This is out of control - Supreme Court to Decide if Cops Can Raid Homes Based on Drug-Sniffing Dog

[Logical]

I am glad Obama is president, but this 4th amendment attack from his administration is starting to worry me. First the Obama administration thinks putting GPS trackers on any citizens car without a warrant is fine. Now they are arguing that a drug sniffing dog outside your home can detect drugs in your home and obtain a warrant to search your house.

One of my biggest disappointments about Obama has been his embrace of Patriot Act and these type of 4th amendment violations. Very disappointed.

======================

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide for the first time whether judges may issue search warrants for private residences when a drug-sniffing dog outside the home reacts as if it smells drugs inside.

The case, involving a suspected Florida drug dealer, tests the limits of government intrusion into the home. The justices and lower courts have routinely sanctioned search warrants based on drug-detecting dogs responding to packages like airport luggage or vehicles stopped during routine traffic stops.

But a private residence is another story. The case pending before the court is made all the more important because the Obama administration already claims there is no privacy in one’s public movements outside a private dwelling.

<snip>

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-dog-sniffing-case/

[cthulu2016]

1. center-left-authoritarian-leaning

Center-left-authoritarian-leaning.

That's about as liberal as we get, in practice.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. There is nothing center-left about this administration.

Center right authoritarian is about as left as we get, in practice.

[MadHound]

2. More War on Drugs insanity

Dogs will react to many things, many of them in or around a normal house. This simply gives the cops carte blanche to search wherever they want, whenever they want.

[Logical]

3. And the cop "reading" the dog can interpret it anyway they want. n-t

[Moondog]

4. This is not the Obama Administration's argument.

It is the argument of the Attorney General of the State of Florida in appealing to the US Supreme Court a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.

Obama / Holder have nothing to do with this one.

[Logical]

5. But the GPS argument is 100% the Obama admin argument. And this one will get administration...

support once it hits SCOTUS also.

[cthulu2016]

6. correct

[NYC_SKP]

7. Thank you. This is not Obama.

Of course, because he's not down there RIGHT FUCKING NOW doing something about it, to many it is his fault for not being a liberal dictator and stopping it.

[Logical]

10. So you are OK with the GPS car tracking support by Obama? I assume anything Obama supports you do?

[NYC_SKP]

16. No, you can't go from "there" to "that" conclusion. I said no such thing.

In fact, your post is the first I've heard about the car tracking thing.

However:

I have observed since his election that many want to blame him for everything that happens, OWS for example, "why hasn't he smashed the Oakland Police?", "why has his DHS been trying to silence OWS?" yada yada yada.

And, sometimes, I try to explain that it doesn't work that way-- that some things work out best when he stays out of it and lets other mechanisms in democracy handle it.

We've seen over and over again how it's turned out to be best that he's waited and let the problem be solved, that he's not dictated.

But some just want to bash, they want a progressive dictator. I don't want any kind of dictator.

So, what about this GPS thing, tell me more!

[Logical]

21. If you do not know about the GPS tracking issues then you are not engaged! No wonder you are so...

happy.

[ronnie624]

25. The authoritarian slide continues, even under a Democratic administration.

I can't help but notice. It's right there in front of me.

[NYC_SKP]

37. This much is true - The arc is long but bends toward less freedom. nt

[treestar]

19. Haha thanks for the info

Obama - blame fail!

[Logical]

26. And further down you justify Obama being ok with the warrantless GPS tracking......

which I am sure you would have throw a FIT about Bush doing the same thing.

I can tell people that are not logical by the way they defend things Obama does that would have pissed them off if Bush did it.

[treestar]

30. I haven't said a word about any of that

And you'd be pissed at anything Obama did (in fact you'd later be complaining about why did Obama leave that issue to be challenged only during Republican administrations).

I expected the Bush Administration to defend each law, as any administration would. I never ever complained about the fact they were litigating a matter. That's the crux here. You're blaming Obama for simply carrying out his duties, and having his AG defend the law's constitutionality. Without that, the challenger has no where to do to establish that. So you in essence defend the President misusing his power to enforce laws he personally does not like and just leave them unenforced. And yet they remain on the books.

It is as illogical as when Right wingers think that merely by "abolishing the Department of Education" that the laws relating to Education are gone and can't be enforced.

