Drug dogs

[TX-RAT]

I was asked a interesting question the other day.
Why don't they just run the dogs up and down the alleys and streets, and see what they alert on. If they alert on a house, then get a warrant for a search.
Any opinions? Legal, illegal?

I do know, if you drive through a Border Patrol check point, and their dog alerts, you will be searched.

[Syncronaut Seven]

1. Cause They'd make good sniper targets?

I dunno? Maybe they could strip down the first arrestees and let the dogs lunge at their genitals. Not for information, just for fun.

[Romulus]

2. I remember something like that

there was a court case or something in the late '90's about LEO's using thermal sensors to spot houses with "unusually high" heat signatures, which (to them) indicated indoor grow-lights at work.

The legal question was whether you had an expectation of privacy concerning the heat signature of your house. I also think I saw an article or something on your question about drug odors coming from a residence.

I'll see if my memory is correct, and look around for any info on your question or the heat signature thing . . .

[TX-RAT]

3. grow-lights at work.

I believe that was in Oregon. Using a helicopter

[MrSandman]

5. IIRC, the heat imaging...

falls into the category of total heat generated and the category of using thermal signatures to see actual activities inside walls.

[slackmaster]

4. Fishing expiditions by police are generally not legal

On edit: Let me rephrase that - A police "fishing expidition" may be legal for the police to conduct, but the evidence gathered is going to be much harder to get admitted in court than if an initial search was supported by evidence.

Police need a reason to initiate a search in the first place. You can't go picking buildings or neighborhoods at random.

It's up to a judge to decide whether your letting the dog case an area was justified. IMO it would depend on the specific situation and the specific judge.

[TX-RAT]

6. You can't go picking buildings or neighborhoods at random

They didn't the dog did.
And if its a BP check point, they will search. With that being said, why can't the Police?

[slackmaster]

7. That's like saying you didn't eat your homework

But your dog did, therefore you didn't do anything wrong.

:P

And if its a BP check point, they will search. With that being said, why can't the Police?

It's an interesting question. Your police dog is a piece of equipment just like a bomb-sniffing machine would be. Or your own nose.

If you smell marijuana smoke coming from a house you happen to be walking by, can you knock on the door and arrest people? Do they have the right to refuse to answer the door if you don't have a warrent?

I believe you can.

[Columbia]

8. 4th Amendment

Oh wait, I forgot.. the Patriot Act eliminated the Bill of Rights. Sorry, mea culpa.

[petronius]

9. These are really interesting questions...

I'm also reminded of the case in San Diego (?) a while back where the police got search warrants based on increased electrical bills. It's going to be really tough to draw the line as surveillance equipment continually improves...

My first instinct is that if you let anything emanate from your property (whether it's stray heat or tiny marijuana particles) that the police can detect without coming onto or making contact with your property, then the police should be allowed to detect these things. On the other hand, I would draw the line at heat sensors used to observe activity behind the curtains or through a wall, even those things can be done from outside the property line. And while I'm not sure about eavesdropping from outside the property with an extremely sensitive passive microphone, I would say bouncing a laser off a window would be impermissible. And I don't think that a heat signature or a jump in electricity use alone is a valid cause for suspicion.

So, I guess my opinion is that the dog idea is OK, and if folks don't want their marijuana particles floating outside they need to use some of that magic, Ashcroft-approved, plastic sheeting and duct tape. Of course, another problem with the dog idea is that, if the dog is not allowed on the property, then there is really no way to conclusively say where the scent is coming from - even if the dog is an inch away, marijuana traces outside the property may not be enough for a warrant...

[gatlingforme]

10. The dog is considered an "officer" of law. Thus, technically the

dog's use must have probable cause as in any search. The BP is different, you are not forced to cross the border thus, you are not forced to be searched, in fact when you decide to cross the border you are also stating that you acquiesce to a search. Just like safety checks too (here in IL they must publish where the safety checks are going to be conducted. If the officer has probable cause to use the dog they will. But, you must stop so the officer can establish PC.

The question you pose means that these people in the buildings or cars on the road are automatically susceptible to search which is unconstitutional, at least for now.

Also, the K-9 is the property of the police dept. it's not a judge.

If the dog's are the one's establishing PC, we are all in deep shit.

[TX-RAT]

11. dog's use must have probable cause as in any search.

Not sure thats correct.

(BP is different, you are not forced to cross the border)

You have permanent stations on the border.
You have temporary stations that are set up any where they want. I've been through check points 200 miles north of the border. Most are set up so you have to go through, actually if you turn around to avoid it, you will be pulled over.

(If the dog's are the one's establishing PC, we are all in deep shit.)
Don't fool yourself. If a drug dog alerts on your vehicle, thats plenty of probable cause.

[slackmaster]

12. If dogs were the ones establishing probable cause...

...Then a police officer could sniff anyone's crotch without a warrant!

:argh:

[TX-RAT]

13. Then a police officer could sniff anyone's crotch without a warrant!

Not sure on the crotch sniffing part.
But, if i walk up to your vehicle and smell pot, thats enough probable cause. If I'm standing on the corner and you drive by, and the smell of pot is coming from your vehicle, thats enough probable cause.
Think I'll pass on the crotch sniffing part.

[gatlingforme]

14. Thanks, I will look unto it, good question (I will see what I can find)

[Liberal Classic]

15. Ten years ago or so I recall

In the 1992 presidential debate between GHW Bush, WJ Clinton, and HR Perot, a similar question was posed to the candidates. Both Bush and Clinton gave boilerplate answers, but Perot's response stuck with me. He said the only way to really win the war on drugs was to do something similar to what you just described, i.e. go house to house. He immediately followed by saying there would be enormous constitutional issues in doing so. I am reminded of it because it was one of the rare moments when the national dialog about the war on drugs touched directly on the constitutional issue. I think the real question is can the war on drugs be won without such measures?

I've been through those checkpoints while driving cross country on I-10. There's one near Las Cruces, New Mexico and another outside El Paso, Texas. I believe they were established primarily as an INS checkpoint (the first thing they ask for is your nationality) but while you're there waiting they have the trained animals search for scent. I've always tended to resist such internal checkpoints on general principles, though I can understand arguments why they're needed.

[BigDaddyCaine]

16. well it all kind of sounds like

a crock o' shit to me. If the neighborhood decides they want police dogs and cops running around in their neighborhood sniffing everything out, then i guess its ok. Other than that it sounds like BS.