Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

fredfred

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
2,339
Location
crossville, tn
A K-9 should be able to go anywhere the Officer is legally allowed to be. A K -9 sniff of a house can be considered probable cause for a search warrant of the house.
 

fishboy1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
12,035
Location
Warren Co
The problem is NOT that police cannot CATCH criminals.

The problem is that the criminal justice system is not much of a deterrent. 3 hots and a cot, AC, TV, education, free medical, free legal, work out rooms...

Go back to busting rocks and living in the desert in a tent like Sheriff Joe. THAT will be a deterrent.
 

Unicam

Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
20,338
Location
Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN
I call it a good ruling. I have nothing to hide, but I dont want a drug sniffing tool on my property without a warrant.
K-9's are a great investigative tool, and if the dog alerted while on the street, get a warrant and go get em. There are a couple LEO and retired DEA on here who could tell you they dont need a dog to find them.
 

WMAn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
1,245
Location
Williamson County
I'll share my experience with drug dogs.

When I was a senior in high school, we had a random drug search one morning. While we were in class, the officers brought the dogs around to sniff everyone's bag. I thought nothing of it. At the time I had never seen drugs of any kind or drank a beer. Yeah, I know I was a little bit of dork. College was a different story.

Point being I didn't give a second thought to the search.

Class is about to end and the assistant principal knocks on the door. He talks to the teacher and asked me to step outside. Outside the class, "Do you drive a blue chevy truck?" "Yes." "Follow me."

I asked him, "Is something wrong with my truck?" I thought something had happened to my truck; I still was not thinking about the drug search.

We make it to the front door, and I can see my truck in the parking lot.

There were 3 to 4 officers searching my truck. I say searching but stripping would be a more accurate term. I left my doors unlocked at school, it was a twelve year old truck with nothing of value inside. They had both doors opened and the hood up. There was an officer inside each door pulling everything inside apart. There were two officers under the hood disconnecting anything that could have been used to hide drugs.

I stood there with the principal while this was going on and noticed that my front quarter panel was scratched. It looked like they let the dog try to dig the drugs out of the side of my truck. A sheriff's deputy introduced himself and said, "The dog indicated there are drugs in your truck. Do you know why?"

I start talking to him, when Rambo, Billy Bad-A** small town cop, gets right in my face and says, "I can't charge you with anything, but when's the last time you had dope in your truck?"

I was pretty upset at this point. I said, "I don't smoke or drink. I don't do drugs." He backed down. The officers stopped searching.

I was left to put my truck back together. The principal took me back to class.

I have a good mother. She didn't get angry. She called our cousin, who was a police officer in the same small-town. He invited us to bring my truck to the station and have the dog check it again.

We did. Billy bad-a** brought his dog out and was much more polite with my mother there. The dog checked my truck without indicating.

It was then he told me that two students had arrived late to school, saw the officers, and tossed a bag of dope in the parking lot. It was down wind of my truck and the scent may have pooled on my truck causing a false indicator.

The tools police use, dogs, body armor, assault weapons, etc., are fine when they're busting the bad guys. But, what happens when Billy Bad-A**, with his dog and his AR, decides you're the bad guy?
 

ferg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
16,479
Location
At the TNDeer shirt factory %^)
Unicam said:
I call it a good ruling. I have nothing to hide, but I dont want a drug sniffing tool on my property without a warrant.
K-9's are a great investigative tool, and if the dog alerted while on the street, get a warrant and go get em. There are a couple LEO and retired DEA on here who could tell you they dont need a dog to find them.

I have a number of drug busts to my credit, never used a dog ever.

Just sayin' :)

ferg....
 

Unicam

Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
20,338
Location
Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN
ferg said:
Unicam said:
I call it a good ruling. I have nothing to hide, but I dont want a drug sniffing tool on my property without a warrant.
K-9's are a great investigative tool, and if the dog alerted while on the street, get a warrant and go get em. There are a couple LEO and retired DEA on here who could tell you they dont need a dog to find them.

I have a number of drug busts to my credit, never used a dog ever.

Just sayin' :)

ferg....

