K-9s and "Free air" searches?

[Al Norris]

blackmind wrote:
When the dog alerts, a warrant could well be issued, yes, but it's a warrant to search that is predicated on a "search" that was already conducted -- albeit a passive one.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Cabelles, ruled that this is not a search.

A dog may be used in any "public" space. It is not a search. If the dog alerts, then the police have probable cause. In the case of these apartments, they will get a warrant to breach privacy. In the case of your car, they may conduct a search based upon probable cause without a warrant.

This is what happens when you look at the constitution through the lens of the law, instead of looking at the law through the lens of the constitution.

 

[blackmind]

Well, we have all seen just how ardently the Supreme Court is sticking with the actual clear meaning of the Constitution these days.

I firmly believe that we simply cannot look to them for rational decisions any more (if indeed we ever could).

-blackmind

 

[Brian D.]

Anybody here NOT think a K-9 could be trained fairly easily, to "alert" whenever the handler wishes him to? I've certainly seen the reverse: arson dogs manipulating their humans, knowing that they'd be rewarded with playtime or a treat if they sniffed out an accelerant "hit". [Haven't seen one of those dogs prove of any use in an arson conviction in my area, but of course my perception may not include all available data.]

As far as humans smelling drugs from outside the apartment goes, seems like that would make one easy excuse for an (admittedly rare) overzealous LEO. Let's tread carefully before eroding individual freedoms any further.

Or (warning, sarcasm AND sophistry ahead): Let's just turn over all powers of Eminent Domain to our local PD. McGruff says: "Help us take a BITE out of Constitutional protection!"

 

[Mike Irwin]

Wrong, Tyme. In your single-minded froth I didn't expect you to grasp what I was alluding to.

You're calling for an arbitrary time-frame definition of what constitutes Constitutional based on a perceived baseline. Why not 78 years ago? Why not 153 years ago?

People scream bloody goddamned murder when an anti-gunner says "Well, the Founders could never have envisioned blah blah blah."

Be careful what you wish for. It can end up taking a chunk out of you large enough to drive a truck through.

It really makes me wonder if any of you actually stop and think about the ancillary consequences.

 

[butch50]

Using a dog to go on a fishing expedition is clearly unconstitutional, it begs the question of probable cause. The supreme court has gotten this one wrong.

 

[blackmind]

Mike, the ability to fire more ammunition at a greater rate changed from the time of the framers, true. And we are keeping pace with the times and with the government and criminals that we must protect ourselves against, by keeping and bearing modern firearms.

But the concept of privacy has not changed from the time of the framers. We still have persons, houses, papers and effects. They are still entitled to privacy. Just because modern technology can enable the police to sniff the air from under our doors, or see through our walls with IR or UV or whatever, that doesn't change the privacy to which we are entitled. I think you are mixed up in your concept of the correlation of this to the antis saying we should have only muskets and other 18th century arms.

-blackmind

 

[Handy]

Mike,

Do you feel that we should have 2A access to nuclear weapons?

 

[sendec]

You guys can bleat all you want, but public space is public space. Walking a dog thru a public area is not an invasion of anyone's privacy.

 

[blackmind]

Standing against the wall of a building is not against the law.

But if you're waiting for your drug customers to arrive and slip you some wrinkled, damp bills for a vial of crack, it's loitering.

Don't pretend to us that these cops are innocently just walking dogs, dude. They are there for a reason, and the reason is searching. Without probable cause. Without warrants.

You act as though you think we're f*(kin' stupid. We're not.

And you continue to be a cheerleader for expanded police powers. Try denying that.

-blackmind

 

[Handy]

How about bouncing a laser off your window? It's outside. So what if you can read the reflected light and read conversations.

I think phone lines are in public, too. Why should a tap be illegal? Public line and all.

 

[culcune]

It's in public

It has been upheld that what you do outside is in public. Many people were arguing against traffic cameras as being invasive. They are seeing what is happening in public, and if you happen to roll by, you are in the public eye. The same can be said about police dogs sniffing around. If it is outside, it is in public, plain and simple.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate any of the "public" laws, but from what I understand, it is legal for LE to do many things with what they see in public. The best thing to do is to keep yourself as low-profile as possible. (I.e. keep your registration in order, insurance paid up, ALL of your lights work that should be working, obeying the laws when you are out in public). The less things you do wrong in public, the less reason to have a dog sniffing around you and your property.

"You can please some of the people..."

 

[TheeBadOne]

How about bouncing a laser off your window? It's outside. So what if you can read the reflected light and read conversations.

I think phone lines are in public, too. Why should a tap be illegal? Public line and all.