[Logical]

35. LOL...the double standard from a group of Obama defenders on this forum is amazing. It is so....

Obvious that it is a joke at this point.

There are different ways to "Defend" it. Maybe you do not realize that.

You can "Defend" it to just go through the motions or "Defend" it because you really agree with it.

[NYC_SKP]

41. No, Logical. The "joke" is people who place blame on one man...

...at the cost of finding ACTUAL solutions based on reality.

That is the joke, my friend.

The problem about greater governmental intrusion is bigger than Obama.

And, please, I'm not an Obama defender, I'm an Obama apologist-pragmatist.

[Logical]

53. I am not blaming Obama.....

I know Obama's ass does not show up at the SCOTUS to argue the case.

I blame his administration for the direction they are giving the justice department.

Read my post. It says "Obama Administration"!

[treestar]

42. It makes no difference in this matter

An administration, be it federal or state, will defend the law in court as constitutional, while the challenger, the defendant's lawyer, will challenge it as unconstitutional. This process has to happen or the laws stays on the books.

Over and over on DU I see the sentiment that it means that the President or Governor (while here a governor's case is being blamed on the President as ODS knows no bounds) - "agrees" with it and should back down and refuse to defend it. Leaving the law only to be challenged in years when there is an Administration that "agrees" with that law.

It just shows lack of knowledge of the legal system, as if the judiciary does not really count and the executive can simply enforce the laws it wants enforced. If Bush refused to enforce a law you like, you'd scream at that too.

[jaded_old_cynic]

57. Sooooo

When Obama said that his administration was not going to defend DOMA he wasn't doing his job?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20035495-504564.html

[dsc]

50. that is total bs

there is no law being defended in the GPS case. It is the chosen conduct of investigating officers that is being defended. His justice department has no duty at all to defend this conduct. It is choosing to.

[wtmusic]

8. Require a 3-2 majority of 5 drug-sniffing dogs

Hello? Is it not that simple?

[Logical]

9. You realize the Cops "read" the dogs. Correct? It is not like the dogs vote. And you know.....

how many false positives they produce? A lot.

[AZ Progressive]

12. I was on a Greyhound bus headed west near the Texas / New Mexico border, The Border Patrol...

...had a routine checkpoint there and had their dogs sniff the luggages, the dog they had apparently alerted them to a luggage and they had the guy who had the luggage come out and they went through all of his luggage (he apparently was carrying a lot of clothes like shoes in several luggage cases, most likely not his but dunno for what reason) and they ultimately didn't find anything, and everyone on the left side of the bus was staring as the whole thing happened. Yes, dogs do produce false positives.

[treestar]

14. What would be interesting to know would be

was the dog just one of many things establishing probable cause for the warrant. And how far away can the dog be and still sniff for drugs? Was it able to do so from public property?

[Logical]

22. I think they are arguing that if there are not "No Tresspassing" signs they can come on your...

property right next to your house.

At least in the GPS tracking issue it is what the Justice Department argued about installing the GPS on your car.

[WingDinger]

11. They busted in my door at midnite with guns drawn, and needed no chowhound.

They told me I had no fourth amendment right. I said, I cannot physically stop all of you, so do as you are going to do.

They were stunned. Stood there looking stupid.

the choice is, bust in, and lose your footing in court. OR, obey the law, and use the evidence you find.

As I sent them packing, one of the cops said, the reason we knew you were guilty, is cuz you didnt let us in right away. I said, if I knew you were pals, i would have, and certainly will now that I know.

The head pig said, I aint your pal. I said, OK, then your boss. He said, you are on Disability, and dont pay taxes. I said, touche.

[Logical]

24. Wow, what a scary deal that must have been! Good job handling it!!!

[WingDinger]

27. They kept begging me to Shoosh. I chased them down the isle as they left, saying, I had

better look into that ghost he listened to crying for fifteen minutes. As I slept. Perhaps I snore like CURLY of Three stooges.

When one of the pigs was searching my home, as I was in handcuffs, he said, WHO DO I HAVE IN MY CRAWLSPACE? I said noone. He repeated it, and I declared with all abruptness possible, Jimmy Hoffa. He said, OK smartass, now I get to search further.

