Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: ruby123 on March 26, 2013, 04:22 pm
-
(ClearNet) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-says-drug-dogs-sniff-at-front-door-is-unconstitutional-search/2013/03/26/cd02ce84-9621-11e2-8764-d42c128a01ef_story.html
Court says drug dog’s sniff at front door is unconstitutional search
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, March 26, 11:14 AM
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect’s property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dogs’ sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.
The high court split 5-4 on the decision to uphold the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines’ Miami-area house. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.
Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government’s gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the curtilage.
“The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home,” Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. “And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion’s, planted firmly on that curtilage — the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home.”
He was joined in his opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
On the morning of Dec. 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a marijuana growing operation. Detective Douglas Bartelt arrived with Franky and the two went up to the house, where Franky quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.
That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its lone occupant, Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officers pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000.
Jardines was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky’s sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.
The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds that ruling.
“A drug detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell),” Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion. “That device here was aimed at a home — the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects. Was this activity a trespass? Yes, as the court holds today. Was it also an invasion of privacy? Yes, that as well.”
The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.
It’s not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes “police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant,” Alito said. “According to the court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of the respondent’s house by his dog, Franky. Where is the authority evidencing such a rule?”
Alito also said that the court’s ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.
“A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human.”
-
Victory for the Constitution, but scary that the vote was so close....
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
-
There's hope for this country after all!
God Bless America!
Such a bi-partisan agreement! You can't get anymore polar opposites together on one issue. Ginsberg +Kagen agreeing with Thomas and Scalia? - That is just beautiful.
You've renewed my faith in this country. One can really get down reading about how Obama was connected to the same Cabal of Banksters as Bush and those before him.
I needed that shot of true 'Hope'. - Not change. The constitution works. Capitalism works.
This 'police state' shit has to really be turned down a notch. Exactly what were the police "Protecting" us from???
OK, stay positive! - One for the people!
Peace
jagfug
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
Well maybe now we anyone caught in their car by a K9 unit can challenge the case based on this ruling?
-
The constitution works. Capitalism works.
Not in the sense you are thinking. Read some Noam Choamsky and see what the Constitution and capitalism really stand for. It sure ain't you and me, that I promise you.
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
We shall see, there are beginning to be many produced peer reviewed scientific studies contradicting the accuracy of police dogs. However, there are significant interests in keeping the status quo with our insane drug laws. Time is on our side, our generation sees the folly of prohibition, whether alcohol, cannabis etc...Know your rights, police cannot detain you indefinitely during a traffic stop. (Am I free to go) and ( Is that a command or request) should be memorized by all.
-
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970303.htm
QUESTION: Do you see much evidence of a revolutionary spirit in the America of the 1990s?
CHOMSKY: You didn't find evidence of it in the America of the 1790s. The Revolutionary War was an important event. But it was in the first place, to a significant extent, a civil war, as most revolutionary wars are. And it was a war of independence, as opposed to a revolution against the social structure. The social structure didn't really change significantly. There were problems right after the war was done. For example, Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and so on were challenging the social structure, and there were efforts on the part of radical farmers to take seriously the meaning of the words in the revolutionary pamphlets, but that was pretty well quieted down.
If you go back to the record of the Constitutional Convention, which took place in 1787, almost immediately after the end of the war, you see that they are already moving in another direction. James Madison -- who was the main framer, and one of the founding fathers who was most libertarian -- makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and bar the way to anything like agrarian reform. The determination was made that America could not allow functioning democracy, since people would use their political power to attack the wealth of the minority of the opulent. Therefore, Madison argues, the country should be placed in the hands of the wealthier set of men, as he put it.
-
The constitution works. Capitalism works.
Not in the sense you are thinking. Read some Noam Choamsky and see what the Constitution and capitalism really stand for. It sure ain't you and me, that I promise you.
In an idealistic universe a true egalitarian society would work. In the real world, people become corrupt and greedy. It is simple human nature.Large societies cannot persist in a communistic way. Look at comparable historical societies and you will understand why.America's Constitutional Republic is a hybrid governmental structure leaning towards socialism. I do not agree with the structure, but I feel the trajectory is inevitable due to the population increases.You also need to differentiate between "crony capitalism" and pure capitalism. Our country is not a true capitalistic society. It is full of plutocrats and oligarchs, clearly antithetical to the notion of Liberty.
-
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970303.htm
QUESTION: Do you see much evidence of a revolutionary spirit in the America of the 1990s?
CHOMSKY: You didn't find evidence of it in the America of the 1790s. The Revolutionary War was an important event. But it was in the first place, to a significant extent, a civil war, as most revolutionary wars are. And it was a war of independence, as opposed to a revolution against the social structure. The social structure didn't really change significantly. There were problems right after the war was done. For example, Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and so on were challenging the social structure, and there were efforts on the part of radical farmers to take seriously the meaning of the words in the revolutionary pamphlets, but that was pretty well quieted down.
