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

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> And why couldn't you just place the dog outside the home and have it
>>>>> sniff for drugs?
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There is no logical basis for such a division. You are talking about
>>> that
>>> cops are free to inspect 'the air'. In both cases, using infared
>>> equipment or dogs or whatever they are inspecting what is traveling
>>> through the air. If that is the acceptable logic with a vehicle then it
>>> must be acceptable for the home. There isn't any barrier to that line of
>>> reasoning between vehicle and home. It's the public air in both cases.
>>>
>>> And in fact, I expect government to eventually make such arguements when
>>> the time comes.
>>
>> It comes down to an issue of private property vs. public property.
>
> The citizen's home is private property and so is his vehicle. All the
> arguements you can make for weakening the bill of rights regarding a
> vehicle apply to the home. A mere semantic barrier is easily overcome.

A house is on private property and is private property. A vehicle is on
public property and is private property.

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

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
>>deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.
>
>
> Like driving slower than everybody else, closer to the speed limit than
> anyone nearby, like 6mph over in IL.
>
>
Yup.

"jaybird" > wrote in message
...



> > A K9 is no better than the word of an officer. It gives the officer
the
> > ability to search any one any time he likes. It's just another end
run
> > around our constitutional protections. And the courts don't make it
> > right, they just approve it. And each year the 'reasonable' level
of
> > search gets higher. This year, anyone may be detained for a K9
search.
> > I'd love to see how you'd feel waiting at the side of a road in IL
for a
> > K9 unit because and only because you drove 61mph.
>
> I'm not worried about it. And a K9 is much better than the word of an
> officer. A dog's nose is much better than a human's.

Unless you have found a way to teach the dog to speak English, there is
no way to know what the dog is smelling. For all any one knows, it could
be the left over residue from a hamburger that was in the car that the
dog could be smelling.

What we do know is that the dog's actions are intrepreted by a person
who has a vested interest in putting as many people in jail as possible,
Constitution be damned. And AFAIC, that makes the interpretation
suspect. Too bad that the idiots sitting on the benches from the local
level right up to the 9 old Russell Wellers in the supreme court just go
right along with it and wipe their asses with our Constitutional Rights.

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>>>> There is no logical basis for such a division. You are talking about that
>>>> cops are free to inspect 'the air'. In both cases, using infared
>>>> equipment or dogs or whatever they are inspecting what is traveling
>>>> through the air. If that is the acceptable logic with a vehicle then it
>>>> must be acceptable for the home. There isn't any barrier to that line of
>>>> reasoning between vehicle and home. It's the public air in both cases.
>>>>
>>>> And in fact, I expect government to eventually make such arguements when
>>>> the time comes.

>>> It comes down to an issue of private property vs. public property.

>> The citizen's home is private property and so is his vehicle. All the
>> arguements you can make for weakening the bill of rights regarding a
>> vehicle apply to the home. A mere semantic barrier is easily overcome.

> A house is on private property and is private property. A vehicle is on
> public property and is private property.

Homes can be inspected from public property in much the same manner in
most cases. Then there are all sorts of loopholes where government
employees may come on private property. It's only a matter of time before
the police can start doing home 'safety' checks too.

In article >, Michael wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
>>>deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.
>>
>>
>> Like driving slower than everybody else, closer to the speed limit than
>> anyone nearby, like 6mph over in IL.

> Yup.

Obey the law = suspicious. drive like everyone else = speeding.

Around 1/26/2005 6:38 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Coast Guard stops would be border security,something that is within the
> Constituion.Routine travel inside the US borders is another thing.

Not in their eyes. Since water knows no borders (especially salt water),
the Coasties can and do board any vessel they wish at any time.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Around 1/26/2005 4:40 PM, Michael wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
>>> deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok. What would those factors be then?
>
>
> You see a checkpoitn, you make a u right before the checkpoint.

You forgot something at home. Kinda hard for an officer to measure your
level of nervousness from a block or two away.

> You may match someone's description.

"Yep. We've got a white male, average height and weight. He's nervous,
too; Get the pepper spray."

Yeah, right.

> Cop signals you to pull over and you don't for a while.

Like the cops always say, always pull over where there are lights and
people.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In article >, Garth Almgren wrote:

>> Cop signals you to pull over and you don't for a while.
>
> Like the cops always say, always pull over where there are lights and
> people.

Another damned if you do, damned if you don't. Try to find a safe place
and **** off the cop. Don't find a safe place and **** off the cop.

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.

I was just thinking about this concept of "expectation of privacy"
concept used by the courts as a factor in various decisions they make.
Courts often fail to consider common sense when determining one's
expectation of privacy.

I read an article today that stipulated that taking "upskirt" and "down
blouse" pictures is not illegal in Washington state. The article stated
that state courts ruled that it was not an illegal activity because
people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy beneath their
clothes in public places ...

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...

> I was just thinking about this concept of "expectation of privacy"
> concept used by the courts as a factor in various decisions they make.
> Courts often fail to consider common sense when determining one's
> expectation of privacy.
>
> I read an article today that stipulated that taking "upskirt" and
"down
> blouse" pictures is not illegal in Washington state. The article
stated
> that state courts ruled that it was not an illegal activity because
> people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy beneath their
> clothes in public places ...

Sounds like the slippery slope just got a little steeper... And I'm sure
there are alot of pervs out there that will love that idiotic ruling.