that it has the power to list out good mood altering and bad ones? That it can wage a four decade "war" against the bad ones, regardless of the liberty eroding consequences? There is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives the Federal government the authority to formulate a controlled substance list. They did go through the bother to make an amendment against alcohol, which the repealed after they realized what stupidity they had unleashed. But being intelligent, they went ahead on BUREAUCRATICALLY continued to ban certain substances without even the bother of an amendment. They simply just took the power. And now we have all the liberty stripping additions in the enforcement of policies they have no purview over in the first place.
jfrom colorado F@@@ all the numbers !! Yes, Marijuana does effect cognitive functioning after continued long-term use, however, studies have been conducted that show that cognitive functioning returns to normal when use is discontinued.
I know, I'm a certified drug and alcohol counselor
our rights are being stripped daily. The judge did the right thing here. They should not be allowed to search your car at a traffic stop either.
The Obama administration is urging the court to rule for the deputy and Aldo, one more reason to get rid of Obama.
jc, if you think romney wouldn't do the same thing you're delusional.
J.C.,
Gotta resource to verify such a claim? No? Didn't think so!!!
I have a resource, the second to last paragraph in the preceeding article.
Chris, even though I'm Pro Obama, it clearly states in the article itself that Obama is urging the court to rule in favor for the deputy and Aldo.
When it comes to the police state both sides of the political spectrum are very much in agreement. I am voting all democrat for now but anyone who says the other party is the one pushing the police state have blinders on. Both sides love big brother government control!
For every rightwing nut job pushing to kill birth control or outlaw homosexual marriage there is a nanny state liberal looking to outlaw large cokes or circumcision.
That is why I am a moderate who follows the sanity.
If Obama *hadn't* been advocating for the use of dogs you would be bitching about that too...
I have a resource for you, not that either political side will llike it. I disagree with the President on this one just as I disagree with Repub's about checking citizen papers on any hispanic that happens to be walking down a street. Both are violations of our rights in my humble opinion. So if you are going to bash one side: show some honor and bash both.
Guess Chris really IS a wanker.
Unless you have a locked gate that has to be gone through to get to your front door, it is perfectly legal for "anybody" to go to your front door (including a dog). Being there and not entering that door does not violate anybodies rights (or wrongs or lefts). The police were correct in this instance in obtaining a search warrant after the dog implied drugs beyond the door (due to the scent being outside of the "house").
Ed - They didn't bring the dog until after they had a received crime stopper tip. They should have gotten the search warrant at that point, before entering the property..
Mmm not really Ed. If you own the property and do not want people there you have a right to kick them off and tell them to go away. Hence the purpose of " No Trespassing" signs. Most people by virtue of manners and common sense will not immediately kick anyone off of their porch right away, but in theory they could if they wanted to. This was a total violation of privacy.
Well, the first case of the Dog sniffing around the house is maybe a bit complicated, but the vehicle stop seems pretty clear to me. The stop itself was reasonable (even necessary) because the guy had an expired license. It's like pulling a car over for a broken tail light, or for speeding, or some other infraction - it's not a random / profiled stop, it's an infraction. Past that point, it's like the officer ''noticing'' blood dripping from the trunk. He doesn't need a search warrant in a case like that - because it's reasonable cause to search.
I'm all for protecting people's right to privacy - but c'mon guys. We are not talking about an army of storm trooper Nazi's going door to door, we're talking about normal traffic stop for a valid reason, then the officer noticed behavior consistent with drug impairment, and then the officer's K9 partner noticed the drugs.
And the guy was making Meth. There is no constitutionally protected right to expect privacy for your Meth making activities.
All the police had to do was make up a story that they received a few calls from around the area about a marijuana smell. Then say that's what prompted them to arrive, trespass, and obtain an unethical warrant. If the law enforement is going to break the law, they should do it so it works in their favor, instead they look foolish.
They can sniff my butt anytime they want. But I have to warn you that could permanently impair a dog's ability to use scent ever again in the future. It could even be life threatening. So do at your own risk!
I think the government should criminalize dandelions ... because , you know, making a law about something works really well. Once they have eradicated dandelions, then they could move on to crab-grass, chickweed, ragweed, etc.
