Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands October 31st, 2012 12:00am

The Supreme Court is hearing a case to decide whether police should be allowed to use a drug-sniffing dog to detect drugs from outside of a suspect's home without first obtaining a search warrant. Pick a side.

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

will15 Massachusetts
11/08/12 3:43 pm

I luv dogs
????

Reply
cowboy Come on, man
11/04/12 5:21 pm

That would obviously be abuse. Good luck with this corrupt Supreme Court making the decision. After the Citizens United debacle, and after calling Obamacare unConstitutional then calling it Constitutional somehow, we can't really rely on this Court to protect the Constitution and our rights.

Reply
kRaZyXmAn Voluntaryist
11/04/12 2:51 pm

F&$K THE PO-LICE!!!

Reply
mynewipad north of southern calif
11/04/12 2:19 pm

At the trial, does the dog testify? Lol..since its the dog accusing you. Can you bring a rebuttal dog?

Reply
penelope USA
11/04/12 2:02 pm

I'm not a fan of drugs, but that is completely an invasion of privacy. The govt needs to back off and let us live our lives. Doing drugs in your own home isn't hurting anyone. If they take it outside to public areas, then arrest them.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 12:15 pm

But, my dear uncle, the curtilage is considered part of the house, and house searches are not permitted without a warrant or probable cause. Invading the space around the house, and thereby the house, to obtain probable cause is a violation of the fourth amendment.

BladeNut MA
11/04/12 11:43 am

citizen, because i doubt a dog can be that accurate through walls. if it was 100% accuracy or there about id go police. i dont want cops in my house just cuz their dog scrwed up a smell

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 9:44 am

If you hurt a police dog, you can be prosecuted as if you had assaulted a human officer. That means that the dog is considered to be an officer. Given that, and given that a dog can smell the interior of a house, it constitutes a warrant less search.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 9:38 am

Wrong. The yard around the house (the curtilage) is protected against warrant less searches. A human officer cannot smell things inside a house, a dog can. Therefore the dog, as an agent of the officer, is violating the interior of the house without a warrant.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 9:34 am

The protection IS for the innocent. With the complexity of our legal system, we're all lawbreakers, most of us several times a day. The protection against warrantless searches (including the curtilage) prevents most of us from inadvertently ending up in jail for silly, stupid things.

pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 9:29 am

The curtilage (the yard immediately surrounding the house) is legally considered to be a part of the house for search purposes. A warrant is required. The police were wrong on this one. If they were right, what would stop them from peeking in my windows as well? They wouldn't be IN the house.

Reply
pinkyusuck The Carribean. I wish.
11/04/12 9:20 am

To sniff around the house, police would first have to come into the yard. That's a violation of private property. The yard is legally termed the curtilage. It's legally considered to be a part of the actual house, and as such fourth amendment restrictions on warrantless searches/seizures apply.

catrinavich
11/03/12 11:51 pm

Are they using it as probable cause to enter? If do then I'm totally against it.

al3cn
11/03/12 11:38 pm

Interesting partisan gap. Republicans are always gung ho about freedom until it comes to drugs...or terrorism....or gay marriage....or abortion.

Fawlkes Colorado
11/03/12 10:57 pm

I'm a sandwich delivery boy, trust me, you don't need a dog

Reply
TheWatcher Ohio
11/03/12 12:44 pm

CITIZENS. Fuck these fascist drug laws.

Reply
polarized Tennessee
11/03/12 7:42 am

End the war on drugs!

Reply
polarized Tennessee
11/03/12 7:42 am

End the war on drugs!

Reply

11/02/12 11:18 pm

well surprise surprise, Republicans aren't for limited government after all.

Reply
NUwriter
11/02/12 7:11 pm

We have an epidemic caused by prohibition.

The real cancer on our society is the expanding power of the state. That's what needs to be rooted out.

