42 votes

Court: Drug Dog Sniff Is Unconstitutional Search

Oddly, the Fourth Amendment was actually upheld:



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options



I was talking to a friend saying that the dog was "an illegal search." I said "they need probable cause TO USE THE DOG..." My friend said "The dog IS PROBABLE CAUSE!!!"

I was stunned. It's like saying "They need a warrant to tap your phone," and then saying "No no, BECAUSE THEY TAPPED YOUR PHONE, they can now get a warrant..."

To think that people are this loose, and this MISLED on the issue of rights IS REALLY SCARY!!!

The public and the media could seem to justify any backwards logic. We need to be WAY SMARTER than this!

You can't cross examine a dog!

You may want to inform your friend that a dog cannot be cross examined in a court of law. Thus, it is the Officer's interpretation of the "dog alerting" that formulates the indicia necessary to meet the requirements for probable cause. Unless of course this dog can speak.

how ridiculous that this is

how ridiculous that this is even up for discussion.

― Ron Paul

The Dude Should Have Kept

bags of ammonia at the door! That would learn that dog!


My dog would

throw anyone under the bus just to play with her toy.

so why can't this reasoning be

applied at an airport?


Why can't this reasoning be applied to a vehicle??

..Public roads perhaps... answering my own question??

Private property comes to mind

and certain public properties where posted you give up your 4th amendment rights.


re-read the amendment. i have a right to not be searched not just my house

Absolutely not true.

Read the signs at a local HS before you enter the property.

As for airports you give up your right to probable cause when you enter a TSA security zone. When you buy a ticket you give up your rights. Sucks but is the facts.

From a travel rights site.


Just because the Supreme Court says something is...

constitutional, doesn't mean it actually is. Remember,
Obamacare passed by 5 to 4, with Roberts on Rohypnol
or something when deciding.

Just because people are getting searched without
probable cause, doesn't mean that it is constitutional.

Just because the evil wizards in their black robes
believe something is true, doesn't mean that it is.

Well this sounds great but I

Well this sounds great but I hate the fact that I feel like something is missing and this won't stick somehow. How do we deal with a SC that gets it right in something like this but still doesn't get it right on the 2nd amendment? I have always known K9 searches were unconstitutional its a no brainer for anyone with a lick of sense. What took so long for the courts to catch up?

End The Fat

Get Prepared!

Having It Both Ways

They wish they could have it both ways:

A dog's alert is evidence. Therefore, it's probable cause for a search.

A dog doesn't need a search warrant or probable cause to sniff private property for evidence, because a dog's alert is not evidence.

Clearly, the dog feels no such conflict.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/


Thanks for posting.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!

We will get into your home. We have our ways. [Evil cackle]

Don't worry. Got you covered.


Any "smell" is an

Any "smell" is an unconstitutional reason to invade ones person and property.

No Defense of...

...predatory government or the state, but what say an arson had just occurred, using a large amount of gasoline as an accelerant and an unknown male in a hoodie was seen running from the scene less than 5 minutes ago.

Barney Fife was walking foot patrol in the area and as he was responding to the scene, he had a male in a hoodie walk passed him away from the immediate area, who reeked of gasoline.

Would an investigative detention be warranted, in your opinion, or do you have to catch someone in the actual commission of the arson?

Just curious, but where is your line?

As an aside, I would disallow K-9 sniffs as 'probable cause' for search & seizure because I have seen first-hand the training, coaching and false hits that are regularly passed off as PC/reason for further search.


c'mon man, enough with the what-ifs. This post is about K-9 units violating the 4th amendment and you want to sideline the discussion with some off the wall, wilder than possible scenario. If the fire just happened 5 minutes ago, how does Barney Fife know an accelerant was used? I got gas on my shoe filling up my car this morning. Should I be stopped by every cop I walk by and questioned? I mean, who knows, there could be a fire a few blocks away that hasn't been reported yet. So here is my "line":


So now try to stuff that square peg into the round hole you created with your "what if" scenario. So, yes, you do have to catch someone in the actual commission of a crime or have an affidavit of someone who did. SHOCKING, I KNOW!!!!