 

[PSE]

so when we geneticly engineer a dog that can smell drugs from the roadside of an aprtment building is everyone gonna think its ok to use that to search every apartment?

 

[Handy]

The less things you do wrong in public, the less reason to have a dog sniffing around you and your property.

What are you talking about?

If you break the law in public, you'll be arrested for it. What kind of "do wrong" did you have in mind? Being rude? Dressing poorly.



Look people, your domecile is supposed to be private. Why should you have to put up with police warrant fishing expeditions with a chemical detector, dog or not? How would you like the police permanently parked on your curb, watching "Just in case we see anything"?

This is police passive monitoring of your private home, not an intersection on a public street. Imagine the furor this would cause if the police were doing the same thing around half-million dollar homes. "We're just making sure you aren't breaking any laws in your house, ma'am."

 

[culcune]

What I was writing about...

I just read a few threads from the original one that the police are searching section 8 project homes...I was talking about what occurs in public while driving, as is shown on those reality shows like "Cops" and that other show with the police dashcam footage. I stand corrected (except for the public thing).

I think that if one is living on Section 8, this totally sucks if one is engaging in, what I presume to be drug use. While drug use is illegal, it is still one's residence (and should be their castle). My only suggestion to people on section 8 is to live as responsibly as one can and find a private landlord who takes section 8 privately, away from the "projects." I guess the government figures that if it is paying for the residence, then it can also wage an extension of its war on drugs there, too!

Another question regarding public housing: Is it still true that one cannot own or possess firearms in public housing?

 

[blackmind]

Look people, your domecile is supposed to be private. Why should you have to put up with police warrant fishing expeditions with a chemical detector, dog or not? How would you like the police permanently parked on your curb, watching "Just in case we see anything"?

Exactly. This is about the government and the police keeping a free people under surveillance. That is something we should not tolerate. Kids in school are watched by cafeteria monitors so that the instant they do something "bad" they are caught and punished. And that presumption that exists in such a situation is that you are always on the verge of doing something bad that you need to be caught for. We should not have to live with our government making such a presumption about us.

And then some idiots will say they are juuuuust fiiiiiiine with the idea of police watching EVERYONE at ALL TIMES because they say it'll make us "SAFE," and who could be opposed to that??!

This is police passive monitoring of your private home, not an intersection on a public street. Imagine the furor this would cause if the police were doing the same thing around half-million dollar homes. "We're just making sure you aren't breaking any laws in your house, ma'am."

Exactly. It's an abomination.

-blackmind

 

[sendec]

Can't you fond something real to whine about? Why the heck would the police want to surveil you? I musta missed that meeting.

At our S8 projects it'd take the powder puppy, oh, about 45 seconds to hit on a car or door. Why would we waste our time and effort screwing around with some citizen when the creel limit for bad guys keeps increasing? You just arent that important in the greater scheme of things.

People who say that the US is a police state have never been in a police state

 

[gc70]

This is about the government and the police keeping a free people under surveillance.

Excuse me, but everything I have ever seen or read suggests that that is precisely what police do with a large part of their time. It is true today and has been throughout history.

Police have never been expected to stay in their station, barracks, or house until called out to deal with a specific crime. They have always been expected to move around and look for indications of crime.

 

[Handy]

Why the heck would the police want to surveil you?

They wouldn't, but I might still get served a warrant if I happen to live in an apartment they're "checking up on", and someone was nearby with a lit joint.

Can't you fond something real to whine about?

Can't you find something to defend aside from greater police intrusion?


For those of you who don't understand how this works, we keep ourselves from becoming a police state by constantly addressing the evolving state of police work. Every new wrinkle in the law, method of enforcement and weapon brought to bear MUST become a topic of public discussion. Society must affirm or deny these changes, or abdicate control of their lives to the police and government.

If you think it's stupid to question police methods, you are stupidly giving up the right to question those methods at all.


It is not the police's job, or best interests, to look after YOUR rights. Their job is to stop criminals; your job is to limit the powers they have in doing that.

 

[tlm225]

Actually Handy it is the job of police to observe and protect the rights of citizens. This includes those rights which hinder investigations, arrests and prosecutions of criminals. We keep in mind that those rights are there to protect people from abuse. I and the vast majority of officers play by the rules. Those rules are established by the citizens (through their elected representatives) and the courts. Simply because some (a few) think something should be a "right" doesn't make it so.
As far as keeping a free people under surveillance. In my jurisdiction we have about 5,000 people per officer on duty. If we put surveillance on some one we have a darn good reason to invest the man hours. Our agency doesn't have the men or money to waste on "fishing".