Supreme court limits police use of drug-sniffing dogs
Source: Reuters
Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:54am EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the ability of police to use a dog to sniff around the outside of a home for illegal drugs that might be inside.
By a 5-4 vote, the court said a government's use of trained police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
The decision could make it harder for police to use trained dogs to detect drugs without first obtaining warrants.
"A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-usa-court-dog-sniffs-idUSBRE92P0NE20130326
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)jives with yours?
Does that mean that he's getting saner or that we are going insane?
(Or that even a stopped clock is right twice a day?)
former9thward
(31,981 posts)Scalia has always been tough on law enforcement when it comes to the Fourth amendment. His opinions on the subject are in any law student's casebooks.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I'm thinking, "How is that fascist bastard going to screw us over with this?"
Maybe Fat Nino's getting a kickback from drone manufacturers!
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)IMO, most police dog searches are just clever hans bullshit.
Ter
(4,281 posts)He's also against laws banning flag burning.
marble falls
(57,077 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus he left open the right to enter someone's property, that is NOT next to his house, i.e. woodlands, open field etc.
All Scalia did was to use the traditional definition of a home, which included the area AROUND the home, not just the interior of the home.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)tp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-564_jifl.pdf
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY
and BREYER, JJ., joined.
In many ways these are the key paragraphs:
and what Blackstone called the curtilage or homestall, for the house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 223, 225 (1769). This area around the home is intimately linked to the home, both physically
and psychologically, and is where privacy expectations are most heightened. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213 (1986).
Since the officers investigation took place in a constitutionally protected area, we turn to the question of whether it was accomplished through an unlicensed physical intrusion.1 While law enforcement officers need not shield their eyes when passing by the home on public thoroughfares, Ciraolo, 476 U. S., at 213, an officers leave to gather information is sharply circumscribed when he steps off those thoroughfares and enters the Fourth Amendments protected areas. In permitting, for example, visual observation of the home from public navigable airspace, we were careful to note that it was done in a physically nonintrusive manner.....
Our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbours close without his leave. 2 Wils. K. B., at 291, 95 Eng. Rep., at 817. As it is undisputed that the detectives had all four of their feet and all four of their companions firmly planted on the constitutionally protected extension of Jardines home, the only question is
whether he had given his leave (even implicitly) for them to do so. He had not.
A license may be implied from the habits of the country, notwithstanding the strict rule of the English common law as to entry upon a close. McKee v. Gratz, 260 U. S. 127, 136 (1922) (Holmes, J.). We have accordingly recognized that the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951). This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nations Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters.2 Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than
any private citizen might do.
But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us towell, call the police. The scope of a licenseexpress or impliedis limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose. Consent at a traffic stop to an officers checking out an anonymous tip that there is a body in the trunk does not permit the officer to rummage through the trunk for narcotics. Here, the background social norms that invite a visitor to the front door do not invite him there to conduct a search.