Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolon

"According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”

Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Evidence found by drug sniffing dogs is going the way of the Polygraph. The dogs are more interested in pleasing their handlers than actually finding anything. From there, police have free reign to search for drugs in an area. Now, they find a lot, but they also violate the 4th Amendment quite a bit. Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs | Las Vegas Review-Journal

This could be a first. I actually agree with Ginsburg.

Just because you're stopped for a traffic violation that doesn't give the police the authority to go on a fishing expidition.

Evidence found by drug sniffing dogs is going the way of the Polygraph. The dogs are more interested in pleasing their handlers than actually finding anything. From there, police have free reign to search for drugs in an area. Now, they find a lot, but they also violate the 4th Amendment quite a bit. Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs | Las Vegas Review-Journal

From what I've read the Handlers are the ones you have to worry about.

From what I've read the Handlers are the ones you have to worry about.

We're saying the same thing. Scary stuff

We're saying the same thing. Scary stuff

It really is. Dogs can be great, and you can do significant/double-blind training to really get a feel of their true ability, but there are just too many other factors that come into play once you pair them up with a Handler.

Seems that would apply to time to receive welfare payments.

^ As it should.

...

Evidence found by drug sniffing dogs is going the way of the Polygraph. The dogs are more interested in pleasing their handlers than actually finding anything. From there, police have free reign to search for drugs in an area. Now, they find a lot, but they also violate the 4th Amendment quite a bit. Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Something that most fail to consider when talking about dogs having false alerts is that the dogs can smell where the drugs were. The fact that they alert doesn't mean there are still drugs there, just that they detect the remaining odor of drugs. Just like a tracking dog can track a trail a few days old, drug dogs can smell where drugs used to be as well as where they currently are.

If you had a bag of weed in your car for a couple of days and then took it out, the dog would probably alert on the car for SEVERAL days after it was removed. So it's not about dogs trying to please their handler as much as it is people getting lucky by already moving their drugs out of their car.

Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Basically just saying you can't keep them just sitting there waiting for a Drug K9 to get there. However if a K9 is present during the time needed to write the citation or handle the incident they can still complete a search if the is reasonable cause.

Basically just saying you can't keep them just sitting there waiting for a Drug K9 to get there. However if a K9 is present during the time needed to write the citation or handle the incident they can still complete a search if the is reasonable cause.

Which is the issue. Dogs create false positives, giving police the probable cause needed to detain and search when nothing is there.

Which is the issue. Dogs create false positives, giving police the probable cause needed to detain and search when nothing is there.

This ruling doesn't stop dog searches. It just says you can't detain someone an extended time to wait for a K9 to get there. It also doesn't mean a dog can't be called if the driver gives consent to search. I was talking about this with an officer today when it came out and he said it really won't change anything they are currently doing, at least not around here.

Again most false positives are a result of drugs being there at some point but have since been removed leaving their scent behind. Not the result of faulty dogs and handlers.

Doesn't change too much for what s lot of cities have been doing. However there were cases in some parts of the country where people would be detained for 1-2 hours while waiting for a K9. I believe that's what they were looking to put a stop to.

Doesn't change too much for what s lot of cities have been doing. However there were cases in some parts of the country where people would be detained for 1-2 hours while waiting for a K9. I believe that's what they were looking to put a stop to.

Agree, but in the case the SC looked at the driver was only detained 8 or 9 minutes beyond the normal traffic stop not and hour or so. Basically once the citation is written you need to cut them loose and let them go.