If you go back to the record of the Constitutional Convention, which took place in 1787, almost immediately after the end of the war, you see that they are already moving in another direction. James Madison -- who was the main framer, and one of the founding fathers who was most libertarian -- makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and bar the way to anything like agrarian reform. The determination was made that America could not allow functioning democracy, since people would use their political power to attack the wealth of the minority of the opulent. Therefore, Madison argues, the country should be placed in the hands of the wealthier set of men, as he put it.
The fear of mob rule...It is funny because most Americans have no idea that we're not a democracy.Look at the last few Presidential elections...Who won the popular vote?
-
Most Americans don't know because they are purposely kept ignorant and distracted. Look at today alone. The "gay marriage" vote. What isn't mentioned on purpose is the concept of why should we need the government's permission to get married in the first place? It's all been planned and nothing is coincidental.
-
Alex Jones, Billy Corgan interview: You will enjoy this
(Clearnet) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYmIn1upo1c
-
Loved Smashing Pumpkins in the 90's; Alex Jones, not so much. ;D 8)
-
Just try to focus on his information and message. Some of his stuff is completely nuts.
-
Most Americans don't know because they are purposely kept ignorant and distracted. Look at today alone. The "gay marriage" vote. What isn't mentioned on purpose is the concept of why should we need the government's permission to get married in the first place? It's all been planned and nothing is coincidental.
Marriage is a form of contract that confers certain rights upon the individuals concerned.
The state has the soul responsibility of upholding those rights.
Therefore the state must consent to any changes in the marriage laws as if a legal dispute arises as a result of marriage, you will turn to the state for a ruling.
Marriage conveys a whole host of legal rights, i.e. guardianship of children, tax breaks, inheritance tax.
If the two parties wish to terminate the contract, i.e. divorce, then again the state has to be involved.
If you dont like the idea of the state intervening in your life, thats not an issue.. just dont get married. Live together enjoy life and should anything go wrong just settle it like two mature adults (of course in reality two people going through a divorce rarely act like adults and therefore require the assistance of the state which is why we live in the world that we live in).
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
I really hope they figure out this issue, what's to keep the cop from training the dog to bark (or whatever signal means drugs) at every car? "Oops, our dog barked so we get to search your car." Are there any negative consequences to the dog or the police force? If they don't find anything they can just blame it on "traces" of drugs that are no longer present.... This makes no sense.
blahblah1234
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
I really hope they figure out this issue, what's to keep the cop from training the dog to bark (or whatever signal means drugs) at every car? "Oops, our dog barked so we get to search your car." Are there any negative consequences to the dog or the police force? If they don't find anything they can just blame it on "traces" of drugs that are no longer present.... This makes no sense.
blahblah1234
I'm sure getting a dog to false alert is incredibly easy and used by unscrupulous handlers. Pricks.
-
The constitution works. Capitalism works.
Not in the sense you are thinking. Read some Noam Choamsky and see what the Constitution and capitalism really stand for. It sure ain't you and me, that I promise you.
In an idealistic universe a true egalitarian society would work. In the real world, people become corrupt and greedy. It is simple human nature.Large societies cannot persist in a communistic way. Look at comparable historical societies and you will understand why.America's Constitutional Republic is a hybrid governmental structure leaning towards socialism. I do not agree with the structure, but I feel the trajectory is inevitable due to the population increases.You also need to differentiate between "crony capitalism" and pure capitalism. Our country is not a true capitalistic society. It is full of plutocrats and oligarchs, clearly antithetical to the notion of Liberty.
I know it's not a perfect system due to the failings of man. Of course I mean humankind (women are no better ;))-
It's just that I've been pretty down after watching the last 5 elections play out as a badly written script, along with staged tragedies designed to evoke human emotion to garner support for sweeping reforms and laws that take giant chunks of our liberties and privacy away, without a vote by anyone in the House or Congress. From Oligarchy to Tyranny, what ever freedom we thought we had, is quickly evaporating. With an ever increasing police state, and a focus away from any traditional American Values with the counter culture revolutionary types, becoming the ruling elite, and they seem to relish in the spoils of being the ruling class. With a first lady constantly bathing in opulence, and her husband doing nothing to hide his associations with billionaire banksters, I had totally given in to a "this is the end" theory in the back of my mind.
The post of the SCOTUS Ruling was very affirming to me, that while, yes I know it's not a perfect system, it is one of the imperfect ones I choose to rely on, and hope that it's given a chance.
