- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi all! I'm doing a "scholarly" article about a recent Supreme Court case and was wondering what you guys think of it...
In the case, a driver was pulled over for going 6 miles over the speed limit. When the officer radioed dispatch to tell them he pulled someone over, another officer from the narcotics team heard it and told the dispatcher he was going over to the scene with his drug sniffing dog, even though the other officer did not request his assistance.
When the drug officer got there, he circled the car with his dog and the dog alerted. The other officer was still writing the ticket. There was, in fact, drugs in the car.
The Supreme Court decided that this was ok and the evidence was admissible because in an earlier case, they decided that a dog sniff was NOT a search.
This has huge implications for the rest of us who do not have drugs and other contraband. Because these dogs are not perfect, there have been many documented cases where the dogs falsely alert and a full-blown search ensues. This case also allows officers to pull us over for the most minor thing just so that they can bring the dog in to sniff around your car. They don't need probable cause, a warrant, or even justifiable suspicion. They don't even need a hunch anymore... they can do it just cuz they feel like it.
So, I want to know how this makes the rest of you feel. I mean, how many people have been pulled over by an officer? And if you have, how would you have felt if you were subjected to the dog sniff when you don't have drugs and the officer has no reason to think that you do. This really does affect all of us and I think most people don't know about this case. (well, it was just decided last month)
So any thought would be great. It would *really* help me expand on my ideas in the paper. Thanks!!!
In the case, a driver was pulled over for going 6 miles over the speed limit. When the officer radioed dispatch to tell them he pulled someone over, another officer from the narcotics team heard it and told the dispatcher he was going over to the scene with his drug sniffing dog, even though the other officer did not request his assistance.
When the drug officer got there, he circled the car with his dog and the dog alerted. The other officer was still writing the ticket. There was, in fact, drugs in the car.
The Supreme Court decided that this was ok and the evidence was admissible because in an earlier case, they decided that a dog sniff was NOT a search.
This has huge implications for the rest of us who do not have drugs and other contraband. Because these dogs are not perfect, there have been many documented cases where the dogs falsely alert and a full-blown search ensues. This case also allows officers to pull us over for the most minor thing just so that they can bring the dog in to sniff around your car. They don't need probable cause, a warrant, or even justifiable suspicion. They don't even need a hunch anymore... they can do it just cuz they feel like it.
So, I want to know how this makes the rest of you feel. I mean, how many people have been pulled over by an officer? And if you have, how would you have felt if you were subjected to the dog sniff when you don't have drugs and the officer has no reason to think that you do. This really does affect all of us and I think most people don't know about this case. (well, it was just decided last month)
So any thought would be great. It would *really* help me expand on my ideas in the paper. Thanks!!!