SonicFlyer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XBzV0bDZdQ

rickair7777

Two distinct issues here..

1. Civil Asset Forfeiture is complete BS IMO, follow Steve Lehto if you want to learn more.


2. But non-invasive "searches" have been consistently found to be constitutional, the most common examples...

Anything visible to the public...

- Cop walks by your parked car and sees contraband on the seat. Now has probable cause, not a civil rights violation.

- Cop walks up to your front door and knocks. He can do that, since any member of the public is assumed to have a standing invite, absent locked gates or no-tresspass signs, to approach and knock. You don't have to answer, but if he sees contraband on the porch or maybe through the front window, he has probable cause.

Sniffer Dogs...

- They can legally sniff anything that's in public, any odors you emit are consider like your trash can on the curb... fair game for public or government access. If the dog alerts, probable cause.

That's the law, but personally I don't think dogs are reliable enough, other than for bomb detection, but that's another issue best taken up with your local legislators.

SonicFlyer

You are correct on everything else, and Lehto is awesome as well as the Institute for Justice who fights this crap.

However SCOTUS has ruled that having a dog sniff around for drugs is indeed a search...

https://www.robertmalovelaw.com/libr...itutional-.cfm

And if you watched the original video, the DEA thug caused the dog to alert by making a noise and hand gesture, a common LEO tactic when they want to invent a reason to harass people.

rickair7777

That one is complicated and very narrow, and in no way impacts the overall legality of drug sniffing dogs at the constitutional level... sniffer dogs in general are still very much legal and constitutional.

The specific issue that was addressed involved curtilage, which is quite an interesting legal topic that I won't get into here. Long story short: you have more protections at your home than out in public. This ruling would not apply if you were walking down a public sidewalk... or sitting in an airport terminal.


That's the main reason I don't like drug dogs, waaay to easy for the handler to inentionally trigger an alert, and it's also been observed that dogs (who are emotionally pretty intelligent) can alert if they think the handler would be pleased, even if the cop himself is perfectly honest and upright.

With all that said, state/local laws can further restrict dogs and in my opinion they should.

Dogs should only be used to take down violent criminals or to screen for bombs at entries to public venues... if the dog alerts you should have the choice to either leave or submit to a search if you want to enter. Cops shouldn't be able to use dogs as probable cause IMO.

SonicFlyer

I agree the cases are not the same, but one's property is still one's property be it personal property, effects, or one's real estate. And yes, this case does overall generally weaken drug dogs used in casual encounters.

Does it apply in this specific case? The court doesn't say it does, but I would argue that it does and I think some courts might agree that it does.

Yep, exactly, BINGO!

Excargodog

I think dogs response should be tracked. If false alerts (alert, but search finds no contraband) exceed a certain percentage (let's say 25%) then the dog goes on the equivalent of a "Brady List" and can no longer be considered probable cause to justify a search. That may not stop the inherent inaccuracies of the dog but it would likely keep the cop honest.

JohnBurke

Whaddayaknow...another big orange upside down thumb and a link with no words. No more thought than to copy a link and post it. Mindless.

There is no illegal search or seasure beyond the security line at the airport. Signs clearly state that a condition of entry is that anyone, and anything may be searched. Not just at flight screening, but also any time thereafter.

By entering the secure area, one consents to the search, period.

Any righteous indignation to the contrary is pure ignorance.

SonicFlyer

The Constitution says otherwise.

rickair7777

No. It's silent on that because airplanes didn't exist in 1776.

Airports tend to be quasi-public places, while often government owned, access can be restricted for specific purposes and come with strings (such as consent to search).

Just like entering any other security-sensitive government facility, such as a police station or military base.

You could make a non-ridiculous argument that in the modern era air travel might need to be considered a fundamental freedom of sorts and some traditional civil rights should be explicitly applied. Not saying you'd prevail, but you could make the case. Automobiles are similar, and the law has settled into kind of a compromise.

But practically speaking, nobody is going to outlaw airport security screening, the bad guys would have a field day, we'd have numerous smoking holes (or smoking buildings), the airline industry would collapse, followed shortly by the economy.

rickair7777

No the case specifically hinged on curtilage (better read up on that). Had nothing to do with the already well-established precedent on dogs in public.