Just think how much better our society would function without all these awful weeds...
Yeah. FTWeeds!
How 'bout a "war on mosquitoes"?
You can bet, Woodsy, that if there was any real money to be made on there would be a war on mosquitos....the last war we had on mosquitos got us the Panama canal....
lmao and FLIES!
If the dog stands on the public sidewalk or public road, I can't stop them. They damn well better not set a foot, or paw on my property without a warrant.
Will you shoot them?
If you don't put up some kind of a deterrent (like the door to your house), you can not expect any type of expectation of anybody not to come to your door. Like a delivery person, a political hack, a religious hack, somebody collecting for a charity, a girl scout selling cookies, or a public safety officer (like police, fire, etc.). And implied "threats" might just get you a visit you also don't want.
I have a beware of dog, no soliciting, no trespassing signs all over my yard, I've never done drugs in my life I don't have anything to hide but I do have a right to privacy.
Ed P - There's a difference between a delivery person and a cop showing up to search your house. There's even a difference between a cop showing up to ask if you've seen anything suspicious in the neighborhood and a cop showing up to search your house. The drug-sniffing dog is a search of your house, plain and simple. Accoring to the 4th Amendment, that requires a search warrant, not just probable cause. The Constitution specifically says a search warrant, issued by a magistrate, stating what is to be searched and what is to be searched for. Cops self-warranting is unconstitutional under any circumstances.
I have a sign on my door that says "No Solicitors" and underneath that it says, "That includes Jehovah Witnesses". Does me no good though, every Saturday their flock fans out in my neighborhood and they still knock...I haven't tried shooting them though. Great idea.
@Friend of Gravity - You should try hanging up a Star of David next to that sign. They might leave you alone then. My default thing to say to them is that I'm Jewish and am not interested. They usually leave me alone and stop knocking at my door after that.
My no soliciting sign says:
NO SOLICITING!!!!
Which means we don't want your....
books/magazines
vaccuum cleaners
cleaning supplies
God (we already have one thanks)
Build a fence....problem solved
And what if you live in an apartment complex?
Don't do anything illegal that can be detected from outside you apartment!
I have lived in an apartment on several different occasions and my number one goal in life at all of those times was to no longer live in an apartment. Much like the 2 different times I spent a few days in my car, my number one goal in life was to get an apartment.
AS much as I hate drug dealers, the abuse of our rights has to stop somewhere. Dogs can be trained to act like there are drugs, when there are not, therefore we could be unlawfully accused of something just to gain access to our private home.
Absolutely right. Train a dog to sit, claim it's a "signal" every time the dog does it at a door, and search every house in the nation.
Unless, of course, someone should rub a little chronic on the doorknobs of federal judges in the dark of night, then call in anonymous tips ....
When the dog can request, in writing, a warrant without human help. Same thing applies to drones. When the drone can make a decision to request a warrant, and, without violating your personal airspace.
Cops lie. Ask any defense attorney that has been around for a few years. They see cops doing it in a court of law all the time, under oath. Anytime they want a warrant, they simply state they smell marijuana. Ever get pulled over at night and the first question is "How much have you had to drink tonight?", even if you haven't had a single drink? It's their SOP.
Ray, yes they do lie. It's happened to me. When a cop asks me if I've had anything to drink, I tell him "I don't drink, have you been drinking tonight?"
Never EVER answer the questions of a Law Enforcement Officer...it is your 5th amendment RIGHT to KEEP QUIET,
you surrender you license , registration & insurance proof & STAY QUIET.
When you open your mouth you are in effect providing PROBABLE CAUSE for the officer to take action !
Just don't answer "As much as I wanted". It doesn't work well...
Well, it never hurts to be polite to the officer when he/she pulls you over, regardless of whether or not you've done anything illegal. That's gotten me out of several tickets. Furthermore, if you've got drugs in the car, don't drink alcohol or use them until you get home for pete's sake. Don't give the guy any probable cause to search and don't endanger other drivers.
wes- same thing happened to me recently, I was driving the drunk person home, I had to go through the whole "field sobriety test" I failed the heel toe and stand on one foot part, I have spinal stenosis which I told the officer about, I passed the pen test, ABC test, and the breathalyzer when they arrested me hopefully you're not having to go through all this.
yeah...and don't say "You're not going to look in the trunk, are you?" :-)
"you don't need to, there's no weed in there."
