# It's official: drug-sniffing dogs are a "search" **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 26, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025 "2013-03-26T17:47:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/1 "2013-03-26T17:47:09Z")
The Supreme Court just [upheld a decision](http://www.google.com/ig?brand=LENP&bmod=LENP#m_33) to supress evidence in a marijuana case because police did not have probable cause to bring in a drug-sniffing dog. I like Scalia’s comment: > [@](#): > > 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 to — well, call the police. Interesting mix of justices on this one: Scalia, Thomas, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority, while Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Breyer dissented. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/2 "2013-03-26T17:57:15Z")
Bad link ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/3 "2013-03-26T18:05:06Z")
Only on the porch. The Court decided that a dog sniff exceeds what one expects the public to do on one’s cartilage. It’s a new area of Fourth Amendment law. Very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/4 "2013-03-26T18:05:22Z")
[Here’s a fresh one.](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/court-drug-dog-sniff-unconstitutional-search-18814030) ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/5 "2013-03-26T18:24:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Only on the porch. The Court decided that a dog sniff exceeds what one expects the public to do on one’s cartilage. > > It’s a new area of Fourth Amendment law. Very interesting. I really hope you mean curtilage. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/6 "2013-03-26T18:28:36Z")
No, no, cartilage. Very new area of law. They can’t get all up in your grill. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/7 "2013-03-26T18:51:32Z")
> [@Projammer](#): > > [Here’s a fresh one.](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/court-drug-dog-sniff-unconstitutional-search-18814030) Thanks for the good link. Actually, this ruling is consistent with other recent rulings. For example, courts have ruled that scanning a house with thermal imaging devices constitutes a search, and the police need a warrant to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/8 "2013-03-26T18:57:04Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > Thanks for the good link. > > Actually, this ruling is consistent with other recent rulings. For example, courts have ruled that scanning a house with thermal imaging devices constitutes a search, and the police need a warrant to do so. At first glance I would have to agree. It is not a sweeping change of the interpretation of the 4th or even a huge change on how dogs can be used. It tweaks it a bit for when dogs are used in a very specific manner. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/9 "2013-03-26T19:06:25Z")
The “sweeping change” (relatively speaking) is that until _Jones_ the test for a search was whether it violates the reasonable expectation of privacy. No one thought it mattered if the search was or was not a technical trespass. This is the first application of that newly minted concept outside the GPS tracker context, suggesting it may find wider purchase than expected. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/10 "2013-03-26T19:43:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The “sweeping change” (relatively speaking) is that until _Jones_ the test for a search was whether it violates the reasonable expectation of privacy. No one thought it mattered if the search was or was not a technical trespass. > > This is the first application of that newly minted concept outside the GPS tracker context, suggesting it may find wider purchase than expected. I don’t think it goes that far. A police officer is still able to go on the property and knock on the door. That is still not trespass. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/11 "2013-03-26T19:45:49Z")
Didn’t we do a thread on this subject? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/12 "2013-03-26T19:47:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Didn’t we do a thread on this subject? This is a brandy new SCOTUS decision. If there was a thread it was before the decision came down today. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/13 "2013-03-26T19:52:58Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > The Supreme Court just to supress evidence in a marijuana case because police did not have probable cause to bring in a drug-sniffing dog. I tell ya, these 5-4 votes annoy me. Must have been easier when the court first organized when it only had 6 members. I agree with the majority though. This was a “sort of” companion case handed down in feb. > **[11-817\_5if6.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/14 "2013-03-26T19:54:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Didn’t we do a thread on this subject? Yes, that was my thread, but no decision until now. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/15 "2013-03-26T20:03:27Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I don’t think it goes that far. A police officer is still able to go on the property and knock on the door. That is still not trespass. Goes what far? I wasn’t implying that \*any \*presence would be a trespass. The point is that, previously, whether it was a trespass or not was irrelevant (or at least not dispositive). ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/16 "2013-03-26T21:20:27Z")
My impression is that it comes down to whether specialized equipment. ie. dog’s nose or thermal imager, is being utilized. If the officer walks up on the porch and can smell the weed or see the bong on your coffee table through the window, your butt is still in a crack. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/17 "2013-03-27T16:32:52Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I don’t think it goes that far. A police officer is still able to go on the property and knock on the door. That is still not trespass. I think the general priciple is, if the police don’t have a warrant, then they can’t do anything that any random person wouldn’t be allowed to do. There’s nothing stopping you from knocking on someone’s door to ask them questions, but if you start searching their property without permission, you’re tresspassing. ---
**Author:** ![Peaton\_of\_peat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecae2f/32.png) [@Peaton\_of\_peat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peaton_of_peat)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/18 "2013-03-27T16:43:20Z")
In a way this decision is disappointing, because it means we’re never going to have drug-sniffing dogs harnessed to drones flying over neighborhoods, the dogs barking whenever they pass over a house with drugs. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/19 "2013-03-27T16:49:02Z")
> [@Peaton\_of\_peat](#): > > In a way this decision is disappointing, because it means we’re never going to have drug-sniffing dogs harnessed to drones flying over neighborhoods, the dogs barking whenever they pass over a house with drugs. 😛 Cancelling plans for moat filled with laser sharks. ---
**Author:** ![Peaton\_of\_peat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecae2f/32.png) [@Peaton\_of\_peat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peaton_of_peat)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025/20 "2013-03-27T17:01:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Cancelling plans for moat filled with laser sharks. Your house is still your castle, the decision didn’t change that! That’d only be a problem if you tried to put the moat around a neighbor’s house. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-a-search/654025.md?page=2)