When you can see clearly that there were mixed feelings, between left + right, on this, and where you had two polar opposites agree, was heartening, to me. I'll still take the constitution of the US, over any other one right now. As the ruling was a 'win' for the people. I really got hope for a change! - pun truly not intended!
When you see day after day, the attacks on the constitution by these leftover 60's revolutionary types, being given permissions and duties, that clearly shouldn't be in MOST of this administrations hands, if not all. Then to only have a once strident media, melt away into nothing but stenographers, waiting for the talking points to come out of the White House so they have something to "report" on. There hasn't been any 'reporting'. True investigative 'reporting' stopped with Obama getting elected the first time.
It was beginning to look like a communist revolution was taking place. With the whole occupy actors, and the silent media doing nothing to investigate that their chosen one for the Presidency was (A) Qualified, and (B) Living up to expectations, which we know now are both big NO's !!
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
I really hope they figure out this issue, what's to keep the cop from training the dog to bark (or whatever signal means drugs) at every car? "Oops, our dog barked so we get to search your car." Are there any negative consequences to the dog or the police force? If they don't find anything they can just blame it on "traces" of drugs that are no longer present.... This makes no sense.
blahblah1234
I'm sure getting a dog to false alert is incredibly easy and used by unscrupulous handlers. Pricks.
It should have been banned as a valid method of obtaining evidence a long time ago precisely because it is so easily abused. One of the nearby towns has a police force that is notorious for abusing the use of k-9 units to search peoples vehicles, as well as trampling over other human rights at any opportunity.
-
I'll still take the constitution of the US, over any other one right now. As the ruling was a 'win' for the people. I really got hope for a change! - pun truly not intended!
Then don't look into New Zealand whatever you do! They have NO constitution and seem to be doing much better than us. The "constitution" is nothing more than a system of rules to keep you in line for the wealthy and elite. Everything you were taught in school was a lie. Until that truth is realized, not much can be accomplished.
-
I'll still take the constitution of the US, over any other one right now. As the ruling was a 'win' for the people. I really got hope for a change! - pun truly not intended!
Then don't look into New Zealand whatever you do! They have NO constitution and seem to be doing much better than us. The "constitution" is nothing more than a system of rules to keep you in line for the wealthy and elite. Everything you were taught in school was a lie. Until that truth is realized, not much can be accomplished.
Oh New Zealand? I actually did look into as a younger man, thinking all things were possible. Let's see, that was in the mid to late 1980's
I found out I could visit, but to emigrate there, I would need $275.000. - If someone were to foot the bill, I'd be there already. They didn't have the political correctness and race/emotions based insanity that we have here in America. What is the cost to emigrate there now?
See I saw, way back then that white males were due their "comeuppance". In other words, we were becoming fodder for anyone who felt they were somehow caused and injustice by racism.
Well now here in 2013, when it's obvious the White Heterosexual Male, is the new Nigger of the United States. - I simply hide, and hope to live out my life before the mentally challenged liberals do anything more to make my life a living hell. - So far their succeeding.
The inmates have taken over the asylum. - All praise New Zealand! - Can someone get me in there???
Didn't think so.
Peace (anyway)
jagfug
-
I'll still take the constitution of the US, over any other one right now. As the ruling was a 'win' for the people. I really got hope for a change! - pun truly not intended!
Then don't look into New Zealand whatever you do! They have NO constitution and seem to be doing much better than us. The "constitution" is nothing more than a system of rules to keep you in line for the wealthy and elite. Everything you were taught in school was a lie. Until that truth is realized, not much can be accomplished.
Curious about your statements, care to cite any sources or references?
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
I really hope they figure out this issue, what's to keep the cop from training the dog to bark (or whatever signal means drugs) at every car? "Oops, our dog barked so we get to search your car." Are there any negative consequences to the dog or the police force? If they don't find anything they can just blame it on "traces" of drugs that are no longer present.... This makes no sense.
blahblah1234
I'm sure getting a dog to false alert is incredibly easy and used by unscrupulous handlers. Pricks.
Unfortunately, I experienced this first hand. I'd be happy to go into great detail if you like, but the long and the short of it is that I was pulled over for a completely bullshit traffic stop (so bullshit, that my lawyer didn't believe I was telling the truth about the stop until he saw the video). Then I was detained FOREVER (about an hour) and grilled over and over again with the same questions. Finally, the k9 unit showed up - circled the car four times with no indication. Finally, the handler took him to the furthest corner of the car from where I was standing and I saw him give a hand command (different from all the ones he had been using up until this point) and the dog halfheartedly scratched the window a couple times. (normally it looks like their trying to dig a hole in the car - if they're not trained to sit or bark). They used that as a reason to search my car and they found the drugs at exactly the opposite end of the vehicle from where the dog indicated.