[Logical]

29. Most Cops are assholes. The older I get the more I realize it. Power goes to their head.

[WingDinger]

34. I destroyed their power. That is why I was invaded. I had busted a crooked cop and judge scheme two

months prior. They made up and law, and convicted me of it. I wrote my appeal, using the words Mordida, which means bust your head if you dont pay us tribute monies. The AG had their asses. They dont like being busted.

[treestar]

13. If the government did not defend a law

then the question would still be open.

This is one of the many failures to understand even the basics of the legal system.

If you don't like a law, you can't challenge it and get a court ruling that it is unconstitutional if the government's lawyers don't defend it. You leave that law there at the level in the circuit where it is.

That is why if you want a law to be challenged, it is against what you want for the Obama Administration to simply not oppose it.

[cthulu2016]

17. That's a touch disingenuous

The government does not typically argue for laws and practices in court for the purpose of having them struck down more forcefully.

Would anyone care to claim that the government abuses its power as a favor to the cotizenry as part of a long-term strategy to get someone to stop the practices the government creates?

[treestar]

20. It is not an abuse of power for the government to defend a law's constitutionality

A law duly passed and made into law must be enforced. But we have the right to challenge its constitutionality in court.

If the government just said, OK we don't argue with that, the law is still on the books. The next administration can enforce it then and defend it.

Court proceedings take long enough as it is. We'd have only Republican administration to challenge bad laws, since there'd be no progress during Democratic ones.

People are leaning on Obama for the normal continuation of the government. It would be wrong for any administration not to stand up for the laws that exist in court. But it's part of the separation of powers that this would not be the end of it.

[cthulu2016]

28. This is a police practice, not a law

The OP is incorrect to pin this particular case on Obama. It will most likely be defended by the state government of florida.

[treestar]

31. Challenging a police practice requires a legal basis

One has to have some argument it violates the 4th or 5th amendment or some other legal basis.

[cthulu2016]

36. A president or governor is oath-bound to

uphold the laws the legislature passes. So we sometimes ee, for instance, the solicitor general arguing for laws that the president does not agree with.

My point is that no executive is oath-bound to defend whatever the police decide to do. If there is a law saying that the police can use dogs in this fashion that's one thing. But there probably is no such law. It is just what they decide to do.

That was all I meant.

[treestar]

43. OK but that is what the court is for

If a defendant has that practice applied to him, he may argue in court that it is unconstitutional. The government, however, will always argue that it is. If the defendant wins, more power to him.

But here on DU I see constantly the criticism that hey it's a bad law, it's unconstitutional and I agree with defendant and so the government should just roll over. But that wouldn't work in the court system and wouldn't allow for a court opinion explaining why that law is unconstitutional.

so it would still be there to be defended by the next Republican anyway. And then the challenge would take years longer, and future defendants subjected to it and have to challenge it during Republicans administrations.

[WingDinger]

39. I tried fighting a non law, and was told by the local paper, that I just was mad that I got caught.

The local paper lives and dies by their info given by police on local crimes.

[treestar]

44. The local paper does not have any judicial power though

Fight the law in the court. How can a non-law be used against you? Or, what happened?

[WingDinger]

47. Finally, I used the word MORDIDA to describe the conspiracy, and THAT got the Attorney Generals Attn

You must get someones attn. Otherwise nonlaws stand. I watched the conspiracy grow. Said that having cops standing on streetcorners, same everyday, and practicing corruption, would see those cops harmed. That faith in rule of law is far more important, and increasingly so, in the bad economic times to come, than to Find the monies for their own paychecks.

[treestar]

49. Well that makes no sense

I cannot tell what happened or what was at issue.

[WingDinger]

51. The powers that be, installed blinking lights in the crosswalk. And a stop sign.

This stopped all traffic, in Del Mar. For about a half mile. Then, they waited for Mcycles to split lanes. They wrote me up for lane splitting. He said, it is little known, but against the law. He said, HIS Mcycle didnt overheat in traffic. Same line the judge said in court. I said the the Harry Hurt study found that splitting lanes is safer. That lane splitting has NEVER been illegal, if done properly.

Judge said, GUILTY.

Many of the Mcyclists in Del MAr are warriors, on leave, so, they were fleecing our military, and by the time they were to go to court, they were back in Afghan, or Iraq. So, they would pay.

So, the nonlaw was not challenged.