What people should really be po'd about is the simple fact that the police are wasting precious time, money and energy on mj users, while the really bad AND dangerous people are out and about committing horrible crimes...this is an incredible assault on the 4th Amendment, yet few really care...how sad...one day they will be coming for YOU
Of course they are starting to go house to house. They are not looking for drugs, they are looking for money and property they can confiscate. The laws are set up so that any and each agency that makes a bust can take whatever property is attached to it and sell it off.
This so called war on drugs, mostly pot, is a sham.
Exactly. What do you think happens to all of the money from these DEA "drug raids"? Meanwhile productive citizens can become criminals in the eyes of the law just for smoking a joint.
NEVER, ever, let law enforcement get their hands on money or valuables, period. It doesn't matter who it belongs to legally, you will have to fight to get it back.That is the advice I give buyers at auctions where I am working. Possession is 9/10th of the law, split it up, bury or hide it, if you just came into possession of it, file the taxes on it, but whatever you do, don't tell anyone, or go running to the police, IRS, prosecutor, or even your own lawyer, with YOUR cash and/or valuables in hand. You might get it back, but the burden of proof will be on you, as to whose property it is.
"The problem is with the voters who have supported ever expanding government over the past 40+ years. The "Land of the Free" has been transformed into the worlds "Prison Nation".
Vote LIBERTARIAN
Come on folks...you all know the Bill of Rights is nothing more than old toilet paper
I think you're overstating matters a bit. At least old toilet paper has been used for something.
A simple protection against cops coming to your door with a dog. Put a fence around your yard, post " no trespassing signs and get a big big guard dog or 2 and plant them right outside your front door.
The idea here is to give the police EVERY incentive to get a warrant first and in the case of having potentially dangerous dogs out on your front porch, they may even have to call you to ask you to remove them, there by tipping their hand to you.
It is frustrating though. You do not want people growing drugs in your area, but there is no justification for anyone ignoring or attempting to get around the 4th amendment.
I'm not going to wall myself in out of fear of the cops or anyone else.
They will simply break through all your barriers, shoot your dog stating IT was a threat. Then they will rip your house to peices looking for something. If they don't find anything and you haven't said much they might place a roach or small bag of something somewhere so you don't see prison time..
At the least, they'll shoot the dogs. Happens all the time, every day.
If they do any of that without a warrant, they will have all evidence tossed out in court and will have to repay you for the damage done.
That is the point of the fence and dogs. At that point they can not get close enough to your house without a valid warrant. It is a deterrent to them just coming up and sniffing your door at will, not a way to actually keep cops out that have lawful probable cause.
Sometimes it is not about keeping people out, sometimes its about making things harder and less routine.
as katt williams said "you don't grow drugs, drugs you have to alter, boil in water, add b12, stir it up, but i don't know the formula".
Gotta git soma that @!$%#it in ya!
"What is wrong with someone in your neighborhood growing weed when they keep such a low profile that drug dogs are necessary to discover the activity?
Even a hint of that sort of activity could devalue everyone else house in that area by 10s of 1000s of dollars. That is one reason. The other reason is that people who grow the plant likely have regular visits from dealers and other people who may carry weapons or attract others that do.
I personally think that people should be able to grow MJ for their own use and I think the state should license people who want to sell it, so, in that way I guess I feel the same as you. Alas, the law is not set up that way.
Since when does the oval office have the right to place pressure on ANY court to rule in one direction or the other other? What the hell has happened to our country?
Mr. President, please shut up..
These matters are CONSTITUTIONAL and should not be decided because a sitting president interfered with the judicial process.
There should be some form of penalty for anyone that attempts to place pressure on any court ruling.
The Oval Office has as much right to submit "Friend of the Court" briefings as any private citizen or concerned group. Obama did this in the Miller vs DC case a few years back, and Republican administrations do it too. While I see no inherent wrongness in this, it does give you a good idea where the administrations stand.
It is ALWAYS in the government's interest to gain as much power over the citizenry as possible, but it is rarely in the citizens' interest.
It's prob not the actual pres, however it is his administration. I agree though, the fed should not be putting its nose in a state issue. This is why they have lower courts.
I don't know how this house was positioned but my property begins about 200 ft. away from my front door. As far as I understand a warrant is required to investigate any part of the property.
My front door is about 10 feet from the sidewalk, and it is not practical to put up a fence or no trespassing sign. As far as I'm concerned, just walking down the sidewalk with a drug sniffing dog is an invasion of my privacy. Quite frankly, no matter what the SCOTUS says, it is unconstitutional to do ANY search without a warrant. It doesn't take a lawyer or judge to read the plain English of the 4th Amendment. The fact that they have allowed cops to self-warrant and do searches without a magistrate-issued warrant shows their disregard for the Constitution that they were sworn to protect. It is judicial activism.
When the @!$%#ing dog shows up at my door, I'm going to grab my .357 and shoot it. I don't want the police knocking at my door with a dog, god dam fascists.
Hank, that would just be suicide. Here in Florida, they have been killing unarmed naked people because they are causing disturbances or acting irrationally; prosecutors are notoriously unwilling to bring charges even against proven and violent criminal members of law enforcement.
Well Hank, I just have to state the obvious! "You are a freakin' Idiot!"..
Just wait until the drones are flying...and collecting more than just visual data... the police state is a must if the corporations are to rule...NYC is just a test...the destruction of the OWS movement by federal authorities is a national test of putting down the rebellion they know will come when the corporations (Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan) get installed as the new puppet regime...Where is the outrage for the republican plans of voter suppression? Voter theft by corrupted voting machines is next on the agenda...why is this race so close? It isn't...what is needed is a close race to cover up the theft...remember Florida and the corrupt SCOTUS? I get a little off topic sometimes, my tin hat blew off in the wind...
The general line of demarcation is public property vs private property. Getting to the specifics is the tough area to define. If you are transporting illegal goods on public property and there is probable cause for a search, then you are heading for a world of hurt. Messing with the same stuff on your own property under cover should be protected from extensive monitoring without a warrant. That level of protection is not afforded so you can engage in illegal activities. It is to prevent the state from engaging in threatening tactics and intimidation. Imagine police permitted to enter your home weekly and perform a search because the mayor thinks you voted for his opponent.
If I wanted to, I could train my dog to "alert" on an innocuous cue from me, regardless of the presence of any evidence.
So could any competent trainer.
Hell, you don't even have to train it to alert, just claim it did. Whatever the dog does, that's the alert signal.
You don't even really need a dog, just say you had a dog, and say it gave an alert signal.
True. Whatever the cops say, that's what the courts believe. Cops always get away with lying. They say in school innocent until proven guilty, but in reality, it's guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof should be on the cops and the accusers, but it never is.
Yep - Patrick Pogan's last victim would have gone to prison if not for NYPD's failure to confiscate all the videos. They missed one, and that's all it took.
Thugs In Uniform. Makes the good ones stink too.
I tend to be very against search & seizure by police, but this backlash is a bit much. Anybody can walk up to your door, granted perhaps not legally but lets face it, trick-or-treaters, salesmen, police (alerting you of a robbery in your area), Mormons, etc. all come up to your door, being a police K9 officer doesn't change that. It is, at least in WA state, perfectly legal for a police officer to walk up to your front door. If he sees marijuana through your front window (you're stupid) and he can use that to get a warrant. The dog's positive result was used to get a warrant to enter Joelis Jardines' house.
And when you are on public roads, they are just that: public roads. In Washington state, we have the implied consent law, where by driving on a public road, you are automatically giving police permission to give you an alcohol breath test. This involves a police coming up to your car, with or without his K9 unit.
Many of what I have mentioned are Washington state specific laws. They may be different in different states, in which case SCOTUS's reasoning could be much more interesting if they side with the police.
Another question for discussion: can a K9 unit smell your car parked on the side of a public road with no-one in it? Or in a grocery store's parking lot?
The point is really that they're searching private property without actually going inside and more importantly without a WARRANT. It's a shaky loophole. I don't grow or use drugs but I'll be damned if cops with drug sniffing dogs going around my house looking for incriminating evidence will make me feel safer. I just can't for the life of me be a good Nazi.
