What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
50 Comments
- alapoet, on 12/29/2008, -1/+22The particular ruling discussed in the article seems to, against the tide of recent rulings, actually increase protections against unreasonable search and seizure. We'll see how it pans out.
- moviemadams, on 12/29/2008, -2/+22I read it as an expansion of police power over private citizens. The courts will allow police dogs to sniff people, without probable cause, so long as it doesn't add any extra time to the police encounter (in the Caballes case, the Court allowed evidence seized after a drug dog sniffed a guy's trunk during an ordinary traffic stop; usually, the police could not have lawfully gotten into the trunk without the guy's permission or probable cause that there was contraband in there). Basically, a drug dog can do what the police usually couldn't do.
What this guy is saying is, usually police CAN'T use sense enhancing devices to search a home without a warrant (the Kyllo case was a cop using infrared goggles to locate marijuana grow lamps inside a house; the Court called that an unreasonable search). However, police CAN use drug dogs as a sense enhancing aide ... so the next frontier is what happens when a drug dog identifies contraband INSIDE the home ... will the drug dog exception trump the expectation of privacy in the home? - kemp34, on 12/29/2008, -5/+24Send those dogs to the CIA rendition planes. They will go nuts!
- PGPirate, on 12/31/2008, -3/+20Meg Griffin: Brian, you look like you lost weight! What is your secret?
Brian Griffin: Here's my secret. PUT DOWN THE FORK! - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -4/+14The fourth amendment has been slowly shredded by the US Federal Government and the Courts have been complicit in this travesty
- lohphat, on 12/31/2008, -2/+11This is what my tax dollars are being spent on? Invaliding the privacy and busting people committing victimless crimes?
Prohibition didn't work for booze. It's not working for pot. All it's doing is creating crime by creating a black market.
Typical social conservative thinking. Has anything these medieval people conjured up ever work out in the long run and be cost effective? War against Drugs? War against Terror? War against *****? Purity pledges? Censorship?
Give me a break. - protoopus, on 12/31/2008, -1/+9i've thought of using very finely-powdered habanero pepper as a form of aversion therapy to cure these dogs of their intrusiveness.
- TheOtherOne135, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9The article's question/issue was what happens when the law of drug-sniffing dogs meets a portable drug-sniffing handheld device.
Cops aren't allowed to sit across the street and aim an infrared scanner at your home, but are allowed to walk a drug-dog past your door. Which class of intrusiveness will a hand-held sniffer be considered?
Will the cops be able to pull you over for a speeding ticket and carry the handheld up to your car door for a sniff test before writing your ticket, when there's no grounds for suspicion of drugs in the car? Just as a routine? Will cops be able to carry them into your home and run a routine check if you call in a burglary or domestic violence?
ETA: As for the "not a shadow of a doubt" - that's unlikely. More likely, the accuracy of the sniff-device will be much like the blood alcohol machines. There will probably be constant questions of whether the machine was properly calibrated, whether it detecting what it claimed or some similar (but legal) pollen, etc. - Midtowner, on 12/31/2008, -0/+6The interesting thing to me is that some studies have turned up the possibility that many of the 'hits' by drug dogs are false positives. This is because in many cases, handlers give positive reinforcement to dogs that find something. Technology which does not result in false positives might actually be an excuse to extend the government's power to search you, especially when you're in a vehicle or at the airport.
What the courts probably won't allow is any sort of technology which conducts a search within the home. Curtilage? Fine. Inside? Nope.
Also, keep in mind that mostly all of this chipping away at the 4th Amendment was done by the Rehnquist Court. While we still have a 5 judge conservative majority, the Roberts court is a bit of a different animal. - jocampbe, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4Illegal, probably not. A great way to have the cops ruin your day? Yup.
- FKnight, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4That's because the extent of political action that pot smokers take is going to DC and lighting up on the mall.
- moviemadams, on 12/31/2008, -1/+5House is pretty safe. The guy in the IR goggles case was growing dope, but the Court said the expectation of privacy in your home simply outweighs the state's interest in getting that contraband off the street. You basically have to invite/allow the police to search your house if they don't have a warrant. Of course, if you call them for a domestic dispute, you're inviting them in. The first thing a good cop will do is do a safety sweep: go through all the rooms in the house and make sure the area is secure. Any contraband they spot during the sweep is fair game.
My favorite one is, a cop can get a warrant to bug a home phone, and if they spot contraband, they can't seize it then, but they can go right back to the judge and get another warrant to seize it based on what they saw when they broke into your house.
My advice: put the dope out of sight every time you leave or answer the door ...
Vehicles have much less expectation of privacy. If a drug sniffing device did exist, believe police would use it during a routine traffic stop. They just couldn't keep a suspect detained longer than necessary for the traffic stop. Right now, there is an alcohol sensing flashlight being developed, so when a cop pulls someone over and sticks the light in your face, it can sense booze on your breath before a cop can smell it -- boom, probable cause to pull you out of the car and do roadside tests.
