• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In a truly bipartisan 5-4 vote, SCOTUS upholds right to privacy in our homes.

Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police « CBS Miami

MIAMI (CBSMiami) – The United States Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police must first get a search warrant before bringing drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspects property.


...“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.”

He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Talk about an oddly flavored majority. Staunch conservatives, Thomas and Scalia, agreeing with the most liberal contingent on the court: the three women.
 
Gotta love when the SCOTUS bucks the partisan nature that so many believe they are chained to.
 
Seems like a brilliant decision for a change!

Not sure why it was only 5-4 !:confused:

Yeah, right? What's up with Roberts, this seems like he'd have been right there with them on this.
 
In a truly bipartisan 5-4 vote, SCOTUS upholds right to privacy in our homes.

Talk about an oddly flavored majority. Staunch conservatives, Thomas and Scalia, agreeing with the most liberal contingent on the court: the three women.

Women, like squirrels, get it right every once in a while, too. ;)
 
Seems like a brilliant decision for a change!

Not sure why it was only 5-4 !:confused:

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.
“A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human.”

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.
 
This is good news.A police dog is no different than a wire tap, FLIR or some other police tool used to search.The 4th amendment applies yourself,house, personnel effects and other property.
 
In a truly bipartisan 5-4 vote, SCOTUS upholds right to privacy in our homes.

Supreme Court Limits Drug-Sniffing Dog Usage By Police « CBS Miami



Talk about an oddly flavored majority. Staunch conservatives, Thomas and Scalia, agreeing with the most liberal contingent on the court: the three women.

I can see how both groups can arrive at the same conclusion, but from different starting points. Note before I go any further: these are broad generalities with many exceptions. I am not trying to paint either group as being entirely as I state in this.

For conservatives, protection from the government is for many a guiding principal. For them, this is a nobrainer, protecting the rights of individuals from a government. For liberals, individual rights are a key ideal, and for them, this is a nobrainer, protecting individual rights.
 
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.
 
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"?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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!!!!!
 
good decision. should have been nine zip.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Women, like squirrels, get it right every once in a while, too. ;)

And men, like rats, get it wrong frequently, as demonstrated by the SCOTUS vote. :mrgreen:
 
Since some states now consider your car to be an extension of your home,
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges dog assisted car searches?
I think the ruling is good, but wonder about the technical aspects.
If the actual smell of illegal activity is emerging from your home, no matter how slight, if it is detectable,
does that constitute probable cause?
For infrared observation the light is coming "out" of the house.
At some point our technology will allow us to capture all emissions from a home, without
being on the property.
The dog in this case is just a portable chemical analyzer.
A GCMS, with teeth:mrgreen:
 
At some point our technology will allow us to capture all emissions from a home, without
being on the property.

Calls to mind a news story I heard about a year or two ago.

Some grad student developed a system that can "see" inside a house using radio signals. You put a bunch of emitters around the perimeter and they send signals through the house. Computers track the microscopic delays caused by going through solid matter and use it to build a 3d model. It looks crappy as a sonogram, but you can definitely see people, furniture and stuff.
 
To add some spice to this debate, I find it telling that the two GWB appointees voted for the State while the two Judges Obama put on the court sided with the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom