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

In article >,
"jaybird" > wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
> >
> >> That's not entirely true. Your state has to issue you a valid driver's
> >> license to operate a vehicle on our (the citizen's) roadways. There are
> >> violations outlined in your state's laws where those privileges can be
> >> suspended, cancelled, or revoked. It is true that we all have the right
> >> to
> >> travel freely throughout the country, but driving a vehicle on public
> >> roadways has restrictions outlined in the states' traffic codes.
> >
> > Travel freely? There is no such right anymore. Use public transportation,
> > you may be subject to search. Don't like it, don't use it. You travel by
> > air, same thing. Travel by rail, again, same deal. Travel by bicycle?
> > codified that a bicyclist can be stoped by an officer at any time. Walk?
> > well that court case was lost too, cops can demand papers. So what is
> > this right to travel freely jaybird? Because as I look around, each mode
> > of transportation has fallen. We have to give up our other rights to
> > travel from place to place.
> >
> > You can sit there and parrot the party line of your masters and tell us
> > the slippery slope isn't there, but each time we look around we are
> > further down the slope.
>
> That's strange. I've used every mode of transportation you described and
> I've never had to endure any of that. I've had to put my bag on an xray
> machine in airports, but that's all.

That is about as disingenuous a response as I've ever seen.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for arrest.
>>> Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a K9 sniff a
>>> vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for the air coming from
>>> our vehicle to the outside.
>>
>> Or anything else that dogs or technology can detect from the outside of
>> our homes or vehicles by that logic. Such as the heat signature coming
>> through the walls of our homes.
>>
>> It's all the same thing. The boundries of home and vehicle are merely
>> arbitary and easily breached. (and often have in the war on the bill of
>> rights er drugs)

> Once again, you have incorrect information. A K9 sniff detects only the air
> outside a vehicle. The heat sensor was ruled unconstitutional because the
> equipment used to measure the heat signature penetrated the residence to
> measure inside, without a warrant.

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.

A sensitive microphone outside the residence only picks up sound waves in
the air outside the residence as well. Just like with the dog.

And why couldn't you just place the dog outside the home and have it
sniff for drugs?

In article >,
"jaybird" > wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
> >
> >> Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for arrest.
> >> Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a K9 sniff a
> >> vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for the air coming from
> >> our vehicle to the outside.
> >
> > Or anything else that dogs or technology can detect from the outside of
> > our homes or vehicles by that logic. Such as the heat signature coming
> > through the walls of our homes.
> >
> > It's all the same thing. The boundries of home and vehicle are merely
> > arbitary and easily breached. (and often have in the war on the bill of
> > rights er drugs)
>
> Once again, you have incorrect information. A K9 sniff detects only the air
> outside a vehicle. The heat sensor was ruled unconstitutional because the
> equipment used to measure the heat signature penetrated the residence to
> measure inside, without a warrant.

The the ruling was incredibly stupid. The sensor clearly measures
photons emanating from the building.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> That's not entirely true. Your state has to issue you a valid driver's
>>> license to operate a vehicle on our (the citizen's) roadways. There are
>>> violations outlined in your state's laws where those privileges can be
>>> suspended, cancelled, or revoked. It is true that we all have the right
>>> to
>>> travel freely throughout the country, but driving a vehicle on public
>>> roadways has restrictions outlined in the states' traffic codes.
>>
>> Travel freely? There is no such right anymore. Use public transportation,
>> you may be subject to search. Don't like it, don't use it. You travel by
>> air, same thing. Travel by rail, again, same deal. Travel by bicycle?
>> codified that a bicyclist can be stoped by an officer at any time. Walk?
>> well that court case was lost too, cops can demand papers. So what is
>> this right to travel freely jaybird? Because as I look around, each mode
>> of transportation has fallen. We have to give up our other rights to
>> travel from place to place.
>>
>> You can sit there and parrot the party line of your masters and tell us
>> the slippery slope isn't there, but each time we look around we are
>> further down the slope.

> That's strange. I've used every mode of transportation you described and
> I've never had to endure any of that. I've had to put my bag on an xray
> machine in airports, but that's all.

Subject to search. Didn't say it happened everyday or to everyone.
SUBJECT TO. And a bag being x-rayed is a form of search.

Here again you show not only your ignorance of the english language but
of big city life. When special people come to town, the police start
excerising these powers. No special people, then not much is going to
happen. However the security checkpoints in large buildings downtown are
still in place regardless.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> I can explain that. A great expectation of privacy is inside our home.
>>
>> Why?

> Ask the courts.

They aren't arguing it here. You are. Defend your arguement.

>>> It
>>> lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is mobile (in
>>> a
>>> nutshell).

>> Why?

> Again, ask the courts. Read up on some case law about it and that should
> answer it for you.

It doesn't. You're presenting the arguement here. Your job to defend it
HERE.

>>> 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.

>> Neither is the heat signature of your home visable from the street. Nor
>> the sounds that can be picked up with a sensitive microphone.

> ...which are more intrusive means than smelling air outside your vehicle.

Maybe to you. I find the use of any equipment or trained animal subject
to the interpetation and honesty of the operator. That operator I do not
trust. Thusly regardless of how intrusive you or I find it, to me, it is
all equally objectionable _without_ warrant.

>>> 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.

>> And if they hear you say something suspicious they should be able to
>> burst right into your home to.

> Not necessarily. If you say something like "I've killed 3 people and set a
> nuclear device inside my house", then yes. If you say "don't tell that cop
> about the porn mags under my bed", that's not going to be enough.

Porn is still legal in most forms. But you show your true colors here,
you have no problem with the warrantless monitoring itself.

>> There is no difference in the logic. Once you erase the bill of rights in
>> one place, you effectively doom it everywhere.

> No, you just need a better understanding of what our courts have ruled on.
> Individuals have different opinions, but we have to look to the court system
> to be a place where we can come to an agreement.

The consitution is in plain and simple language. Every year these courts
you call 'a place of agreement' slide us ever so closer to a police
state. Ruling time and time again for the powers of the state and its
police forces. Unlike you, I don't have a special pass so I must be
concerned about things.

I live in the state from where this court case came. It has blessed the
use of canine searches at whim. The speed limits here are set artifically
low. Dangerously low. I have no freedom of travel any more. At any time I
may be stopped, detained for hours, searched, questioned, forced to
produce documents, etc and so forth. That's not a free country. The only
thing still working in my favor is that the probability of it occuring is
low. That's not comforting.

> 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?

>> Once again, you have incorrect information. A K9 sniff detects only
>> the air outside a vehicle. The heat sensor was ruled
>> unconstitutional because the equipment used to measure the heat
>> signature penetrated the residence to measure inside, without a
>> warrant.
>
> The the ruling was incredibly stupid. The sensor clearly measures
> photons emanating from the building.

Which means... exactly what?

Jim Yanik wrote:

> But the USSC has ruled that flyover IR searches are unconstitutional.
> This new ruling is not consistent with the earlier IR search ruling.

Rulings regarding checkpoints for illegal drugs versus DUI were also
inconsistent.

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.

It's a common term.

> What pray tell does it give a "very clear idea" of?

Depends on the equipment. Some I believe is good enough to see people and
animals within the structure. Not to mention give an idea if the owner is
doing things like raising snakes or growing pot in the basement.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>Maybe to you. I find the use of any equipment or trained animal subject
>to the interpetation and honesty of the operator. That operator I do not
>trust. Thusly regardless of how intrusive you or I find it, to me, it is
>all equally objectionable _without_ warrant.

The courts steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility of a dog
which can alert on surreptitious command.