Supreme Court Restricts Drug Dogs Around Homes

[Les Grossman]

Serious question - here's a scenario for you...

1. Cop makes stop for traffic violation.
2. Cop smells marijuana.
3. Cop calls K9 unit to do a sniff, dog indicates.
4. Cop searches car.

You've said you don't think the "cop sniff" is enough for PC to search the car, but that the K9 sniff is. Do you think the cop in my scenario has unreasonably extended the traffic stop to call in the K9?

Depends on how long it takes to bring in the K-9. But, most likely yes.

My "cop sniff" position is also biased to due to my feelings that marijuana should be legal. I readily admit that.

 

[Les Grossman]

So because you have an example of a cop who wasn't truthful, that must mean all cops are liars? There's sound reasoning for you.

The truth is that the vast majority of cops are honest. They don't care enough about one arrest to risk losing their job for lying. Are they sick of watching guilty people get off on technicalities? Absolutely. And I can guarantee that the cop you've cited in your example had his credibility go out the window in front of that judge.

Actually, I'm more surprised the prosecutor in that case tried to argue that with a straight face.

I'd also agree that most cops are honest to a certain extent. I never thought any of them ever planted evidence or anything like that. Do I think they play a little fast and loose with the 4th amendment? Absolutely. If the cops want to do a search, they'll find a way....and, it's not always by the book. Most cops are good people, of course. They have a tough job. However, there's always a handful who you cant trust no matter where you live. Anyone who's prosecuted long enough in one area knows there are certain cops who have a shady repuation. And, the risk of them losing their jobs is slim to none.

As an aside, I hate the "getting off on a technicality" line. If you're getting off on a "technicality", then most likely your constituational rights were violated. Not exactly a technicality, in my opinion.

 

[Les Grossman]

I haven't read the opinion, but under the facts apparent here I think this decision is wrong. Alito is right. There's nothing wrong with a postal worker coming to the door. There's nothing wrong with a police officer coming up to the door and knocking on the door. They're allowed to knock on your door and ask to speak to you. And, by extension, there should be nothing wrong with that officer bringing his K9 partner up onto the porch with him for no longer than the duration of said knock.

Put it this way, and consider that expectation of privacy is central to the argument. If a stranger comes up on your front porch and knocks on the door, you may be annoyed, but they haven't done anything out of the ordinary. Now, if that same stranger is walking all over your yard and around the side of the house, that's probably going to cause some alarm.

Now, under the scenario suggested by Scalia, with police combing the yard and complete exterior of the house, I absolutely agree it's an unreasonable search.

If I'm misunderstanding what happened based on a cursory reading of this thread, then by all means let me know. But my guess here is that this opinion is based more on an under-developed record at a suppression hearing than anything else.

One last thing. One of my very good friends is a K-9 cop. When he's on the job, there's only one reason he brings his dog out of the car and that's for the dog to work. Otherwise, he leaves him in the car. He does this for a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that he does not want to confuse the dog when he's in "work" mode. He cant have friendly strolls with the dog one minute, and have him sniffing for drugs the next. So, if all he wanted to do was talk to someone with no ulterior motive whatsoever...he would never bring him to the front door of someone's house. The only reason why he would bring him is because he wants to see if the dog will alert to drugs. Thus, as soon as he goes on someone's property with the dog he's intending to conduct a search of the person's property.

 

[DeaconCav06]

Serious question - here's a scenario for you...

1. Cop makes stop for traffic violation.
2. Cop smells marijuana.
3. Cop calls K9 unit to do a sniff, dog indicates.
4. Cop searches car.

You've said you don't think the "cop sniff" is enough for PC to search the car, but that the K9 sniff is. Do you think the cop in my scenario has unreasonably extended the traffic stop to call in the K9?

I have no problem with that because the dog is a trained animal without biases. I've seen too many instances of White Cop pulling over a car of 4 Black Guys in a POS, "smells marijuana" and searches the car.

If he finds something it ends up in court. If he doesn't they go on their way.