If we go by this ridiculous notion that a police dog is just a “pet”, can someone tell me how many businesses out there pay for the training of their employee’s pets, allow their employees to bring their pets to work, and even pay them extra to do so?
But you didn’t answer this question in a previous post. What is the purpose of a drug-sniffing dog at a door if it is not to see if there are drugs in the house? Give me even one reasonable explanation for that and I will stop presuming it is a search.
Are we assuming my neighbor is not a police officer with a drug-sniffing dog? False analogy.
If the dog is always on, I’d consider it more of a bullshit loophole than a justifiably unavoidable situation.
The officer can’t come to my front door and ring the bell without his own eyes and ears working, whatever he sees, hears and smells is fair game.
He can certainly come to the door without commanding his dog to search, or using another device to discover something that his own senses cannot discern.
Training the dog to search all the time, then bringing it with you so that it can search all the places you go is not what I think of as a reasonable workaround.
COrrect - so - my point was that stuff they already gathered from those other two means either is/is not enough to get a warrant - if they don’t have probable cause - then they need to move on until they do.
Completely new thought.
Didn’t we have this discussion about a year ago about police looking for a dead body. I can’t remember if it was real or hypothetical or maybe something about Canada. Did the issue of corpse-sniffing dogs come up in that thread?
A question for the lawyers. I know police officers consider their dogs to be officers. In fact when one died in the line of duty he was given the full police burial. Do the courts consider them police officers too?
Here’s my thought of how it applies. If an officer smells marijuana or alcohol in a car they can search it, right?* If an officer were to smell marijuana in a house while they are outside they can legally enter the premises, right? Then if the dog is an officer, albeit with specialized training and a better sense of smell then is it any different then the above analogy? Please say it is different so that I’m still right about it being an illegal search.
- We are assuming they actually do smell it and are not making it up so they can “legally” search you and your car.
Without justifying my opinion via a sifting examination of Supreme Court precedent, I can only say that this procedure just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Is it legal to have non-human employees? How do the taxes and/or benefits work on that?
Your error, which is an understandable one, is to assume that it is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes if the effort is to see if there are drugs in the house.
But this begs the question, as **RNATB **has pointed out, because your assumption is the very question posed.
I think its different in that the dogs are trained in doing one thing - so they are a very specialized officer and only take on very specialized cases.
They use these types of officers all the time at airports, in the baggage areas, etc - in places where ‘everyone’ is subject to the search - its quite clearly meant as a ‘search’. and ‘detection’ method that is beyond normal human senses.
As soon as they head to your house - they are specifically searching - even if by implication only.
Do I get to put Lassie on the stand while mounting a defense?
DA “Officer Lassie, How would you describe the neighborhood around 123 Fake St.”
Lassie - “Ruff”
DA - “Where was the defendant sitting when you conducted your search”
L - “Roof”
DA - “What kind of drugs did you smell when you sniffed the door”
L - “Roofs”
Defense - “Isn’t it true that roofies were not found inside the house? How do you explain that?”
L - licks his butt
Outside…
Lassie - “Sorry Counselor, I really screwed the pooch on that one, didn’t I?”
A police officer doesn’t execute a search merely by looking for criminal activity. If this were so, there’s not much they would be able to do without a warrant. Instead, a search is when they violate your privacy when looking for criminal activity. Whether a dog sniff violates your privacy as it has been defined under the Fourth Amendment is the question posed. Simply assuming it does begs the question.
I learn from an episode of “Tanked,” that the corporate headquarters of Petsmart does essentially that – no explicit bonuses, but corporate workers are encouraged to bring thier pets into work and the company offers various training and care options.
But a police officer is limited on where and how they can ‘look’ for criminal activity - using a dog or other means to extend that search beyond normal human ability into places that an officer cannot go without a warrant is the issue.
This is just an assertion. Do you have an argument?
Specifically, do you have an argument for why a device that reports only the presence of contraband violates your privacy? Do you feel you have a right to keep contraband private?
But the employees aren’t specifically paid to do so, and it isn’t a job requirement, correct?
Is a police drug-sniffing dog a pet, an officer or essential tool with a specific purpose?
May I present the testimony of police dog Cain, from People v. Lefler, 689 NE 2d 1209 (Ill. App. 1998), one of my absolute favorite opinions of all time. At 1213:
Why such a favorite?
One reason is the opening sentence. As you may have guessed, the appeal centered on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The defendant claimed his lawyer was useless because he let the testimony about police dog Cain’s tracking ability go on without objection.
The opening sentence:
This case features the mark of Cain and questions whether counsel was able.
Good one 
Interesting pull, btw.
I don’t have an argument - I am making the assertion.
You’re also using a type of false argument here - similar to a “reasonable people think X, you’re reasonable, right?”
No one has a ‘right’ to do illegal things - but we have held that our officers of the law also have limited rights as to how they are to pursue evidence - probable cause and warrants are a tool to keep the police force in check from all kinds of ‘possible’ privacy violations - or worst case - planting evidence ‘dog smelled it - we found it’ seems a bit circular if you have not already established enough probable cause to warrant taking the dog to a persons house to begin with.
It is of course a familiar premise that the officer cannot search a private space without complying with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements even when there is in fact illegal contraband there.
But that’s a red herring as applied here. It’s not the fact of the contraband that makes this not a search. It’s the fact that *only *contraband can be discovered by the search. By dint of dog-smelling, the officer doesn’t see your porn stash or your anti-government posters, or your secret religious items. He only “sees” your marijuana stash. The Supreme Court has said that makes a huge difference to whether it violates your privacy.
You and I might disagree with the Court, but simply asserting it to be false doesn’t make for a very interesting discussion. The question is, why do you think that premise is false?