# U.S. Supreme Court To Decide Whether Florida Police K-9 Violates Constitution



## David Petruescu (Aug 19, 2011)

Don't know if anybody has seen this. I hope that the court takes the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/drug-dogs-constitutional_n_1181133.html

Anybody have any opinions?


----------



## catherine hardigan (Oct 12, 2009)

I think it's best to err on the side of privacy.


----------



## Mark Horne (Oct 12, 2006)

I can only speak from the UK's perspective but generally all things would need corroboration.
The example in this case for a drugs warrant might be;

Local Beat Bobby has been receiving number of complaints from neighbours of anti social behaviour and strange comings and goings from the address.
Officers receive "anonymous" intelligence that drug dealing is taking place. So uncorroborated and could be malicious or mistaken.
Drugs Dog in question attends the address shows indication at the door.

All these together are submit on a report to a senior who quality assures information and processes, then authorises the officers to attend court to see the Judge and swear out a warrant; the further control measure is the Judge.

I don't see this as greatly different from an officer making missing person enquiries at a house and smelling marijuana, that's reasonable grounds to enter.

I think it needs to be taken as part of the bigger picture.

Mark


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

catherine hardigan said:


> I think it's best to err on the side of privacy.


When it involves a person's home, I tend to agree. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Mark says: "I don't see this as greatly different from an officer making missing person enquiries at a house and smelling marijuana, that's reasonable grounds to enter."

The difference as I see it; In the scenario you describe, the officer was called to the house. Then I agree. It is a type of "plain view". An important part of "plain view" is; the officer must be legally in position to view the illegal activity. With that in mind, I wouldn't want officers, absent cooberating evidence, walking up to peoples houses because a pissed off neighbor said they were a drug house. Seems like a fishing expidition to me. 

DFrost


----------



## Mark Horne (Oct 12, 2006)

Its not fishing if you smell marijuana when he opens the door during your enquiries, there would be symptoms in his behavior, articles in his possession, broken cigarette etc. 
I did clearly use the words corroboration, uncorroborated, senior officer, control measures, and judge in context of the bigger picture. 

"when in its in a persons home I tend to agree" which of course is massively supported by child abusers and wife beaters. 
When I make arrests of the parents (both) for sexually abusing their 5yr child, how much witnessing of the crimes do I get, how much evidence do you get at the early stages of abuse... the little one didn't ring the nick. It was honest held belief based on bits of information from teachers, behavior in the child, some visual symptom's. 

We work on "reasonable grounds to believe" or "honest held belief". I couldn't give a monkey's when arresting terrorists, murders, sex offenders, robbers and wife beaters for the sanctity of there home's.

You're nicked.....

Mark


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Mark Horne said:


> Its not fishing if you smell marijuana when he opens the door during your enquiries, there would be symptoms in his behavior, articles in his possession, broken cigarette etc.
> I did clearly use the words corroboration, uncorroborated, senior officer, control measures, and judge in context of the bigger picture.
> 
> "when in its in a persons home I tend to agree" which of course is massively supported by child abusers and wife beaters.
> ...


By fishing, I mean just randomly, approaching peoples houses just to let the dog sniff the door to see if the dog smells marijuana. I really don't think that is right. I'm not the USC, but it still doesn't seem right to me. 

Police work, gathering reliable and corroborated intel, is a whole nother ball of wax, as you noted. 

DForst


----------



## george herrera (Oct 24, 2011)

I think I'm torn on this one...

On one side: I do agree that privacy is important and should be respected, especially when in reference to someone's home.

On the other side: Odors are detected by the object's molecules actually being inhaled. If I read the article correctly, the detection is done behind a closed door. This would indicate to me that the drug is actually being detected outside of the owner's house. Now: one might say that the owner's property is private as well. This is true, but if an officer is allowed to enter and uses a legal "Access Route" (i.e. pathways, sidewalks, etc) and the drugs are detected from the outside of the front door (which is attached to a pathway or sidewalk), it would be reasonable to assume that a "search" trespass can now be conducted since there was minimal "Intrusiveness".

So, how can you protect your rights?: build a damn fence!


----------



## David Petruescu (Aug 19, 2011)

George, that is something to think about...

10 yrs ago I lived at a different place and I woke up in the middle of the night due to smells that came from the meth lab next door (didn't know there was one 'till that night). Although I did not call anybody, I did move out at the end of the month.

Is it not the same as if the cops were walking down the street/alley and heard screams from inside the house indicating somebody was in trouble? Except in this case, dogs are used as they can detect small amounts...

I don't know, it's a tough one. I would err on the side of freedom. 

This brings another interesting question: let's say you have a dog that's trained in narcotics (you spent the money and got the kits and everything) and lets say that your dog indicates the presence at a neighbor's house or walking down the street. Would you call the cops? Would they believe you're dog's indication? Would that be grounds for them to bring their own dog.


----------



## george herrera (Oct 24, 2011)

David,

Good point. I am unsure whether an officer has the same rights to walk through/onto private property with or without a K9 when not conducting an official "search".


----------

