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

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.

"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 groceries. -Dave

In article >,
"Sam O'Nella" > wrote:

> >> 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?

That his rationale for defending car searches by dogs is specious.

--
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."

(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.

Imaging sensors have different levels of resolution and sensitivity.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"jaybird" > wrote in message
news
> 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.

Umm, you didn't have to walk through a metal detector?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Michael
wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
> >>
> >> Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...
> >
> > But if you have nothing to hide, you should not be nervous.
> > On the other hand, if you act nervous on purpose, then don't
complain
> > about being searched.
>
> The mantra of the police state.

Exactly. SIEG HEIL!

Brent P wrote:

[Infrared sensors]
> Not to mention give an idea if the owner is
> doing things like raising snakes or growing pot in the basement.

Not to criticize your example, but since snakes are cold blooded
animals, I don't think an infrared sensor would do much good

jaybird wrote:

> It all depends on the circumstances. There's not really one specific factor
> like this one that'll raise an eyebrow; it's a combination of circumstances.
> Just the sole factor of being nervous is not enough to start ripping your
> car apart. Nervousness coupled with other factors that we may never know
> about without reading this guy's case report were enough for this cop to
> pick up on more illegal activity. Apparently he did a damn good job.

If the officer and prosecution did a good job, then case would not have
even made it to the USSC.

"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?

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
> [Infrared sensors]
>> Not to mention give an idea if the owner is
>> doing things like raising snakes or growing pot in the basement.
>
> Not to criticize your example, but since snakes are cold blooded
> animals, I don't think an infrared sensor would do much good

But to _RAISE_ snakes, one must keep the room with them at about 80-85
degrees F. A friend of a friend did this in college in his frat house
room. Kept it uncomfortably warm for the sake of his pet snakes.