Reply
preemiedoc
11/02/12 4:32 pm

But these moms have no idea what they smoked. As an aside, you may know what is in tobacco...and anyone pregnant and smoking would be appalled if these substances were fed to their newborns. I had one mom who smoked two packs/day refuse to let formula touch her infant's lips. Amazing.

preemiedoc
11/02/12 4:28 pm

Alcohol is taxed at many levels. It is not expensive to make, yet most don't brew their own beer or press their grapes (I am sure some reading this do). But there is quality control. You know what you are buying. Illegal drugs have have no guarantee. I have many moms tell me it was only weed,

kgirl1992
11/02/12 11:23 am

If the dog can pick it up from public property(and signal its in that house) then it should be allowed

rothbard
11/02/12 8:47 am

Quit being sheep and OBEY!

Reply
iBakes California
11/02/12 6:58 am

It's nice to see a majority from both ends of the political spectrum are against police lurking! We don't need to go all 1984 & bring out the thought police.

Reply
ladyniner81 Embrace your inner dork
11/02/12 6:57 am

if they strongly suspect the person has drugs on their property, and the person is being uncooperative, yes. The cops should have a very strong case before doing so. If it's a personal vendetta or a setup, no. People act like cops are corrupt. not all of them are. Quit being sheep..

neurokeen
11/02/12 6:43 am

A primary question in this case is if dogs can be considered unbiased detectors. The fact of the matter is that they can't. They are more likely to respond to their handlers' biases than the actual presence of the target.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
11/02/12 6:16 am

Actually, there is an expectation of privacy in your home AND curtilage. There's case law on it (United States vs. Dunn) and it just so happens to deal with drugs.

Reply
Think Lovin Life
11/02/12 4:34 am

The police were welcome to search my property any time.

Think Lovin Life
11/02/12 4:33 am

And you're an idiot if you think drug dealers should be afforded the protections of the innocents. They laugh at you and me. We must root out this cancer.

Think Lovin Life
11/02/12 4:30 am

We have an epidemic, and on this point, I break with my Libertarian friends. The police need the ability to root out this cancer on our society.

There is no expectation of privacy around the outside of your home.

yrollam
11/02/12 4:28 am

Fuck the police

Reply
cobra4778
11/02/12 1:11 am

They can be on the property but they have to have a reason to be on the property and they have to be in the public right of way (any place a person could reasonably be expected to walk when walking from the road/sidewalk to the door of the structure on the property.)

buzzyboy
11/02/12 12:59 am

If they're not on the property, it's ok, otherwise, that's a violation of privacy

Reply

11/01/12 9:45 pm

You're an idiot if you think that it's wise to give up that much of your security to the police.

Reply
cobra4778
11/01/12 9:25 pm

Plain sight is what the 4th Amendment says is an exception to needing a search warrant. You don't have to have something in plain sight for probable cause to be established and a warrant granted by a judge.

cobra4778
11/01/12 9:21 pm

The K-9 is not as search since your reasonable expectation of privacy has not been violated. The K-9 is what develops probable cause to get the warrant.

cobra4778
11/01/12 7:12 pm

Plane of building had not been broken. It is all about reasonable expectation of privacy. You have than in your house but not in your driveway or porch.

cobra4778
11/01/12 7:11 pm

Bottom line: the fourth amendment states that as long as the officer is standing where a reasonable person would believe a person can walk to contact the owners of the property (i.e. a driveway or front porch). The officer is within their rights. And that a K-9 sniffing is not a search since the

fsu13 Grosse Pointe Park
11/01/12 6:48 pm

you work up the chain. u cant just magically wish a cartel to be gone and poof...

hunty Virginia
11/01/12 6:37 pm

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, supreme court should rule it constitutional: the drug sniffing dogs give police probable cause while they are on publicly owned land

Reply
geoag02 Dallas, TX
11/01/12 6:33 pm

They should get a warrant based on a neighbor complaint first.

peacenskis Alaska
11/01/12 4:56 pm

Large drug operations eg Cartels are destroyed from the inside out. Not dogs sniffing people's sidewalks. I must have missed a FOX news story.

Reply
TC21
11/01/12 4:04 pm

You shouldn't have illegal drugs in the first place but I suppose I would say the outside of your home is more or less "public" so the police should be able to use it without a search warrant.

jpfb1994
11/01/12 3:36 pm

I disagree with using a dog for any drug search. The handler has ways of making the dog alert. I would like to see some statistics on how many times a dog alerted and nothing was found.

Reply