# search and seizure **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 15, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125 "2002-05-15T01:05:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jb\_farley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2002, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/21 "2002-05-17T23:49:21Z")
and smelled weed, but not weed smoke (although i think that is also a grey area, although a different kind of grey) jb ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/22 "2002-05-18T01:23:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > **So, if a dog is a police officer, what is wrong with the dog twigging to some guy walking by it with pot in his pocket? The dog simply has better senses but at the root of it I don’t see how it’s different from a cop seeing you with a bag of weed in your hand.** This gets real fuzzy to me, IIRC from fire inverstigation the smell of marjiuana would be probable cause for a search warrant, the fact that the dog could detect it but not the dog handler would still be a fair hit under a kind of “plain view doctrine” IMHO. For clarification from my recollection of evidence law, anything that the officer can percieve without going somewhere he needs permission to go would be legally admissible. So if you have a pot plant growing in your front window and he can see it, you’re busted, but the officer could not go into your fenced backyard to look through a back window that lacked a curtain to see the pot plant from there. He was already tresspassing when he saw it therefore, no good. ---
**Author:** ![jb\_farley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9d8465/32.png) [@jb\_farley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jb_farley)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/23 "2002-05-18T01:29:55Z")
so, if a human can smell/perceive it. all legal. but if it’s a non-human, beyond human perception, smelling/perceiving (sp???) there’s no problem? jb ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/24 "2002-05-18T01:34:02Z")
Right, not just because you were trespassing though, but because he was within the curtilage of your private home. He can trespass in the open field next to your home with the big “no trespassing” sign on it and bust you for pot growing there because you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/25 "2002-05-18T01:39:35Z")
Sorry, jb\_farley, I was responding to drachillix’s comment. I should have quoted him. What’s you’re question again? I’m not sure I follow. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/26 "2002-05-18T01:41:02Z")
Sorry, “your question”, not “you’re question”. Pet peeve there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/27 "2002-05-18T02:09:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I thought police dogs counted as police officers? If you kill a police dog they will certainly arrest you for killing a police officer. > \*\* _sigh_ Cite? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2002, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/28 "2002-05-18T14:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > > _sigh_ > > Cite? > \*\* Ok…it looks like a police dog doesn’t count as a full blown human if injured in the course of its duties but a police dog does possess far greater penalties for hurting it than if you did the same injury to just any old dog. > [@](#): > > Indiana 35-43-1-2 Mischief > > A person who: Recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person’s consent; or Knowingly or intentionally causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or by an expression of intention to injure another person or to damage the property or yo impair the rights of another person; commits criminal mischief a class B misdemeanor. However the offense is: (B) a class D felony if (v) the damage is to a law enforcement animal as defined in 35-46-3-4.5. ( 1 1/2 years/$10,000 + or -) We also have 35-46-3-11. Striking, Interfering with a law enforcement animal. This is a class A Misdemeanor (1 year/$5,000 + or -) > > Iowa > > INJURY OR INTERFERENCE WITH A POLICE SERVICE DOG: > > 1. A person who knowinly, and willfully or maliciously torments, strikes, administers a non-poisonous desensitizing substance ro, or ortherwise interferes with a police service dog, without inflicting serious injury on the dog, commits a serious misdemeanor [up to 1 year jail and/or $1000.00 fine] > > 2. A person who knowingly, and willfully or maliciously does any of the following commits a Class “D” felony [5 years and/or $7500.00 fine]: > > a. tortures a police service dog > > b. injures, so as to disfigure or disable, a PSD > > c. set a booby trap device for the purpose of injury, so as to disfigure or disable, or killing a PSD. > > d. pays or agrees to pay bounty for purposes of injury, so as to disfigure or disable, killing a PSD. > > e. kills a police service dog > > f. administers poison to a police service dog > > 1. As used in this section, “police service dog” means a dog used by apeace officer or correctional officer in the performance of the officer’s duties, whether or not the dog is on duty. > > 2. This section does apply to a peace officer or veterinarian who terminates the life of such a dog for the purpose of relieving the dog of undue pain or suffering, or to a person who justifiably acts in defense or self or another. I got the above quote from [this page](http://www.policek9.com/Case_Law/Statutes_Protecting_PSD/statutes_protecting_psd.html) and they have a few other examples. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2002, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/29 "2002-05-20T14:13:26Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* **Cliffy, even if the 4th Amendment was only supposed to protect legal activity (which, actually, it isn’t - it’s supposed to protect individuals going about their lives from state interference without good cause…** [quote] I disagree – I don’t believe there is any 4th Amendment right to keep criminal activity a secret. Law enforcement is not a game of cops & robbers – cops should be given every advantage possible except the ability to harass the innocent, which is why we require some indication of likely criminal activity before we let them harass people. > [@](#): > > **You think an infrared camera couldn’t detect “embarrassing but illegal activity”? I wouldn’t want a cop pointing an infrared camera at my house and not detecting heat lamps but instead detecting myself and another person, horizontal and superimposed, if you catch my drift.** Yeah, I agree here – I meant to note this in my original post (which I did obliquely but not directly). When I read the case I was led to believe (either via the text or perhaps the notes afterward in my textbook, I don’t recall) that the cameras were nowhere near that level of sensitivity; essentially the only thing they’d detect was a significant and non-localized heat discharge – the whole wall would look hot. If the cameras could make out a person, then of course their use would be a search. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2002, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125/30 "2002-05-20T14:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by drachillix \* > \*\*For clarification from my recollection of evidence law, anything that the officer can percieve without going somewhere he needs permission to go would be legally admissible. \*\* I agree with **pravnik** ; it’s not as simple as that. A few years ago there was a Supreme Court case where a cop walking along the sidewalk peered into the window of a basement apartment and saw folks, IIRC, cutting and bagging drugs. There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Although the Supreme Court upheld the convictions (based as they were on this officer’s testimony), it was by no means a clear-cut case and if I’m not mistaken there were multiple concurring opinions and a dissent. –Cliffy [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/search-and-seizure/109125.md?page=1)