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

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .

>
> Why should citizens have to "give up rights" in order to utilize a
legal
> mode of transportation? Or anything else,for that matter?

Because the government frowns on people using substances that don't
contribute to the bottom line of the liquor and tobacco industries and
the government....

IMO, that's what this all this war on drugs crap is about. That and the
war on our individual rights and freedoms....

In article >, Paul wrote:

> Because the government frowns on people using substances that don't
> contribute to the bottom line of the liquor and tobacco industries and
> the government....

Actually way back when they were legal substances. Cocaine nearly
remained legal and caffine nearly became illegal. All of the substances
could be taxed and regulated. So it's not about that. What it is about is
a group of control freaks who want to tell everyone else what's good for
them. These are the same people who are trying bring back prohibition,
keep us from eating beef, etc and so forth.

> IMO, that's what this all this war on drugs crap is about. That and the
> war on our individual rights and freedoms....

That is what it has become.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...

> And the logic that anything that didn't exist at the time the
> constitution was written is just a 'privilege' can be used in areas of
> our other rights. For instance, usenet could be considered a
'privilege'
> just as driving is. Thusly the government could come in and tell us we
> can't write what we please using that arguement. We give up our right
to
> free speech for the privilege of using usenet. Sound good? Of course
it
> doesn't.

And I'm sure that there are elements in our soceity that would like the
government to do just that - tak away our right to free speech on the
internet as a precursor to taking away our right to free speech
period...

AZGuy wrote:
> Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. The courts have ruled thus
> in relatively clear terms.

What case?

Doug Warner wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
> And, I can't lock my luggage, otherwise they'll just cut/destroy the
> lock, and then steal whatever they want.
> Fortunately, I haven't had to fly anywhere since 9/11. At least, when
> I drive, I don't have to wait four hours in lines and risk a strip
> search every time.
> (My first thought on 9/11 when I realized it was a terrorist attack
> was: "Here comes the police state". It wasn't long in arriving.)
> (Some federal snooper will probably read this.)
>
> To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
> Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
But you see, if we won't have those "strip searches", we would have 20
more 9/11s.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> jaybird 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...
>
>
>> Nope, it tends to tip the cops to the marijuana in your trunk.
>
>
> I'm glad they didn't think so when I was pulled over for expired tags
> (back when I was 16). I was very nervous back then since it was the
> very first time I had an encounter with a police officer on the side of
> the road.
>
> As someone else pointed out, if you don't get somewhat nervous when
> you're pulled over, you're being pulled over way too often.
>
> In any case, do you get suspicious if the driver you pulled over acts
> smug and / or confident when you ask for his license and registration?

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.

Brent P wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and the
other is highly mobile.
I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by Klotter
comes to mind.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> ****ing fascist moron.
And how am I racist?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

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.

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

"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, says...
>
>>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.
>
> I'm sure you had to provide some sort of identification to get on a plane.

Well yeah, that too.

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