Doesn't much matter, though, since the cops will stop you and anyone else they want and ask whatever questions they want anyway.

What if you didnt smell like

What if you didnt smell like gasoline at all, but a cop/s claims you do? What if smells are an excuse for innocent people to be searched and locked up? What if cops are willing to claim they "smell" whatever they want so they can get a prize?

What if you were simply at the wrong place and time and someone has to go down for the crime? How is a dogs nose any more reliable than a persons when both get rewarded for claiming they smelled a particular substance?

I Already...

...flatly stated that I do not support K-9 sniffs as probable cause to search.

I merely am testing the definitive statement of someone who said that a smell 'never' rises to that level.

It was directed at him/her only and for a specific reason.

Get off my ass, please.

Yeah my post was a little on

Yeah my post was a little on the hostile side so I apologize for that but I'm going to agree that any smell is not probable cause in any case. Sometimes we forget that it is not the job of the Police to determine guilt/innocence. 'Probable Cause' is used to get the warrant that they need to have before they stop and question someone. It is not supposed to be for the cop to claim Probable Cause (smell of gas) as a reason to stop and interrogate someone.

While I'm not a lawyer

I think that the difference might be "Probable Cause". Since the person matched the description of a person fleeing the scene, and the smell of gasoline is an additional corroborating factor, there could well be enough probable cause to stop the person and ask them some questions. On the other hand, going to a person's home on a tip without enough evidence for a warrant and hoping to get a positive response from a drug sniffing dog is essentially searching the home without a warrant.

I should say that I'm not entirely sure about the probable cause argument, but it seems like it could hold water. Not only am I not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV. ;)

I Did not Pose a 'Probable Cause'...


I posed a scenario that used a 'smell' to see if restricting or invading 'the person', crossed a line for the man who made a definitive statement.

Take it one step further, the man who passed Barney, reeking of gasoline, ignores Barney's request to stop and walks into a shed at a residence immediately adjacent.

Is the 'smell' sufficient to go get the man, get a warrant, or...what...if anything?

Merely posing some food for thought and I want to be clear, I do not believe a K-9 sniff equates to probable cause or any other 'reason' to search or seize.

As to my own scenario, it would likely equate to 'reasonable suspicion', which is a lesser standard than 'probable cause' and which has been 'deemed' by our esteemed courts as sufficient to 'justify' an investigative detention.

Like I said

I'm no lawyer, I'm just trying to work out your scenario in my own mind. I understand that you were posing a specific situation as a counter to someone's specific statement, but I'm trying to figure out how I feel about your scenario. While some are hostile to your statement, I'm not. I think it is valid to try to understand when a police officer would be justified in stopping someone.

I dont know, but its

I dont know, but its ridiculous that a subjective smell grants someone the right to invade ones person and property. There are colognes and other products that smell like gasoline and marijuana. Many peoples body odor smells like marijuana. Im not a lawyer either.

Nice Dodge...

...but nothing smells like marijuana but marijuana.....Not cologne, not body stench. Neither have I posed a marijuana related scenario.

I related a 'smell' connected to a legitimate 'bad-act', e.g., residential arson.

That aside, if you think some perfume can be confused for reeking of a petroleum distillate (gasoline), then you are not being honest with yourself or you have led a truly sheltered life.

So, back to my scenario, is this simple construct sufficient in your world to authorize an investigative detention?

I know what 'the courts' have said and don't care. I want to know where someone who says that a smell is 'never' a reason, draws the line, if at all.

When one makes a definitive statement, such as you did, it deserves to be tested.

I for one have

a horrible sense of smell and my assessment would unreliable. Would be curious if there are any cases where searches have been overturned based on someone's sense of smell.

You have a suspicious smell? Please give us a call: 800/Dog-Gone

Our ad just posted moments after your reply arrived at our office. - Sensitivity Training Dogs for Hire.
