It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Sniff or Not to Sniff? Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog's Nose Went Too Far

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

To Sniff or Not to Sniff? Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog's Nose Went Too Far Read more: newsfeed.time.com...


newsfeed.time.com

Franky the chocolate Labrador probably never thought his nose would cause such a big debate. But it’s opened up an argument that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court about when using a dog for a drug search goes too far. Justices decided last week to hear the case of Florida v. Jardines, in which, back in 2006, Franky smelled marijuana growing inside a Dade County, Fla., home with a closed front door. Police officers felt that was enough to get a search warrant, and after obtaining it apprehended the house’s occupant Joelis Jardines, busting him with over $700,000 in weed. But Jardines
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 1/10/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   


This is ridiculous. This is unreasonable search and seizure. Why are the cops not going after violent crimes? The rapes, murders, car jacking, robberies. Not someone growing a plant.

The supreme court already decided that using thermal imaging to be illegal, how is a dog nose is any different? A house is PRIVATE. Bringing a police dog on a private house to sniff is a search. The dog is searching FOR drugs.

newsfeed.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Yes, this is absurd. But i am sure someone will come here defending their actions, after all, we are dealing with drugs, and drugs are baaad,,,,mmkay?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 

Hopefully it will be decided the same way as the thermal imaging case, that it's an invasion of privacy, but who knows?

Interesting story, thanks for sharing it.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez

This is ridiculous. This is unreasonable search and seizure. Why are the cops not going after violent crimes? The rapes, murders, car jacking, robberies. Not someone growing a plant.


There isn't enough of the crimes you mention to justify the number of police we have. So they must go after victimless crime to insure the crime rate remains elevated.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
What stands out for me is "officers thought this was enough for q search warrant and after obtaining one..."

Makes it sound like warrants are just stamped with approval by some clerk in a judges office. The mighty US DOJ wouldn't condone such haphazard application of the law would it?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
DRUGS > TERRORISTS



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Well if you know the right judge any warrant is possible


If the supreme court decides that this isn't unconstitutional then what is next? Routine drug sniffs at everyone's door? How could a cop even go along with this?
edit on 1/10/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
this is more a technical question that the court will have to look at and give a ruling since drugs dogs are reasonably new their use in law hasn't had as much time to be cemented in as police officers so you can imagine it will set the ground rules such as if the dog can smell it on the public walkway then perhaps its allowed to be used as much as if a police officer walked past your house on the public footpath and smelled a joint he'd have to follow procedures and investigate etc but if the dog only goes mental on private property then its not allowed to be used etc



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


So by the police's logic.. they could have a force of drug sniffing dogs and walk them around neighborhoods going house to house up to front doors and letting the dog sniff. Every door the dog barked at they could break it down and raid the house.

Yeah.. how does that not violate the Constitution? I'm disgusted this even had to go to the Supreme Court, it should have been stopped long before.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez

If the supreme court decides that this isn't unconstitutional then what is next? Routine drug sniffs at everyone's door? How could a cop even go along with this?
edit on 1/10/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)


They would just have K-9's walking beats all over residential areas.

Cops would love to go along with this. They're constantly fighting for more power and control even when they themselves admit that the power and control they are vying for would be ineffective for the cause claimed.

Right now some legislators in my state are trying to push a prescription tracking system. I was listening in on a debate about that had several cops of different ranks in attendance and speaking. They all agreed that this measure was absolutely needed while simultaneously agreeing that the measure would do nothing to curb the crimes the legislators claimed it would curb or to limit the drug abuses the legislators claimed it would.

Cops, not necessarily individually but as an institution, just want more power regardless of the cost.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
It's the money - yeah - it's the money.

Use a dog to do your work just fine.

Get a prisoner on probation and fines.

Show your doing your best solvin' the crimes.

Numbers of arrests show you're on your beat
Money in the coffers to pay your rent

and dog food is really quite cheap

(It's the drug war itself that goes too far. Way too far. )
edit on 10-1-2012 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   


This is ridiculous. This is unreasonable search and seizure.


Roflmao...$700.000,00 in Marijuana. What about this is "unreasonable"?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


The way it was found. You have $700k in weed, hey, you broke the law. Sure. But should a cop be allowed to search your home just because their dog caught a whiff?

No.

Simple as that, it's a blatant unreasonable assault on personal liberty.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
As I see it the dog or it's nose it's not the problem at all. It is the law concerning these plants. If the suspect were cooking meth or some other chemical poison would anyone call this unreasonable search and seizure? The dog sniffs and it is probable cause right there.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Originally posted by mnmcandiez

This is ridiculous. This is unreasonable search and seizure. Why are the cops not going after violent crimes? The rapes, murders, car jacking, robberies. Not someone growing a plant.


There isn't enough of the crimes you mention to justify the number of police we have. So they must go after victimless crime to insure the crime rate remains elevated.


You know, i've been thinking about this a lot lately, and i have come to pretty much the same conclusion: we have TOO MANY cops and they get BORED, so they LOOK for petty victimless "crimes" to give both themselves something to do and create revenue.

It's ridiculous.

I do hope that this case gets decided fairly (in that it is found to be an invasion of privacy), but i have little hope.

Reminds me of the decided case where cops now have the right to enter a premises without a warrant ( Supreme Court: Cops Can Come in Your House if they Smell Weed ) if they "smell" marijuana, thereby "suspecting" "illegal activity." Kentucy v. King

Goodbye 4th amendment.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Im afraid this thread will soon be shut down but a question to all the people saying this is an invasion of privacy, how would you feel if the dog was a bomb sniffer dog and it discovered the guy making bombs to be used in a terrorist attack would it still be seen as an invasion of the guys privacy?

By the way the war on drugs is completely retarded!


edit on 10-1-2012 by RandalFlagg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by RandalFlagg
 




how would you feel if the dog was a bomb sniffer dog and it discovered the guy making bombs to be used in a terrorist attack would it still be seen as an invasion of the guys privacy?


Yes.

(second line, I'd say more, but there shouldn't be a need)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Once the odor of what ever you do is out in the open it's not a matter of privacy anymore. It would be different if they'd stick a straw under the door and sniff what's inside but once it's out that's it. No point to cry after that.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RandalFlagg
 


Yep. Why? Because based on the possession of those explosives they'll think of fifty charges. They do it all the time with pot. Get busted with an ounce in most places it's an automatic "intent to distribute" charge when the only evidence is the amount itself. Heck, the guy could have just been buying in bulk, or is a heavy smoker.

Any time a drug dog is utilized it's automatically a search. You're utilizing a tool in order to detect the presence of something you would not normally be able to detect by the senses. That means you're searching. Like Rockpuck said, it's alarming that this case went this far. Then again nothing surprises me nowadays.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join