Implied consent laws are unconstitutional also. Again, read the text of the 4th Amendment. They MUST have a warrant issued by a magistrate stating specifically what is to be searched and what is to be searched for. Requiring you to waive this right in order to go out in public or drive is ridiculous. Again, it shows the cops and SCOTUS disregard for the constitution that they were sworn to protect. They must be replaced, by whatever means necessary, with a government that actually supports and defends the constitution.
The law has traditionally asked whether a person has an expectation of privacy that is sufficient to trigger a warrant requirement. In the past, smells such as pot, were considered part of the air and produced no expectation of privacy. This case is interesting because in the past, an airplane flying over a pot farm was good without a warrant but using binoculars was not allowed. Same with looking at a house with an infrared heat sensor was not allowed.
Here we have a dog that can sniff beyond the powers of a police officer in most cases... except for doughnuts. Only kidding. But the question is whether the dog sniffing is akin to an enhancement like binoculars or a heat sensor that can penetrate walls beyond the senses of a police officer.
I think a good case can be made that the dog is like binoculars and allows the officer to smell more than he has a right to smell without a warrant. But it all depends on how they view the dog and whether the actual sense of smell in the public opened spaces gives any expectation of privacy. To that end, it is a much closer space. For example if a cop could smell cocaine as well as a dog, would that require a warrant? NO. There was no expectation of privacy if the cop could pick this smell up and identify it without special equipment.
So the case is a good one and a close one. It will all depend on whether the dog is looked at like binoculars, or whether the smell that is in the public air eliminates the expectation of privacy.
If the dog wins then I think that would have to put binoculars and heat sensors and other gear that increases the human senses into play; it would certainly alter the expectation of privacy to virtually eliminate it. So this is a very important case. Knowing Roberts the lame RINO, he will push for a very narrow interpretation just on sniffing dogs, leaving the law in shambles just as he did with Obamacare.
Don't understand the problem. This should have been sufficient cause to search the door handle.
The 4th Amendment protects persons, houses, and effects from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Unless you place a barrier to the entrances to your house to prevent people from approaching then the fact that you have a sidewalk up to your front door that has a doorbell button beside it is an implicit invitation for anyone (salesmen, mail carriers, police accompanied by a dog, etc.) to come to your door. If you allow an odor of illicit substances to escape from an area where you expect privacy (your home) to an area where you have implied that other people may use to come to call on you (your front stoop) then you have given anyone a right to smell that odor. No warrant is required.
Also, since 1925 the law of the land has been that people driving on the public roads have a decreased expectation of privacy in their automobiles. It was deemed not "unreasonable" for a police officer to search a vehicle without a warrant if their was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime was contained therein, and circumstances exist where the evidence could be destroyed or absconded with before the warrant was obtained. See Carroll v. United States.
That's some interesting logic you have about property rights and the 4rth amendment there. Having a doorbell and lack of fence doesn't mean that your expectation of privacy regarding your house goes out the window. Just because most people have common courtesy and aren't paranoid and don't kick trick or treaters off of their front stoop immediately doesn't mean that they don't have the legal right to do so. If you're a property owner you can kick as many salesman as you want off of your land, it's just that most people don't. Also, the issue is that the Police officer didn't smell or see anything in the public sphere, he brought a dog to do it for him on someone's private property without legally being encouraged to do so.
Carroll vs. US is unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly says that they need a warrant. It does not make any exceptions, regardless of the ability to abscond with or destroy evidence. The writers of the constitution believed (as do I) that privacy was of paramount importance, and trumped all other considerations. The cops and SCOTUS don't care about the constitution, they only care about what is convenient to them. We are living in a police state. The only difference between the US and Cuba is how long a leash they keep us on.
All of this should be cause for concern, particularly since the Obama administration is pushing so hard. Someone walks between cars in a parking lot and touches your door handle. What does that have to do with the interior that is under your control. The UPS guy steps on something at his last stop and then delivers a package to your door and leaves something. This is outside the homeowners control and is also on private property. Authorities are looking for permission to enter and search anything at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Search warrants become just a minor paperwork detail.