Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:24 AM Mar 2013

Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

Court: Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says police using a dog to sniff outside a Miami-area house being used to grow marijuana violated the homeowner's constitutional rights.

The court voted 5-4 to uphold a court decision throwing out the evidence seized because of Franky the drug-sniffing dog's alert to police.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, says a house and its surroundings are a constitutionally protected area, and the homeowner had not given permission for police to use a drug-sniffing dog to look for evidence.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying police did not trespass on the property by coming up to the front door with the dog. Alito also said people cannot expect that odors will not make it outside a house, where they can be detected by dogs.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/03/26/us--supreme-court-drug-sniffing-dog.html

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
1. Wow, I'm having a hard time believing this ruling is real. *rubs eyes*
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:29 AM
Mar 2013

Not only does it seem like a win for Fourth Amendment rights, it was also written by Scalia. Pinch me!

PB

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
3. Hopefully that applies to car searches too.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:58 AM
Mar 2013

Way too many stories of cops using dogs to falsely alert on car stops.

Lochloosa

(16,063 posts)
14. I believe car searches using dogs have been upheld. Your house is and should be treated differently.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:22 PM
Mar 2013

Article [IV]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
5. Another win for the people against the out of control police forces.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:02 PM
Mar 2013

I nearly had a heart attack when I read that Scalia wrote the majority opinion, I guess that he does do the right thing sometimes.
Great ruling, now, on to banning the police practice of holding citizens in their cars while a drug dog walks around it sniffing for drugs.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
13. Oh, I'm sure he'll do something stupid and re-inforce my opinion of him.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:26 PM
Mar 2013

It's just a matter of time.

LiberalFighter

(50,884 posts)
8. If they didn't have probable cause for the dog to sniff ---
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:19 PM
Mar 2013

If they had probable cause they don't need the dog.

Where does Alito live? I'm sure some odors can be detected there.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
12. I'm not at all surprised that Scalia joined the majority
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:25 PM
Mar 2013

I don't think he's the right-wing ideologue that many believe him to be. He's more of a libertarian bent, and consistently supports checks against government power. Many times that favors the right, but sometimes it favors the left.

What surprises me is that it was not 9-0.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
16. Scalia has repeatedly shown he will sacrifice conservative causes to weaken the judiciary
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:06 PM
Mar 2013

That's his overarching goal, IMO.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Court: Drug dog sniff is ...