Supreme Court limits police use of drug-sniffing dogs

According to Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-usa-court-dog-sniffs-idUSBRE92P0NE20130326

Quote :

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the ability of police to use a trained dog to sniff around the outside of a home for illegal drugs that might be inside.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the use by law enforcement authorities of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and required a warrant.

"A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

"But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else," he added. "There is no customary invitation to do that."

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, Scalia said, "the home is first among equals."

The decision upheld a 2011 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court suppressing evidence uncovered at Joelis Jardines' home with the help of Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever with a strong record of sniffing out drug stashes.

I think it is a good ruling. Beware if you're going to carry dope out in the public, your car, etc., but using a dog to "hit" on someone's home is a bit too invasive to me.

The main purpose of the dogs is to find ILLEGAL drugs. Might as well wait for a judge to sign a court order for a dog being used to find someones lost child, explosives, or anything else they are trained to do..

Jake92 wrote:

The main purpose of the dogs is to find ILLEGAL drugs. Might as well wait for a judge to sign a court order for a dog being used to find someones lost child, explosives, or anything else they are trained to do..

A bit touchy today, eh Jake? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

Quote :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Are you advocating that we should do away with the Fourth Amendment?

Not at all doing away with the 4th ammendment, but they should use every means possible to stop the criminals. If they can't use a drug dog, they shouldn't be able to use the smell of alcohol or the empty alcohol containers in the back seat as a reason to give you a breathalizer..

I'm all for doing whatever they have to do to lock up the criminals and letting the jury or judge decide if the criminals freedom is more important than the law abiding citizen and his/her family, including children..

As I said, what is done in a car should be, and is fair game. If a doper is out driving around with the smell on him/her, by all means, bust 'em.

But you have to draw the line somewhere, Jake. If you don't, then we live in a police state where they make the rules and the public lives in fear. The key is the definition of "reasonable"... which will constantly be challenged by law enforcement and folks like the ACLU. Hopefully, there is a balance somewhere between the two extremes.

I agree the line has to be someplace, but I trust a cop a lot more than I do MOST of the other people I see driving around or in a court room, including the jurors, lawyers and judges..The ones I distrust the most are the stinking politicians who are mostly lawyers to start out..

I have to agree with Eric. A person's home has special protections under the Constitution.

I agree there are special protections with somebodies home, but that is no excuse for breaking the law... WHERE exactly do the protections end? If you want it to include drug sniffing dogs picking up the scent of drugs outside of the house, what about other dogs picking up a kidnapped 2 yr old girls scent outside of the house????? Does it make any difference if it's YOUR 2 yr old daughter or grand daughter??

That is a good question and I believe that the courts have recognized police rights in extreme emergency situations...such as when someone's life is in danger. But I don't believe that police should willy-nilly have a right to go onto your property with drug sniffing dogs just to try and find drugs in your house--without a search warrant.

I am just a believer that a person's house should have a kind of sacred protection. I am also very much against imminent domain laws that take a person's home because the city or county wants to let a developer build expensive condos or some such nonsense.

Of course if it were my daughter or granddaughter, and I thought she was in someone's house in danger, I would be the first one to be arrested for barging into that house.

There are victimless crimes and there are crimes where there are victims.

I cannot equate a victimless crime (smoking dope or engaging a prostitute, for instance) in one's home with a crime of kidnapping of a child and hiding them inside a house.

I would totally justify using any reasonable means to recover a child. This thread isn't about kidnapping children.

I agree 100% but as you know, money buys the judges rulings...

Jake92 wrote:

I agree 100% but as you know, money buys the judges rulings...

I don't think money is involved here... it is our Constitution. Do you really feel that the Supreme Court of the US can be bought off on a Marijuana issue?

I'm guessing that Jake was commenting on my imminent domain comment?

I see what you mean, Neko. Please accept my apology, Jake.

(Don't get me started on Imminent Domain. I despise it when it comes to anything but a public works project... roads mainly)

This is clearly what the fourth amendment addresses searching someone's home without a warrant. This decision was a no brainer.

Jake92 wrote:

I agree there are special protections with somebodies home, but that is no excuse for breaking the law... WHERE exactly do the protections end? If you want it to include drug sniffing dogs picking up the scent of drugs outside of the house, what about other dogs picking up a kidnapped 2 yr old girls scent outside of the house????? Does it make any difference if it's YOUR 2 yr old daughter or grand daughter??

The ability of drug dogs to perform their duties has been tested and accepted by courts nationwide...Never have heard about a drug dog alerting and allowing entrance into a house...now a vehicle is a different matter...There has to be a lawful reason for a traffic stop and/or reasonable suspicion for the officer to suspect that there may be illegal drugs in the vehicle...the dog is requested and should the dog confirm that suspicion then it becomes probable cause and allows the officer to search the vehicle based on both the original suspicion confirmed by the alert of the dog...Both officers have to articulate their actions and the circumstances for taking those actions in order for it to be a legal search...This is a horrible ruling and takes away a tool of law enforcement to do their jobs in a timely manner...

