Supreme Court to decide limits of drug detection dogs...... - Page 1

Interestiing about the "mocked" comment referring to unerring sniffing. As if we can't tell the difference between shit and non shit.  It is not the sniffer that will err, it is the  person reading the sniffer that will fiail, first. IMHO

The laws in this country seem to favor the criminals more and more.... as though the law enforcement entities are the ones who are guilty of wrong doing. Crime really does pay.

I used to be a state trooper and had the state supreme court throw out a search warrant I had because they said the road I was driving on was a dead end road so no reason for me to drive on the road. 
Long story short I was driving on the road and saw 12 pot plants on the guys front porch in plain view, went to the magistrate and got my search warrant searched the house with another trooper and a deputy found a couple pounds of weed and about 50k in cash.  Got the conviction (rightfully so) but was overturned on appeal when it reached the supreme court.  Of course it was a democrat state so what should  have expected.

I look for them to throw out the conviction in at least one if not both of these cases.  The front door one would be the first to get tossed IMHO

Sure don't want to cut off the source.....too much confiscated revenue would be lost.

I've been following these cases and I think Florida vs Jardines will be overturned.  There is already precedent and case law for using various unobtrusive technology to search residences, a dog's nose is not much  different.  Florida vs Harris will be a totally different case and will not be a big deal, IMO.  It may change slightly how handlers work and I have already implemented procedures to deal with any possible outcomes.  Searches of vehicles are completely different than residences and that the search is really not he issue with Harris but the dog's reliability.  Overall, I don't think either case will have a major impact on how I do my job.  It will give defense attorneys something to try to argue, which is their job.  









Edited to correct:  I think Jardines will be overturned.  That is what happens when you watch a movie, talk to your wife and go on the internet at the same time.

Slamdunc I am not so sure about jardines.  If I remember right there was something else seems like he knocked to gett he guy to open the door as well which was part of the arguement. 

My mistake, I think Jardines will be overturned.  I corrected my post above.  It has to do with the expectation of privacy in a residence and using sophisticated tools to search the interior.  The precedence was set by a case using a FLIR.  If you want we can discuss it by PM or email but I don't want to go into too many details here.