WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered curbing police use of drug-sniffing dogs as lawyers argued that using a dog’s hypersensitive nose outside a home to indicate the possibility of illegal substances inside amounts to an unconstitutional breach of privacy.
Justices also are considering making states prove in court how well-trained and effective those drug-sniffing dogs are before prosecutors can use evidence turned up by the dog — something police departments say could put a crimp in their use of canines in law enforcement. It “puts the dog on trial,” said lawyer Gregory Garre, who represented the state of Florida in both cases.
I had the chestertown police walk a K-9 around my friends car after a traffic stop for <5 mph over the speed limit. After making a full lap around the car with no reaction from the dog, the officer gave the leash a hard jerk. When the dog yelped he said that it had indicated the presence of drugs. Its an excuse to break constitutional limits on search and seizure, but they get away with it because in our society today no polititian would have the cojones to come out against it. That and Chestertown police are on par with SS gestapo, but thats just my opinion.
Dogs are'nt the only animals that can sniff drugs,so the joke might be on the attorneys arguing against the use of dogs.All jokes aside,a pig has even a keener sense of smell than a dog and has proven it over and over again in illegal drug and narcotic detection.For every police officers sake I hope the use of dogs in drug interdiction continues.They are much easier to handle,but not irreplaceable.
Exactly @ 11:53, just another way around constitutional rights for police officers. Like "tag lights" being "dim". SInce they are training the dogs who knows if they have a signal to make the dog indicate something?
well if you use the dog to find evidence, and since it is a police dog and trained by police, then it should be subject to police systems such as going to court and proving the dog is competent and able to do its job and to prove it is accurate...
I had the chestertown police walk a K-9 around my friends car after a traffic stop for <5 mph over the speed limit. After making a full lap around the car with no reaction from the dog, the officer gave the leash a hard jerk. When the dog yelped he said that it had indicated the presence of drugs. Its an excuse to break constitutional limits on search and seizure, but they get away with it because in our society today no polititian would have the cojones to come out against it. That and Chestertown police are on par with SS gestapo, but thats just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteUntrue story 11:53. The supreme court hearings have nothing to do with vehicle scans.
ReplyDeleteDogs are'nt the only animals that can sniff drugs,so the joke might be on the attorneys arguing against the use of dogs.All jokes aside,a pig has even a keener sense of smell than a dog and has proven it over and over again in illegal drug and narcotic detection.For every police officers sake I hope the use of dogs in drug interdiction continues.They are much easier to handle,but not irreplaceable.
ReplyDeleteExactly @ 11:53, just another way around constitutional rights for police officers. Like "tag lights" being "dim". SInce they are training the dogs who knows if they have a signal to make the dog indicate something?
ReplyDeletewell if you use the dog to find evidence, and since it is a police dog and trained by police, then it should be subject to police systems such as going to court and proving the dog is competent and able to do its job and to prove it is accurate...
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with this... Move on!!!
11:53 AM
ReplyDeleteThe next question is did they find anything?
Untrue story 11:53. The supreme court hearings have nothing to do with vehicle scans.
ReplyDeleteNovember 1, 2012 11:56 AM
Why not? Because one is a house and the other a car?
To me it's the same principle, although one would expect more privacy in their home than in a vehicle.
Police have to prove radar/laser guns are accurate, calibrated correctly and the one using it is property trained as well.
Why shouldn't the same apply with dogs? They are not infallible as the example in the article reveals.
That particular dog alerted twice on same vehicle, two months apart, first time there were drugs the second time not.
Also, these 4 legged search warrants should have very clear probable cause to sniff anything, and not just on a whim of its' handler.
What the Heck... Obama is going to get rid of the Constitution anyway..so what is the big deal?
ReplyDelete