I think a home should have more protection from a search than a car has.

This isn't a case about dogs being allowed to perform their duties. It's about dogs performing those duties on a citizen's home without a search warrant.

nekochan wrote:

I think a home should have more protection from a search than a car has.

This isn't a case about dogs being allowed to perform their duties. It's about dogs performing those duties on a citizen's home without a search warrant.

Dogs have and should be used in homes were there is a legal right to search but once again there needs to be a clarification if the drug dogs sniff is ruled uncontitutional then it would apply to all circumstances?...Can't remember anytime a drug dog being used on a dwelling which allowed officers to enter based on that alone...When there is a search of a home/dwelling there is either owner's consent or a court order...this is proceeded by investigation(s) where the officer(s) involved are required to articulate the circumstances prior to a judge signing an order allowing a search...

From reading Eric's link....there was an anonymous tip that there was pot being grown in the home. The police showed up and allowed the dog to sniff around the outside of the home. The dog indicated that there were drugs inside the home, and based on this information from the dog, a search warrant was issued. However, the dog was allowed to sniff before the warrant was issued. It's interesting that the court was split on this with a couple of conservative justices joining with a couple of liberal justices to issue the majority ruling.

I'm comfortable with the ruling not because I'm anti-establishment or anti-police. Actually, the opposite is true...I very much support the police' right to do their job. But my strong thinking about a person's home being special and sacred and that one's home should have a special protection from searches overrules my opinion about the police being allowed to do their job with search dogs.

Interesting point you ask about whether this would apply to all circumstances....I do not believe it does or should. For example, I have seen drug sniffing dogs at the airport, going through the incoming baggage. I have no problem at all with that.

**On edit, it wasn't a neighbor who reported possible drugs, it was an anonymous tip.

It is odd that a dog cannot be used for determining probable cause, but a neighbor smelling that pungent smell from a "grow house" can be used.

I fully support that determination. A neighbor shouldn't have to smell any odor coming across property lines, whether it be weed or dog poop. As a health inspector, I have taken people to court for not properly disposing dog poop. (It was egregious. Rat burrows all around the dog kennel, poop in a wheelbarrow right close to the neighbor's bedroom window. The jerk said he was Special Forces trained and told me he could hand me my liver before I hit the ground.)

Okay, I digress. If a neighbor smells pot, I certainly support their right to call the cops. Especially if it is a grow house. The cops should be able to smell it from the neighbor's property and then get a warrant. It is how I worked as an inspector. The complaining party usually had no qualms with me verifying a violation from their property.

In that instance an officer can take action and it's based on experience and training to be able to articulate that he/she smelled marijuana after responding to a neighbors complaint...No different than walking up to a vehicle and it's like a Cheech and Chong movie in front of the officer's eyes...there are times when even a judge may doubt this really happened in that manner but it does...there were some that used to say....that sh__ will make you stupid...and they may have been right on point....

Newshound wrote:

nekochan wrote:

I think a home should have more protection from a search than a car has.

This isn't a case about dogs being allowed to perform their duties. It's about dogs performing those duties on a citizen's home without a search warrant.

Dogs have and should be used in homes were there is a legal right to search but once again there needs to be a clarification if the drug dogs sniff is ruled uncontitutional then it would apply to all circumstances?...Can't remember anytime a drug dog being used on a dwelling which allowed officers to enter based on that alone...When there is a search of a home/dwelling there is either owner's consent or a court order...this is proceeded by investigation(s) where the officer(s) involved are required to articulate the circumstances prior to a judge signing an order allowing a search...

It surprises me a bit that you would say this, Nh... no disrespect intended whatsoever. From what I've read of your posts, you seem to have some fairly strong Libertarian leanings and a very healthy respect for our Constitution, which is what the issue boils down to in my opinion.

I Googled this info up and thought I would pass it along. It was on an ACLU website. (I don't agree with everything they do, but this is good info nonetheless.)

Quote :

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.

Good info, EE. Thanks.

I believe that -- at least in California, Kansas, Alaska and some other states -- you can decline to allow them to search your vehicle on the spot, but LEO then has the option to impound it. I'd much rather have them search it on the spot since I do not and never will be transporting drugs or anything illegal, but it's good to know anyways.

I was EXTREMELY pissed off when I drove my now ex-boyfriend's pickup out here from Kansas while he towed my Tacoma behind the Penske truck and while I was unloading the cab of his truck, I reached under the back seat (it was a 6-pack) I pulled out something wrapped in papertowels. The papertowels unrolled when I grabbed it and a pot pipe dropped on the floorboard. I could have wrung his freaking neck... could have ruined or very seriously damaged my career. He swore he had no idea it was there, and that he'd apparently been driving around with it under there since a Bluegrass festival a year and a half before. What kind of a dumbass forgets that kind of thing?? Now I know exactly what kind of dumbass.