Best deal is, don't drink and drive, and don't do drugs. But that's not very much fun, is it? - Mockylock, on 12/31/2008, -4/+8My family works with drug, cadaver and bomb sniffing dogs. The screening process and training they take is pretty hardcore, but you'd have to have quite a bit of ***** inside a house or car for a dog to sniff it from the outside. They're extremely sensitive to even the slightest scent from within several feet (maybe a gram from 10 feet. With that said, you've probably got a bit more to worry about than a loophole in the system when you're moving a kilo of coke or pound of weed. If it's anything less, you really don't have to worry about much to begin with.
I'm not an anti-drug freak, and I'm pro-marijuana... but you can't expect to make anyone think you're innocent when you're moving that much ***** and get caught... regardless of the 4th amendment. The government also has a device that's been used in the military to detect the average blood/alchohol level within a car, without entering it. It's simple, and attached to the back of a flashlight. It's only used in the military, because you basically have NO rights after you sign your life over to the government. It couldn't be used in everyday life, but if it was, it could possibly save lives. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -2/+6Funny, I could almost say the same thing about cops in general
- FurDieNosferatu, on 12/31/2008, -1/+4What does a scanner see?
- jocampbe, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3I'm more worries about the drug sniffing cats.
I CAN HAZ GANJA? - inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+3well put sir
- woofers07, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3FACE!!
- LightUrple, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3FACE!
- Clumber, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2depends on the scanner. My built-in scanner, for instance, seems calibrated to detect and notify of good-lookin' women. My MIL's detects a brief pause or silence so that she can immediately tell her own stories and get as much attention as possible.
But you probably meant "What does aforementioned infrared scanner see/detect ?" And that would be differences in heat, like you might see on the cop chase shows on RealTV (formerly CourtTV) from a helicopter using FLIR (forward-looking infra-red, iirc) where the hiding suspect appears as a white blob in the dark. Pot growing requires pretty strong heat lamps/lighting so it is possible to detect those from outside with an infra-red scanner. - JakeW, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I dugg you up. So I could digg you down twice for being so dumb.
- Collecto, on 12/31/2008, -5/+7Get off Digg you No-Lifer no one wants you here you dumb Power User.
- psyclonic, on 12/31/2008, -3/+5now imagine it's not cocaine but RU-486 sniffing dogs after the anti-abortionists get their way.
- rrife, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Heat signature.
- thewaxgrid, on 12/31/2008, -5/+7"I wanna be a drug-sniffing dog
So I can snort coke all day long
Bite my master when it suits me
Get off on diminished capacity"
- LARD - donramses, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2the answer is that it depends. if the police have other evidence to support probable cause(rumor, snitches, etc... [possession of A powder prob, not sufficient by itself]), they could probably obtain a search warrant to search/seize material that would otherwise not be crime-related.
- unknownpoltroon, on 12/31/2008, -2/+4SO is it illegal to start filling my cars fender with white pepper and powdered bleach?
- maz2331, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Basic rule is that what you do in your house is very protected, what you do outside isn't so much. Cops can't scan or sniff around to try to figure out what's inside the house (unless of course you're doing something really stupid like burning weed in the fireplace such that the whole neighborhood can smell it).
If you're out where anyone can see what you're doing, you can't claim "privacy". - Midtowner, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Because sometimes, a false positive will lead to other non-drug contraband which leads to an arrest.
- ElGstr, on 01/02/2009, -0/+2Lazy, Incompetent and Acceptor of Bribes at the Drug Czar’s Office & the FBI
Legalize all the drugs!
We Really Lost This War!, http://www.broowaha.com/profile.php?id=2434
Wishing Only To Be Blind Again, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3947 - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Excellent summary.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2If the dog can't be trained to tell the difference, the process needs reevaluated
- maz2331, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Also, they clearly differentiate between inside and immediately adjacent areas to a home and more publicly-accessible areas. Basically, they need a warrant to do any searching that finds anything inside the private areas.
- maz2331, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Not quite. This was a case where it seems that the cops actually did things by the book. The coke the dog found was outside the house in some scrub brush 65 feet away, and the dog smelled it from a distance.
The basic rule laid out is: inside the house they need a warrant. Outside is fair game unless there's a fence or other attempt to make the area "private". Vegetation doesn't cut the mustard for that one. And they are not allowed to just run a dog next to the house's door without a warrant either.
This guy was a putz who overdosed, had an ambulance come to the house along with the cops, and either he or his girlfriend tossed his "stash" in the brush outside the back yard. Girlfriend gave the cops permission to search the house, they found some stuff, and were waiting for a warrant "just in case", when the dog outside smelled a bag of dope out in the back yard and fetched it.
Moral of the story: if you OD while in possession of a kilo of coke, have someone drive your sorry ass to the hospital, or expect that the cops are gonna find your *****.
