Brian Couse wrote 11/01/2012 04:57 AM Supreme Court #368737 - 11/01/2012 04:57 AM
Brian Couse Webboard User Reg: 04-23-2012 Posts: 97 Loc: New York Offline	I bought the Police K9 Tracking book from Leerburg and I was a bit surprised to read about a K9's "testimony" during the criminal justice process. Now I found this article and just wanted to share it with you... http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/us/scotus-drug-sniffing-dogs/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Top
Joyce Salazar wrote 11/01/2012 10:38 AM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368744 - 11/01/2012 10:38 AM
Joyce Salazar Webboard User Reg: 02-28-2008 Posts: 2075 Loc: Dallas, Texas Offline	Very interesting article Brian. So, if I read it correctly, they are saying that the dogs sense of smell is illegal? Or in the least, not viable because it's an invasion into the sanctity of the home? It seems to me that is really splitting hairs and that the dog is only doing as trained to do, and these drugs are deemed illegal, that it ought to be ok to do the search and wait for the warrant to further investigate the premises. Some times I just don't get it? The laws that the judicial system sets up, they say they are trying to protect rights, but if you are holding onto illegal substances, why is not ok to search? It seems so stupid to me. Doesn't this fall under probable cause? I don't know beans about the laws, maybe someone could help me understand it. Any LEO's want to comment? Joyce Salazar
Top
Connie Sutherland wrote 11/01/2012 11:19 AM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368750 - 11/01/2012 11:19 AM
Connie Sutherland Moderator Reg: 07-13-2005 Posts: 31571 Loc: North-Central coast of California Offline	I don't get it either, Joyce.
Top
Duane Hull wrote 11/01/2012 01:17 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368757 - 11/01/2012 01:17 PM
Duane Hull Webboard User Reg: 09-23-2011 Posts: 2692 Loc: Marrero, LA Offline	Even those suspected of a crime deserve to have their rights protected. You don't forfeit rights until you are proven guilty. In the first case, the LEO brought the dog onto private property without a search warrant. If the police want to search you or your property, they must obtain a warrant. A dog detecting is certainly a search. If the officer claimed he could smell the odor, he should've obtained a warrant and executed it. In the second case, the dog's accuracy was questioned, and indeed was determined to possibly be faulty. You can't have cops executing probable cause on false indications. You can't say after the fact, "See, we were right...there WERE drugs there", because you have obliterated that citizen's presumption of innocence. If someone accused you of wrongdoing, you would want your presumption of innocence honored. Sadie
Top
Brian Couse wrote 11/01/2012 01:44 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Duane Hull ] #368758 - 11/01/2012 01:44 PM
Brian Couse Webboard User Reg: 04-23-2012 Posts: 97 Loc: New York Offline	The 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizures. Is a highly trained/proven K9 giving an indicator, reasonable? I believe Duane is correct. The appropriate action in the first case would have been to secure the home, obtain a warrant, and then execute it. Of course by then, any and all illegal items would have been flushed.
Top
Duane Hull wrote 11/01/2012 02:25 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368759 - 11/01/2012 02:25 PM
Duane Hull Webboard User Reg: 09-23-2011 Posts: 2692 Loc: Marrero, LA Offline	Quote: Brian Couse The 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizures. Is a highly trained/proven K9 giving an indicator, reasonable? I believe Duane is correct. The appropriate action in the first case would have been to secure the home, obtain a warrant, and then execute it. Of course by then, any and all illegal items would have been flushed. To the first point; a)the dog in the second case was proven to have given afalse indication in a similar case, so any lawyer worth his salt is going to challenge the indication, and b) the indication by the highly trained K9 is the RESULT OF THE SEARCH that the 4th amendment protects you from. To the second point, it would be much more effective for the officer, having his suspicions aroused, to retreat, perform surveillance, and obtain the proper warrants. This is the best way to preserve evidence that will be needed to make a prosecution work. He/she cannot "secure the premises". This is part of serving the search warrant. Sadie
Top
Joyce Salazar wrote 11/01/2012 02:36 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Duane Hull ] #368761 - 11/01/2012 02:36 PM
Joyce Salazar Webboard User Reg: 02-28-2008 Posts: 2075 Loc: Dallas, Texas Offline	Quote: To the second point, it would be much more effective for the officer, having his suspicions aroused, to retreat, perform surveillance, and obtain the proper warrants. This is the best way to preserve evidence that will be needed to make a prosecution work. He/she cannot "secure the premises". This is part of serving the search warrant. I agree with this. But there is nothing wrong with the dog giving a clue by marking his spot that indicates that he smells drugs, as long as they have not intruded the premises correct? Or was the article taking issue with the fact that the dog should not even be on the property period? I am all for getting the warrant etc. But I also don't have a problem with the dog sensing the drugs indicating a need for the search warrant. Does that make sense? Joyce Salazar
Top
Duane Hull wrote 11/01/2012 02:59 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368764 - 11/01/2012 02:59 PM
Duane Hull Webboard User Reg: 09-23-2011 Posts: 2692 Loc: Marrero, LA Offline	The dog sniffing IS a search. That's why the court found the way they did. The dog is not giving a clue; he is performing a search for drugs (or bombs or cash or whatever). The police (including the dog) cannot come on your property and execute a search unless they have a warrant or you consent to be searched without a warrant. If they enter your property (yard porch, back 40), it is an intrusion. The article is reporting court proceedings. It is not offering an opinion on the correctness of the polices' actions. Sadie
Top
Joyce Salazar wrote 11/01/2012 03:07 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Duane Hull ] #368765 - 11/01/2012 03:07 PM
Joyce Salazar Webboard User Reg: 02-28-2008 Posts: 2075 Loc: Dallas, Texas Offline	Ok, Thanks Duane! I hope I don't sound like a dunce. I guess it's my perception of property. I always view the outside of the home as open territory and inside the home as the property. Thanks for explaining it to me. Joyce Salazar
Top
Duane Hull wrote 11/01/2012 03:17 PM Re: Supreme Court [Re: Brian Couse ] #368766 - 11/01/2012 03:17 PM
Duane Hull Webboard User Reg: 09-23-2011 Posts: 2692 Loc: Marrero, LA Offline	Joyce; you don't sound like a dunce! A lot of people aren't familiar with all points of law. This is all healthy discussion. To me, the key point in all of this is what the SC upheld; that the dog is performing a search, and as such is restricted by the same laws that govern any search. Sadie
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Page 1 of 3 123>>

When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.

Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional. The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.

Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc. By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.