 Supreme Court rules on dog searches
#375767 - 03/26/2013 11:42 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
 Offline |
|
|
 Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375768 - 03/26/2013 11:52 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-09-2004
Posts: 1344
Loc: CNY
| Offline |
|
What-a-country. Ya just gotta love it. I wonder if a dog can smell around a car pulled over for cause?
Mike A.
"I wouldn't touch that dog, son. He don't take to pettin." Hondo, played by John Wayne |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375769 - 03/26/2013 12:02 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
Yes he can, Mike. They just can't bring a detection dog onto your personal private property without a warrant.
It's very simple; you have a reasonable suspicion, get a warrant.
ETA: The thing I didn't understand about this case from the beginning was why the officers never got a warrant. They deliberately went there to conduct a search. Why not just bring a warrant, and decline to serve it if the dog didn't alert (or use the warrant and conduct the search either way).
Edited by Duane Hull (03/26/2013 12:02 PM)
Edit reason: eta
Sadie |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375771 - 03/26/2013 01:23 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 12-03-2007
Posts: 1231
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
| Offline |
|
Sounds like eagerness to get the guy led to a lapse in judgement.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375772 - 03/26/2013 01:35 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
| Offline |
|
This and another Florida case was discussed here; http://leerburg.com/webboard/thread.php?topic_id=32867
but to answer a couple of the questions posed.
1. You need probable cause to obtain a warrant, which is a higher standard that reasonable suspicion.
2. Yes, you can still use the dog to sniff a vehicle that is on the road and search if the dog give a positive response.
Personally, I'm in agreement with the USC on this matter. I don't think the police should have the right to go on fishing expeditions on someones private property, specifically their house. It (the house) is among the most protected by 4th Amendment as well it should be and as it was intended by our founding fathers.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375778 - 03/26/2013 03:21 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 12-01-2005
Posts: 1009
Loc: OKC, Oklahoma
| Offline |
|
Did the ruling address the use of dogs at "public safety checkpoints", ie fishing expeditions for drunk drivers, etc, or just your personal home?
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375779 - 03/26/2013 03:35 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-08-2008
Posts: 1473
Loc: Alaska
| Offline |
|
I don't agree with this. Its one thing if a person is driving recklessly endangering others...I know possessing a drug is illegal but unless they are driving around impaired I think its a waste of tax money.
I don't like this, I put it in the same category as restricting guns. Besides, we cannot afford to expand the government, pretty soon they will be doing everything for us if we let them.
A tired dog is a good dog, a trained dog is a better dog. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#375780 - 03/26/2013 03:41 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 07-03-2009
Posts: 705
Loc: Bryan, Ohio
| Offline |
|
This and another Florida case was discussed here; http://leerburg.com/webboard/thread.php?topic_id=32867
but to answer a couple of the questions posed.
1. You need probable cause to obtain a warrant, which is a higher standard that reasonable suspicion.
2. Yes, you can still use the dog to sniff a vehicle that is on the road and search if the dog give a positive response.
Personally, I'm in agreement with the USC on this matter. I don't think the police should have the right to go on fishing expeditions on someones private property, specifically their house. It (the house) is among the most protected by 4th Amendment as well it should be and as it was intended by our founding fathers.
DFrost
I find it interesting to hear the LE side of this situation. Deployed MWDs work under a different set of rules.
What would be your course of action if the dog responded from public property? The vapor pressure could have been pretty high on a find that large. The dog could have exhibited a change of behavior at the time it dismounted the squad car 2 blocks away if the conditions were right.
Down range, you have the right to follow the dog where it leads (in most situations).
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#375781 - 03/26/2013 04:18 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
@Tresa; maybe you are misreading... The USC upheld a ruling where evidence was thrown out because a search was executed based on a dog's indication on private property.
Basically, the court is ruling that LE must have a warrant to enter any part of your "home" property with a detection dog.
@Cathy; this doesn't apply to anything but your house, and property immediately adjacent to your house, and only as it applies to detection dogs. It has nothing to do with checkpoints or drunk driving. And, Yes, the police can still walk a dog around a car on a traffic stop or checkpoint, and the indication is probable cause for a search.
Sadie |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court rules on dog searches
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#375782 - 03/26/2013 04:23 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
Personally, I'm in agreement with the USC on this matter. I don't think the police should have the right to go on fishing expeditions on someones private property, specifically their house. It (the house) is among the most protected by 4th Amendment as well it should be and as it was intended by our founding fathers.
DFrost
I agree with David. I have nothing to hide, but if I don't need my Fourth Amendment right, then I don't need my First, Second, or Sixteenth Amendment rights, either. Good men and women have fought and died for hundreds of years to give me those rights
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.
Previous Topic
Index
.jpg)
