Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules

"jaybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote
in
> message . ..
> >
> > "jaybird" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> I can explain that. A great expectation of privacy is inside our
> > home. It
> >> lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is
mobile
> > (in a
> >> nutshell). Where the line has been drawn for K9 sniffs is that
while
> > it is
> >> true that your vehicle and its contents are "effects", the air that
is
> >> around it is not private property. If your vehicle has air coming
> > from it
> >> to the outside, that air is not your property either. If a dog, or
> > other
> >> means are used to detect an illegal substance in that air which is
> > coming
> >> from private property, that gives cops the same reason to
investigate
> > where
> >> that air is coming from as it would if they were to look in your
> > vehicle's
> >> windows from the outside and see something illegal.
> >
> > So by this rationale, I assume that we can expect to have the police
> > walking our neighborhoods with dogs sniffing the air (since we don't
own
> > the air that exits our homes either) and if the dog indicates to the
> > presence of an illegal substance in the air or thermal detectors on
> > every light pole to detect excess heat radiating from a building,
then
> > the police can demand/intimidate consent to search every house on
that
> > street warrant or no warrant they way they do with motorists?
>
> No... different expectation of privacy and warrant requirements.

Maybe for now, but how long before the requirements are lowered to that
which applies to people in automobiles? After all, just as the outer
skin of the vehicle forms the boundry between the private area in my
vehicle and the public area that is the road, so to does the property
line form a boundry between my private area (the house and yard) and the
public area (the govt owned right of way and the road along side of and
infront of my property). It is just a matter of time untill the slippery
slope that we are on goes from a steep slope to a vertical freefall into
a dictatorship. That is if the people of this country allow it to
happen...

"jaybird" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave C." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BE" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> >> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You
have a
> >> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
home,
> >> and that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
> >
> > Nothing. Stay home. Don't leave it. Ever. Not even for
> > roceries. -Dave
>
> You can leave, just make sure you leave your pot at home.

No, that still leaves you open to the demand for a search from any
policeman who feels like demanding one.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Alan Baker wrote:

> > > ****ing fascist moron.

> > And how am I racist?

> I don't know. No one called you "racist". Someone apparently should call
> you ignorant.

Or "illiterate".

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:bK-
:
>
>> In article >,
>> Sam O'Nella > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The equipment doesn't penetrate anything. It doesn't read the air in
>>>> the home, doesn't read anything that is in the home. It reads the
>>>> heat coming off the residence. By reading said heat signature it
>>>> gives a very clear idea of what is in the residence. Just like the
>>>> dog does with the car.
>>>
>>>Hehe - heat "signature"? That's great.
>>>
>>>What pray tell does it give a "very clear idea" of?
>>
>> One of the Supreme Court cases concerned infrared IMAGING sensors.
>> Which means it gives a (not-so-clear) picture of what's inside the
>> home, in infrared.
>>
>
>IIRC,the USSC case involved ordinary thermal scans,not any detailed
>imaging,just finding roofs with abnormal heat levels,or unusual hot spots
>like in the garage or some room.

There has been more than one case on the subject.

>Imaging sensors have different levels of resolution and sensitivity.

Yep. But the case I mentioned closed the door (temporarily... all
retention of freedom is temporary, nearly all loss is permanent) on
all of them, at least without a warrant.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
>The government has skipped the internet step entirely. I'm sure you've
>heard of the practice of "free speech zones." Suprisingly West Virginia
>University had several designated areas with that designation. In other
>areas, you could be subject to arrest by campus police by airing your
>views in front of a crowd. I don't know if this is still the case.
>
>I also believe that this restriction existed during the Republican
>national convention as well.

And the Democratic. I saw a picture of the DNC "free speech zone".
Surrounded by cyclone fencing and tucked under the El, where no one
inside could be seen.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually see
>> people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog outside
>> of a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of
>> privacy than a vehicle.... different circumstances.
>
> What about the air outside a residence?

Higher expectation of privacy, but possible in the right circumstances.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

In article >, says...

>The government has skipped the internet step entirely. I'm sure you've
>heard of the practice of "free speech zones." Suprisingly West Virginia
>University had several designated areas with that designation. In other
>areas, you could be subject to arrest by campus police by airing your
>views in front of a crowd. I don't know if this is still the case.
>
>I also believe that this restriction existed during the Republican
>national convention as well.

They definitely did exist and many folks were arrested. If you just happen to
be walking in the wrong place at the wrong time, you too were subject to
arrest.
---------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>Trust me, most (and notice, I say most, not all) cops can distinguish
>between normal human anxiety and when a person has really done something
>wrong.

Is that like women's intuition? Just like everyone else, they are all
prejudiced in one way or another and make many mistakes.
------------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>Ahh yes the other typical tatic of those in favor of a police state. Call
>everyone who is concerned 'paranoid'. You might feel safer, because you
>flash your badge and get to have a gun or whatever else you want to
>carry. I don't. I can't even carry my leatherman micra into the
>building. I wouldn't even have the simplest of tools to help me escape
>from a locked stairwell or an elevator in an emergency.
>
>The fact remains, we are not free of searches just by choosing not to
>drive. The loopholes of 'privledge' have become so common place that now
>we even have to produce papers when on foot.

Many folks are not smart enough to figure this out. That is what the
police and polititicians are counting on when they push for these laws.
-------------
Alex

In article >, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> They definitely did exist and many folks were arrested. If you just happen to
> be walking in the wrong place at the wrong time, you too were subject to
> arrest.

This is true of all big or important conventions of elected officals or
elites. (WTO, etc and so forth) There are various news stories of
bicyclists who were arrested simply for being on a bicycle while they
were traveling from a to b because critical mass or similiar was doing a
protest nearby.