They actually went easy on the dumbass too. Time served and 3 years probation for dealing over 500 grams. He could have gotten a LOT of time. - Clumber, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Also, the author brings up that it won't be dogs in the future, but sniffer-bots instead. The question becomes whether the sniffing requires probable cause, or whether the sniffing can itself create probable cause. If we take the dogs out of the equation (*), there seems to be a difference in the courts' opinion between enhanced vision and enhanced scenting. That probably cannot stand.
/pretend atty
(*) Good boy! Want a cookie? A cookie? Who's a good good dog... - nydwarf, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2***** THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
- dok333, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2OK, I have a little story of my own about drug sniffing dogs
I was pulled over coming out of an apartment complex, kind of a seedy one, just dropped off a guy I worked with, about 2-3 a.m. (now I do have to confess I DID sell him a half nickel, I DID have more on me, WITH postal scales, so yeah, I was guilty...but anyway) the officer asked to search my vehicle...Oh *****!..."uh, no sir I am in a hurry to get home"(Damn it! I left the Crown Royal bag with the ***** in it on the floor board), "but it will only take a second" he says, "no sir I am in a hurry"...so he calls in the drug dogs and apparently 4 other cop cars. Well at the time I was in a criminal justice class at my high school and they demonstrated what a drug dog does when it gets a "hit" on a drug (sits, barks, pretty much makes it VERY clear there is something there). Well, they walked that dog around my car shoving its nose into the door, wheel wells, bumper, and it didn't hit on ANYTHING. So, about that time my, I don't know second or third cousin, who works on the police force comes up to me, (Great! I thought, maybe he'll help me get out of this, WRONG) "Hey buddy, These officers believe you may have something in your car, do you?", "nope", "Nothing? not even like a little joint or something?" (at this point I was starting to get a bit nervous and rookie mistake I said "yeah, maybe a joint, the dog smelled it didn't it?"...STUPID...STUPID) so he goes all Serpico on me and "Yes, it did now WHERE is it!" "uh, in my driver's side door, if I had anything".(knowing the bag was in the passenger side floor board). So he opens it without hesitation, and I see all the empty cigarette packs I have in the door and I say "if I have anything it would be in those cig packs". he rustles through each of them, and of course finds nothing, and says "it's not here where is it!". Now me being young, stupid, and getting slightly pissed, I blurt out "well, I guess I must have smoked it", this must have pissed him off also, because he went into a rant about my father...blah blah blah, anyway to make an already long story less long I was let off with a running a stop sign ticket (which I didn't do, but I did not EVEN want to go there with them at this point)
So my point is cops will run a dog around your car, and being as how they have different hit signals, it is your (or your lawyers) word against the cops as to whether the dog hit on something, now, if the dog DID hit, they wouldn't have to ask me to get in my car they would just jump in without hesitation (busting my ass), being as how it didn't they sent my cousin over to scare it out of me (dicks), anyway I guess I was lucky he didn't charge me for admitting to smoking a joint, but they never got my stash... so remember kids, NEVER allow them consent to search if you have ANYTHING, make them work for it, they may scare you, or hate you, but you may get out scott free - runrun401, on 12/31/2008, -4/+5I've never met a dog that could read, never mind interpret the Constitution.
- BillDauterive, on 12/31/2008, -3/+4At least the dog gets to sniff it legally.
- Alias1431, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=muOfUOTva_k
- rrife, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2What's wrong with a false positive? So the dog detects drugs, they search you, find nothing, send you on your way....no harm done.
- ardembiniwoot, on 12/29/2008, -6/+6when i first read "Coke-Sniffing Dogs" i imagined dogs getting high...
- FlyingCaveman, on 12/31/2008, -1/+1No, The blow is for my bee's. .....Seriously!
- Muffinhunter, on 12/31/2008, -1/+1while some argue that the dogs can be cued, it's impossible to have what you call a "false positive" in the field. dogs don't detect drugs, they detect odors, which can include residue or lingering scents. even if drugs are not found in a search subsequent to a sniff, it does not mean that the dog incorrectly alerted. if someone's a habitual user, or has recently had narcotics in their car, the dog can pick that up.
- alexsoze, on 12/31/2008, -2/+2This makes me feel like Morgan Freeman at the end of the Dark Night.
- 80hd, on 12/30/2008, -5/+5I ask myself this sometimes...
If a scanner were invented that could somehow confirm or deny that anything it was pointed at contained drugs, would such a device be legal to use? Supposing that it was 100% accurate and non invasive to those who had none. A simple "there are drugs in your house/car/body and we know it" with not a shadow of a doubt everytime.
personally I like to see coke dealers get busted. But more importantly, police need to do their job and do it right. How much can technology be allowed to help them though? - CannibalTom, on 12/31/2008, -3/+3Its a ***** conspiracy! Bastard DEA.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -2/+2That is what I thought too, the picture should've been:http://www.flickr.com/photos/8639377@N05/315283335 ...
- chowbow, on 12/31/2008, -6/+1A lot of smugglers put it up their arses. Sorry couldn't help thinking about these dogs sniffing there arses ahhahaha
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is