Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

  1. #11
    Heavy Hitter


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    63,532

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Women, like squirrels, get it right every once in a while, too.
    Good thing there are three.

  2. #12
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ft.Wayne In
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,305

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Yeah. Seems like it should have been a no-brainer: 9-0. I'm just glad to see T & S being on the same page as Sotomeyer, Ginsburg and Kagan on this.

    I have no idea what was running through the heads of Robets, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer except this vague quote from CJ Roberts.


    Reading the details of this case, it's clear that the smell was not detected from the sidewalk. THe cops brought the dog right up to the door.
    That sounds like a true lawyers quote!

    Many words to say nothing. If the policeman

    smells the pot you have a problem If he doesn't

    he sure doesn't need to get the DS dog.

  3. #13
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Yeah. Seems like it should have been a no-brainer: 9-0. I'm just glad to see T & S being on the same page as Sotomeyer, Ginsburg and Kagan on this.

    I have no idea what was running through the heads of Robets, Alito, Kennedy and Breyer except this vague quote from CJ Roberts.


    Reading the details of this case, it's clear that the smell was not detected from the sidewalk. THe cops brought the dog right up to the door. So, Robert's statement is sort of disingenuous.
    According to the accompanying article:

    “A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell),” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion."

    So what is the distance the SCOTUS would find reasonable in terms of detection of objects in "plain smell"?

  4. #14
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Talk about an oddly flavored majority. Staunch conservatives, Thomas and Scalia, agreeing with the most liberal contingent on the court: the three women.
    I always knew that dogs bring out the best in people.

  5. #15
    Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    07-02-13 @ 12:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,651

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Women, like squirrels, get it right every once in a while, too.
    I resemble that remark. I believe women make excellent leaders.

    How's it goin tigger?

  6. #16
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    According to the accompanying article:

    “A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell),” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion."

    So what is the distance the SCOTUS would find reasonable in terms of detection of objects in "plain smell"?
    I don't think it is distance so much as factual when it comes to private property. If this case stood you could bet that every time you opened the door for a cop there would be a dog right there beside him/her.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by 66gardeners View Post
    I resemble that remark. I believe women make excellent leaders. How's it goin tigger?
    In certain situations, yes. In a court setting, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    I haven't strangled anyone yet today, so it can't be TOO bad!!!!!

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,069

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    good decision. should have been nine zip.

  9. #19
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisher View Post
    I don't think it is distance so much as factual when it comes to private property. If this case stood you could bet that every time you opened the door for a cop there would be a dog right there beside him/her.
    That could be true. I understand the ruling, and agree with it, but I see this grey area where distance and "plain smell" are left to rather vague reference. Perhaps the specifics in the ruling will clarify the issue.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    That could be true. I understand the ruling, and agree with it, but I see this grey area where distance and "plain smell" are left to rather vague reference. Perhaps the specifics in the ruling will clarify the issue.
    This pretty much came down the way I thought it should. This was a cop trying to be cute and get away with something. I am just glad that it was not another in the death of a 1,000 cuts to search and seizure protections. I would have expected Roberts in the majority and Thomas in the dissent on this one though had I had been betting.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •