SCOTUS: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

[Police Moderator]

Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search
Posted: Mar 26, 2013
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect's property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs' sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.

The high court split 5-4 on the decision to uphold the Florida Supreme Court's ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines' Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.

Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government's gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.

"The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. "And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion's, planted firmly on that curtilage - the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home."

Read more: wrcbtv.com

[elf]

So, our courts are now saying that police have no right to investigate. Makes me wonder what the judges are getting paid for.

[Justin Thyme]

Mar 26, 2013 16:22:02 GMT -5 elf said:

So, our courts are now saying that police have no right to investigate. Makes me wonder what the judges are getting paid for.

No, the courts are saying the police have no right to investigate without probable cause for doing so.

[elf]

I really don't think they would waste their time investigating if they didn't feel something was wrong.

[TNBear]

Good grief Elf. Have you not heard of an old document called The Bill of Rights, an appendage to the Constitution of The United States of America? Therein, in Amendment IV, you will find reference to something called "probable cause". Perhaps you should take a look at it. Taking a trained drug or explosive or moonshine sniffing dog onto private property amounts to a warrantless search. A "feel" ain't evidence.

[elf]

Have you ever seen anyone murdered while the police just stood by and watched because they didn't have the right to cross the line?? I have. The police need more authority and the right to protect the innocent. Crime has gotten too far out of line and the criminals are growing.

[Police Moderator]

Good grief Elf. Have you not heard of an old document called The Bill of Rights, an appendage to the Constitution of The United States of America? Therein, in Amendment IV, you will find reference to something called "probable cause". Perhaps you should take a look at it. Taking a trained drug or explosive or moonshine sniffing dog onto private property amounts to a warrantless search. A "feel" ain't evidence.

Good grief. My headache just got worse, TNBear.

elf, TNBear is correct.

Anytime LE takes anything onto someone's private property, they must have probable cause (Expressed in a Search Warrant Affidavit resulting in a Search Warrant, signed by a Judge), be invited in (Consent to Search, a knowledgeable waiver of one's Constitutional Rights), or act within a very limited scope of exigent circumstances.

That really is the way it should be done. Although, looking in from the outside, it may seem wrong, or unfair; these rights protect the common, everyday law abiding citizen (You and I) much more than they ever protect the criminals.

There is the occasional sensational case that makes it up to the Supremes, the media picks up on and maybe makes you think this is the rule instead of the exception.

I know for a fact, personally, that at this very second, there are some very tired Detectives, assisted by some very tired Patrol-people doing their jobs..... Protecting the innocent (At risk to their own lives), lawfully getting the evidence, securing the scene, articulating a bomb-proof search warrant affidavit, swearing to it in front of a duly elected Judge and getting a duly authorized search warrant to get the necessary evidence to prosecute the crime at hand¹.

Trust me, on this one, elf, and I appreciate your support.

¹I'd write more, but after 24 straight hours of Constitutional crime fighting, I must use my remaining strength to write Budweiser, Inc (cc'ing the Governor of Tennessee) to protest, and expose, the a**hole who invented the 12-pack of 8 ounce beers, disguised as a 12-pack of 12 ounce beers, lured me to the cheaper price and used the criminal bait and switch tactic to unconstitutionally scam my ass, without a warrant.

Now that is a crime! And a news story! Where are Joy Lukachick and Beth Burger when you need them?