[QUOTE=Doctor Who]
But isn’t that exactly what the government argued in Kyllo? That is, “Sure this thermal imagery sees things that humans can’t see, but our police dogs can smell things that humans can’t smell. Ergo, the thermal imagery should be allowed.” The Supremes rejected that argument in the Kyllo case. My intuition is that they would also reject it here because of the level of intrusion. A police dog can only smell if you have contraband in your car or on your person. It can’t detect other things. Superman would able to look inside your home and determine all kinds of things.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the same thing while running during my lunch hour. Part of the rationale for allowing warrantless and suspicionless dog sniffs is that they can only uncover illegal activity, and there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in the comission of a crime. I would expect the government to make the dog sniff analogy, but I think Kyllo would probably apply after all.
[QUOTE=tbdi]
That depends; is this amendment of which you speak a change in the Firth of Forth or to the Forth programming language?
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure the “the Forth Amendment” doesn’t involve some sort of change to the comic strip “Sally Forth”?
[QUOTE=Ponder Stibbons]
Are you sure the “the Forth Amendment” doesn’t involve some sort of change to the comic strip “Sally Forth”?
[/QUOTE]
I plead a horrible sense of spelling. Both “Forth” and “Fourth” looked equally wrong.
Grumble. Grumble. The one time I don’t run a post through spell check.
[QUOTE=Maus Magill]
Grumble. Grumble. The one time I don’t run a post through spell check.
[/QUOTE]
“Forth” is also a correctly spelled word so your spell check would have availed you nothing. Next time try “4th.”