USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
#369591 - 11/21/2012 04:10 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
Offline |
|
C-Span is currently carrying the argument about drug dogs, reliability and the response being probable cause. Very interesting discussion. It's too involved to try and type here, and the discussion is currently underway. I read somewhere the decision should be published in June.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#369615 - 11/22/2012 03:25 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-22-2007
Posts: 2531
Loc: S. Florida
Offline |
|
C-Span is currently carrying the argument about drug dogs, reliability and the response being probable cause. Very interesting discussion. It's too involved to try and type here, and the discussion is currently underway. I read somewhere the decision should be published in June.
DFrost
David, I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is about this, as a member of LE. Do you think that drug dogs should be allowed free access to porches, doorsteps, etc of private homes?
|
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#369617 - 11/22/2012 03:53 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-02-2009
Posts: 581
Loc: Ca
Offline |
|
I'm all for a canines alert being enough to justify a search.
I can only imagine what the attorneys for the drug dealers will drag up in court about the dogs or handlers.
|
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: Lynne Barrows ]
#369622 - 11/22/2012 08:36 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
Offline |
|
C-Span is currently carrying the argument about drug dogs, reliability and the response being probable cause. Very interesting discussion. It's too involved to try and type here, and the discussion is currently underway. I read somewhere the decision should be published in June.
DFrost
David, I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is about this, as a member of LE. Do you think that drug dogs should be allowed free access to porches, doorsteps, etc of private homes?
That issue has been addressed in the Jardine case. Currently in debate is a drug dogs reliability for use as probable cause in regards to the fourth amendment and public places. Jardine covers residential sniffs and their legality.
|
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: Lynne Barrows ]
#369638 - 11/23/2012 10:14 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
Offline |
|
C-Span is currently carrying the argument about drug dogs, reliability and the response being probable cause. Very interesting discussion. It's too involved to try and type here, and the discussion is currently underway. I read somewhere the decision should be published in June.
DFrost
David, I'd be interested in hearing what your opinion is about this, as a member of LE. Do you think that drug dogs should be allowed free access to porches, doorsteps, etc of private homes?
Personally, I do not feel they should have free access to porches, doorsteps etc of private homes.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#369698 - 11/24/2012 12:52 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
Offline |
|
|
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#369700 - 11/24/2012 03:09 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-09-2004
Posts: 1344
Loc: CNY
Offline |
|
I subscribe to the proposition that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. I realize there are those who would leap at the chance to sell me a bridge - not interested - but being open doesn't mean I'd rather be surprised than paranoid.
I'd be more concerned about the powers of game wardens, who, in this state, do not need a search warrant to search your vehicle. They don't need no dogs to do their sniff'n.
By the bye, the places mentioned are accessible by a dog. However, you can not pursue a search based on the hit of the dog. There must be other reasonable suspicion developed that must stand alone in the pursuit of a search warrant - as I understand it. The dog might trigger other efforts but the initial alerting would not be used to pursue a search warrant - as I understand it.
Hair splitting.
Mike A.
"I wouldn't touch that dog, son. He don't take to pettin." Hondo, played by John Wayne |
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: Joe Waddington ]
#369718 - 11/25/2012 10:45 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 04-19-2009
Posts: 1797
Loc:
Offline |
|
I can only imagine what the attorneys for the drug dealers will drag up in court about the dogs or handlers.
I agree. I think we should all have access to a good litigation lawyer, just for the diversion tactics alone. They'd be ideal for proofing those tougher commands. Just imagine all the hypothetical training scenario they could come up with.
And while I do, very much, value my rights and privacy, I also understand that various situations do occur where almost anyone can come under suspicion for whatever reasons.
If it came down to a police dog search of my home, they'd probably want to sell me a bridge too. I'd welcome it just for the entertainment alone; they wouldn't even need a warrant.
It would be so interesting to watch. I'd ask that officer so many questions he probably couldn't wait to leave my home.
I think it's interesting how people can be so fickle in their beliefs. If this was a bug sniffing dog that the lawyer or judge had employed, I'll bet they'd put stock in every hit. But when it comes to narcotics and protecting the guilty, it's a whole different ball game.
Very interesting discussion though. Looking forward to their ruling.
|
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: CJ Barrett ]
#369735 - 11/25/2012 04:18 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
Offline |
|
It amazes me that some would give up rights so easily. I've been involved in law enforcement/military for nearly 46 years. I have nothing to hide. If you want to search my house, you best get yourself a warrant. There was a reason our founding fathers protected our rights, in our homes. Whether it's my house or a house I encounter in the line of duty, I don't take that lightly.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
Top
|
Re: USC Argument on Florida Drug Dog Case.
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#369738 - 11/25/2012 06:24 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
Offline |
|
Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I care to forfeit my rights.
IMO, if an LEO brings a dog (or any detection device) on my property, that constitutes a search.
Sadie |
Top
|
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.