Further, the rules are, you cannot introduce ANYTHING in your appeal that wasnt included in your court proceeding. It will be ignored. Add to that, the judge clearly said, you will be penalized according to the respect you show the officer and court. So, I could not introduce anything in court that was conclusive.

After my testimony, where I declared that the judge was endangering the lives of those officers, the judge called a fifteen minute recess. I was disabled, and asked for early finding, so was first up, and alone. Fucking COWARD. I hope that Att General busted them to dogcatchers.

[Logical]

32. If the administration helps justify it in front of the SCOUS then what do you think?

[cthulu2016]

33. If they file an amicus or otherwise argue for it that sucks

And it would not be surprising.

[treestar]

45. The SCOTUS has to hear both sides.

It's the government's job to defend that law.

You're in essence arguing that in any court case, the side you don't agree with shouldn't have a say.

[fredamae]

15. This examples the Definition of GOP's

Smaller Gov't.

[Scuba]

18. A post here recently cited studies showing dogs were wrong 80% of the time. Based on that record...

... you can be sure the courts will OK entry on a positive dog sniff.

[Logical]

23. So true. The "reading" of the dog is basically the cop making the decision.

[backscatter712]

38. Exactly - the cops are non-verbally cueing the dogs.

When the cops make a non-verbal gesture, or if they just have the dog sniff the same area over and over again, rewarding him with a treat when he signals, guess what, the dog's gonna alert.

[WingDinger]

40. Perhaps they can bolster it with tea leaves,and chicken bones.

Have a clairvoyant on hand.

[Quartermass]

46. This is definately something can be horribly misused.

I can easily see a dog being trained to react to a hand signal, and a cop saying "look, it must be drugs! Let's go search!"

There is a lot of abuse on our citizens by cops in this country doing just that sort of bad misinterpretation.

[WingDinger]

48. Soon, they will place an ASSHAT on you to determine your truthiness.

and use that to gain a warrant.

Saw an article about a trailer, that contains equipment to determine who passes by with indicators of having commited a crime. To be placed in large busy cities. Add facial recognition, and you have 1984. They already can stop and frisk, for no reason, but prejudice.

[hootinholler]

54. Any handler worth anything can have a dog alert on whatever he wants

If the bond with the dog is strong, the dog will alert even when the desire is subconscious.

I hope the opposing lawyers are aware of this and provide studies to that effect.

[hunter]

64. Yep. My dogs would do anything for me.

If I was a cop and I wanted to search a house, my dogs would happily do whatever they could to help. False alerts, no problem.

If my dogs could perjure themselves in a court of law for my benefit they would.

Using dogs this way is the same as using a magical drug seeking dowsing stick. Either dogs or a dowsing stick could lead a cop wherever they choose to go.

[T S Justly]

55. The ideological bent of the Court is aligned with Obama's.

But, has Obama offered Federal assistance in this case? An amicus brief, or resources, perhaps - I couldn't determine from the link what the WH's official position on this particular case is. Obama's case for GPS surveillance aside, is the Administration actively involved in this coming hearing?

[Logical]

56. On the GPS case yes, on this one not yet.

[City Lights]

58. A drug-sniffing dog recently intercepted a package containing the stuff we ordered online.

The package in question contained catnip socks for our cats. The seller let us know that it had been held up at the Post Office, and assured the authorities that the contents contained nothing but the catnip socks. She asked us to check the package when we received it to see if it looked like it had been opened.

[Logical]

59. Wow, just think, they can raid your home for that now!

[Sheepshank]

61. PROVE IT

[Logical]

62. Once the SCOTUS rules I will have my proof!

[Sheepshank]

63. FALLACY...N/T

i'M DONE WITH YOUR NUTTERY ON THIS THREAD

[Logical]

65. Keep up the blind support! n-t

[Sheepshank]

60. Typical meme from this OP

The sky is falling...it's Obama's fault. He's not there with a stick holding it up right now, right this very minute...this proves it's his fault and he's condoning everything.

Good lord, if there was ever a case for putting someone on ignore this was almost it.

One of the few reasons I don't put you on ignore is to see if there is accidentally ever a time you may applaud Obama for ANYTHING.

Your logic is illogical...almost all of the time. Your manufactured fear factors are getting pretty predictable.