Quote: David Winners

 Quote: David C.Frost

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).

Being retired military and a previous MWD handler, trainer etc of course the it's different than in civilian life. In the military, you can obtain a telephone warrant from the installation commander, on base. There is no such thing in the civilian world. This case was about a police dog, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, entering private property. The emphasis is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Changes of behavior, in and of themselves only indicate the dog is sniffing something that interests it. It is the final response that defines what the dog had been sniffing.

DFrost

 Quote: Becky Shilling

Did the ruling address the use of dogs at "public safety checkpoints", ie fishing expeditions for drunk drivers, etc, or just your personal home?

The home.

DFrost

 Quote: David Winners

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).

I would think that would be the same as if the officer driving down a public street smelled it. Fairly sure it would be classed as probable cause as I know traffic searches conducted because of "strong odor of illegal substance" have held up in court.

I think the dog would have to alert on it though. Change of behavior would probably not be enough and I can't imagine the dog would alert on something that far from it. They're trained not to alert until they find the source right?

 Quote: Tresa Hendrix

I know possessing a drug is illegal but unless they are driving around impaired I think its a waste of tax money.

Crime attracts criminals and more crime. Drugs are often not the only problem at a bust. Guns and trafficking of other sorts(including humans) tends to follow the drug routes. As states like Colorado are rapidly learning, legalizing illegal substances brings with it it's own problems. No easy answer to the drug problem.

 Quote: Cathy Goessman

 Quote: David Winners

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).

I would think that would be the same as if the officer driving down a public street smelled it. Fairly sure it would be classed as probable cause as I know traffic searches conducted because of "strong odor of illegal substance" have held up in court.

I think the dog would have to alert on it though. Change of behavior would probably not be enough.

But for the dog to final, it would have to get to source, or as close as possible, which would mean going onto said person's property.

So the officer gets the dog out of the car. The dog throws a huge change and pulls towards a house. Does the handler allow the dog to satisfy it's curiosity and follow the dog onto the person's property?

Would the change of behavior be enough to get a warrant?

Is the COB enough to act on and proceed further onto the property, ask for a warrant, or just another piece of intelligence for the officer?

To be clear, I'm not advocating the violation of a person's civil liberties or rights. I'm just interested in how police K9 units can be utilized. I believe our government is getting bigger while our rights are shrinking, every day, and that is a tragedy... and entirely a different topic.

In Afghanistan, I can legally follow my dog anywhere she tries to take me. I understand that it is going to be different here. I'm just interested in how different it is.

Former military here too so I have no idea. Interesting question though.

Found a case law source:

http://www.patc.com/enewsletter/legal-answers/1-feb08.shtml

"Likewise, it is of no importance that a dog sniff provides limited information regarding only the presence or absence of contraband, because as in Kyllo, the quality or quantity of information obtained through the search is not the feared injury. Rather, it is the fact that law enforcement endeavored to obtain the information from inside the house at all, or in this case, the fact that a dog's sense of smell crossed the "firm line" of Fourth Amendment protection at the door of Rabb's house. Because the smell of marijuana had its source in Rabb's house, it was an "intimate detail" of that house, no less so than the ambient temperature inside Kyllo's house. Until the United States Supreme Court indicates otherwise, therefore, we are bound to conclude that the use of a dog sniff to detect contraband inside a house does not pass constitutional muster. The dog sniff at the house in this case constitutes an illegal search.”

And then case law goes on to contradict itself as it all too often does.

"In Fitzgerald v. State of Maryland, the Court of Appeals of Maryland refused to apply Kyllo to a dog sniff and found that the sniff of an apartment from the hallway was not a search under the 4th Amendment.v In Fitzgerald, officers were following up on an anonymous tip and took a drug-detecting canine to the apartment building where Fitzgerald and his girlfriend, Mancini, lived. The officers walked the dog by four different apartments at which time the dog alerted only on Fitzgerald/Mancini’s apartment. The officers then obtained a search warrant for the apartment. Like the Florida court in the Raab case, the Maryland court noted that this was a case of first impression in Maryland."

I don't really agree with the ruling on the apartment case. If I lived in an apartment I would sure have a problem with police poking around in the building without a reason to be there. It's still private property unless they got the consent of the building owner to enter it. It's possible they did.

David Winner asks: Would the change of behavior be enough to get a warrant?

Is the COB enough to act on and proceed further onto the property, ask for a warrant, or just another piece of intelligence for the officer?

No, not enough to get a warrant on a house.

That was just settled by the recent court decision, NO, and of course any information gained is added intelligence.

DFrost

"In Fitzgerald v. State of Maryland, the Court of Appeals of Maryland refused to apply Kyllo to a dog sniff and found that the sniff of an apartment from the hallway was not a search under the 4th Amendment.v In Fitzgerald,


First, you are comparing a State Supreme Court case, against an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court. There are many instances where there are contradictions.

Second, there is a difference relative a place that is accessible to the general public and private property (house v. apartment building). The courts try not to compare apples v. oranges.

DFrost

 Quote: David C.Frost

"In Fitzgerald v. State of Maryland, the Court of Appeals of Maryland refused to apply Kyllo to a dog sniff and found that the sniff of an apartment from the hallway was not a search under the 4th Amendment.v In Fitzgerald,


First, you are comparing a State Supreme Court case, against an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court. There are many instances where there are contradictions.

Second, there is a difference relative a place that is accessible to the general public and private property (house v. apartment building). The courts try not to compare apples v. oranges.

DFrost

This whole thread is interesting.