No debate here, just the briefest rant over the fact that the ability of the police to snoop legal continues to widen. Without probable cause.
The opinion stated in part that there is no right to privacy as regards the possession of illegal drugs. Well, OK, I concede that the drug in question–a large stash of marijuana–is indeed illegal. But the dissenting justices had what I thought were some quite reasonable objections to the ruling. Probably the worst problem is that the majority of U.S. currency does contain some faint traces of drugs, making it likely that quite a few completely law-abiding citizens will be arrested. In another case cited by the dissenters, a luthier (guitar craftsman to you and me) was arrested because a dog sniffed some sort of illegal drug on some money that he was carrying. The large amont of money seemed quite suspicious indeed–until he was able to produce documents proving a real estate transaction for — guess— the exact amount of cash he was carrying. His case was quashed, but only after he endured the humiliation of arrest and jail, and made bail.
I bet random piss tickets are next. This is something which the State will invent, which will allow the police to stop you for any reason or no reason, whether driving or just out and about on foot, and write you up a ticket that requires you to submit to drug test. Why should the self-employed be able to use illegal drugs without fear of losing their livelihood?
So one person is arrested carrying an unusually large amount of money and it’s 1984 all of a sudden? How many people do you think will be arrested carrying drugs vs. how many will be arrested carrying $50,000+ in cash (which is a fucking stupid idea anyway) earned via legal means?
Yeah! Fuck them! Hell, I heard the cops are allowed to even LOOK at you without cause! The nerve! How dare they! I didn’t do anything wrong… well, not anything wrong that they’d know about without LOOKING. Fuck them. Fascist nazi goosestepping commie pigswine.
The problem here is that the court ruled that a drug sniffing dog does not count as a search and therefore probable cause does not apply. That means that the police can use drug sniffing dogs wherever and whenever.
I understand your poorly phrased point. If you aren’t breaking the law, then you don’t need to worry. The problem as I see it is that dogs make mistakes. If the dog reacts to something, then it becomes probable cause and the police can search and possibly arrest. Bad news.
This is definately a step down the wrong path. Cops need to adhere to probable cause, not “My dog smelled something.” For all we know, they could react to the porkchops you just bought at the grocery store.
I never got the idea that you were a druggie; however, I myself do occasionally dabble in recreational drug use. Unfortunately, that may involve me picking it up and transporting it in my vehicle, but I still don’t feel this violates any personal privacy.
Is it the fact that the dog does a better job of smelling that makes it, in your mind, an illegal search? A police officer can smell you or your car without it being a search, and so can a police dog. Is it simply that the dog does a much better job of it than the police officer that makes it illegal?
Well the right to privacy is not an implicit right in the Constitution. It was judicially created, and as a judicial right I don’t see a problem with the USSC deciding on the exact parameters of the right they created.
I wasn’t aware that there was a law regarding how much cash I’m allowed to carry around at one time. I mean, provided the cops have no evidence that I stole the money, and I’m not doing anything illegal at the time, what business is it of theirs how much cash I have?
So you wouldn’t mind if that cop used some infrared goggles to just take a peek into your house then, because that wouldn’t be much different from him smelling pot through your window, right?
And I’ve had a cop claim that he ‘smelled alcohol’ on me and in my car when I hadn’t been drinking at all because he thought I was the kind of person who’d be up to no good. He’d also pulled me over for failing to have a front license plate on. Front license plates are not issued in PA. (He was an Ohio cop and pulled me over in Ohio, close enough that he should’ve known, too.)
And they’re still dogs. No matter how well trained a dog is, it is still a dog, with an ability to do something completely unpredictable, or get a ‘false hit.’
Cop with infrared goggles can get a better look through my window than one without. Does that mean it’s OK to use infrared goggles as he’s just out walking through the neighborhood?