The worst part is that even though I said absolutely NOTHING to the cops at any point, my lawyer (who actually has a very good track record for these types of cases) could not get the motion to suppress to stick.
Then, while I was dealing with this, the same thing happened to me in a different state. Fortunately, I had nothing in the car at all. But these guys pulled the same bullshit (though I didn't see them fake the dog's indication) and detained me for two hours on the side of the freeway (they actually locked me in the cop car - for their safety and mine). The ripped my car apart and when they finally let me go they said it was "against their better judgement" because the "dog doesn't lie" and there was "definitely the smell of marijuana" in the car. (there had never been marijuana in that car for at LEAST the two years I'd owned it - more importantly, I'm curious as to how the dog told them it was MJ and not some other drug). They grilled me for a good 20 minutes after they searched it trying to get me to admit to something. I have to admit I was a smart ass as much as I dared at that point. I knew the car was clean.
I would love to hear people's experiences with getting pulled over and avoiding search.
For example, I suspect that the first experience accounted above was largely due to the fact that the officer told me to sit with him in his car while he wrote me a warning for the bullshit traffic stop. Even as he asked, I knew that he was trying to get me to sit in his car so he could draw out the traffic stop and ask me a bunch of questions. It was obvious to me at the start that he intended to search my car. What I'm wondering is: has anyone ever said: "no, I'm going to stay right here while you write that warning" or some variation thereof. I know what the rules TECHNICALLY are about having the right to remain silent, but I'm curious about how far real people have taken that. If you refuse to speak at all, what does the cop do?
-
Loved Smashing Pumpkins in the 90's; Alex Jones, not so much. ;D 8)
+1
-
I suppose it is too much to hope that we could successfully get cops to need a warrant/probable cause to bring a drug dog around a vehicle...
I really hope they figure out this issue, what's to keep the cop from training the dog to bark (or whatever signal means drugs) at every car? "Oops, our dog barked so we get to search your car." Are there any negative consequences to the dog or the police force? If they don't find anything they can just blame it on "traces" of drugs that are no longer present.... This makes no sense.
blahblah1234
I'm sure getting a dog to false alert is incredibly easy and used by unscrupulous handlers. Pricks.
Unfortunately, I experienced this first hand. I'd be happy to go into great detail if you like, but the long and the short of it is that I was pulled over for a completely bullshit traffic stop (so bullshit, that my lawyer didn't believe I was telling the truth about the stop until he saw the video). Then I was detained FOREVER (about an hour) and grilled over and over again with the same questions. Finally, the k9 unit showed up - circled the car four times with no indication. Finally, the handler took him to the furthest corner of the car from where I was standing and I saw him give a hand command (different from all the ones he had been using up until this point) and the dog halfheartedly scratched the window a couple times. (normally it looks like their trying to dig a hole in the car - if they're not trained to sit or bark). They used that as a reason to search my car and they found the drugs at exactly the opposite end of the vehicle from where the dog indicated.
The worst part is that even though I said absolutely NOTHING to the cops at any point, my lawyer (who actually has a very good track record for these types of cases) could not get the motion to suppress to stick.
Then, while I was dealing with this, the same thing happened to me in a different state. Fortunately, I had nothing in the car at all. But these guys pulled the same bullshit (though I didn't see them fake the dog's indication) and detained me for two hours on the side of the freeway (they actually locked me in the cop car - for their safety and mine). The ripped my car apart and when they finally let me go they said it was "against their better judgement" because the "dog doesn't lie" and there was "definitely the smell of marijuana" in the car. (there had never been marijuana in that car for at LEAST the two years I'd owned it - more importantly, I'm curious as to how the dog told them it was MJ and not some other drug). They grilled me for a good 20 minutes after they searched it trying to get me to admit to something. I have to admit I was a smart ass as much as I dared at that point. I knew the car was clean.
I would love to hear people's experiences with getting pulled over and avoiding search.
For example, I suspect that the first experience accounted above was largely due to the fact that the officer told me to sit with him in his car while he wrote me a warning for the bullshit traffic stop. Even as he asked, I knew that he was trying to get me to sit in his car so he could draw out the traffic stop and ask me a bunch of questions. It was obvious to me at the start that he intended to search my car. What I'm wondering is: has anyone ever said: "no, I'm going to stay right here while you write that warning" or some variation thereof. I know what the rules TECHNICALLY are about having the right to remain silent, but I'm curious about how far real people have taken that. If you refuse to speak at all, what does the cop do?
There is a video on youtube of a guy who was stopped, legal open carry of a weapon. All he said to the cop was "Good Morning", stared at the cop silently while the cop asked questions, then "Good bye" when the cop gave up and left. I have not yet myself had a chance to exercise any of my rights, been pretty good at avoiding cops so far.