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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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
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.
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)
This is ridiculous. This is unreasonable search and seizure.
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.
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?