Sorry Ferg, should have included the Shallow Water Navy too!! :D
 

fredfred

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
2,339
Location
crossville, tn
I understand what your getting at and I'm glad you understand the difference between the dog and the handler. My K-9 has saved me a lot of time that would've been wasted searching cars that were clean. But if an officer wants to cheat his way around the laws then there's a bigger problem that the K-9 sniffs
 

Vermin93

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,645
Location
Dallas, TX & Signal Mtn, TN
Yet another 5-4 split decision and a very unusual one at that.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to form the majority opinion that drug dog sniffs on a suspect's property are unconstitutional without a warrant.

Obamacare traitor Chief Justice John Roberts and conservative Justice Samuel Alito joined with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer and the unpredictable Justice Anthony Kennedy in agreeing that drug dog sniffs without a warrant are constitutional.

It really is incredible and kind of disturbing that so many court decisions which affect our lives as Americans are often decided by one vote on the Supreme Court. Just another example why the stakes are so high in Presidential elections and US Senate elections. In this case, though, you had two Republican nominees joining with three Democrat nominees to form the majority. I bet that won't happen again anytime soon.
 

Nimrod777

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
30,213
Location
Columbia, TN
IMO, this is because courtrooms and judges these days are more enthralled with words than with justice. This is why Bill Clinton can defend himself with "That depends upon what the definition of the word 'is' is." and why a minority faction of the populace can redefine the word marriage.
 

TAFKAP

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
14,958
Location
Memphis
So in reality, what does this mean for K9 drug searches?

Some of you may recall my tale from the winter of 2011, where I was driving like a dumbarse in the vicinity of what turned out to be a large, multi-agency narcotic task force.

When I denied them permission to search my truck, I was told that he would have to bring the drug dog out. Not knowing any better, I "consented" to the drug dog sniff (my response was something along the lines of, "OK, whatever"), not expecting the officer to open my doors and let the dog in my truck. I didn't have anything to worry about, but I would've been in a WORLD of hurt had the dog decided to sniff something out.

I came out OK, and was let go without even a traffic ticket, but that night really taught me some lessons about "lawful search & seizure".....and for driving like a dumbarse ;) Does this mean that the police forces will not be employing K9 drug sniffers anymore?
 

ferg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
16,479
Location
At the TNDeer shirt factory %^)
fredfred said:
I understand what your getting at and I'm glad you understand the difference between the dog and the handler. My K-9 has saved me a lot of time that would've been wasted searching cars that were clean. But if an officer wants to cheat his way around the laws then there's a bigger problem that the K-9 sniffs

fred - the laws and the application of the 4th amendment differ for cars and homes - is that your take? it was always mine -

ferg....

(same with boats / homes)
 

worriedman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
1,016
Location
Bells
ferg said:
fred - the laws and the application of the 4th amendment differ for cars and homes - is that your take? it was always mine -

ferg....

(same with boats / homes)

Should not be in TN, per TCA Code 39-11-611, a Citizen's Vehicle is the same as his Business, Curtilage, Dwelling, or Residence, and are within the scope of one's "Castle". If the Officer has probable cause to search, he should obtain a warrant, name the thing, and the place to be searched.
 

Bambi Buster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
24,117
Location
Middle Tennessee
TAFKAP said:
So in reality, what does this mean for K9 drug searches?....... Does this mean that the police forces will not be employing K9 drug sniffers anymore?

No, but it does mean that drug sniffing K9s won't be coming to your front porch without a warrant. If they do, anything that might later be found pursuant to the K9's alerting there would not be admissible as evidence.
 

ferg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
16,479
Location
At the TNDeer shirt factory %^)
worriedman said:
ferg said:
fred - the laws and the application of the 4th amendment differ for cars and homes - is that your take? it was always mine -

ferg....

(same with boats / homes)

Should not be in TN, per TCA Code 39-11-611, a Citizen's Vehicle is the same as his Business, Curtilage, Dwelling, or Residence, and are within the scope of one's "Castle". If the Officer has probable cause to search, he should obtain a warrant, name the thing, and the place to be searched.

Is this new since the castle law ?

ferg....
 

worriedman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
1,016
Location
Bells
ferg said:
Is this new since the castle law ?

ferg....

It IS the Castle doctrine, which gives you the ability to not have to retreat from protecting your life in locations that are uniquely "yours" under statue. By naming these specific areas, you have the presumption of privacy in them.
 

Latest posts

Top