RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES - SCOTUS rules on 4th amendment issue

[cclaxton]

While I get what you are saying, running a dog around the outside of a lawfully stopped vehicle is a "plain smell" and not a search of the interior. The dog's natural senses are detecting an odor emanating from the vehicle and observable from the outside. I would liken it to a regular officer lawfully stopping you and on approach observing a dead hooker in your back seat through the window. The contraband is technically inside your vehicle, but is observable by natural sense from outside.

The other examples you mention involve mechanical devices to augment natural senses and also involve residential structures where protections against search are greater than a motor vehicle.

Images of Nazi Germany and Soviet bloc checkpoints run through my head. In a free society we should be free from intimidation and being scrutinized for no good reason other than a hunch. Unless there is a dead hooker in the backseat or a large bag of weed/meth laying in the car or a strong smell detectable by the officer, and there is no other evidence of wrong-doing, we should not take the next step.
Cody

[Tamara]

The whole K-9 thing didn't work out too hot for David Eckert, other than making him a millionaire, on behalf of the taxpayers.

This is why we can't have nice things.

How is that even tangentially related to the case under discussion?

[LSP972]

In a free society we should be free from intimidation and being scrutinized for no good reason other than a hunch.

Agreed; to a point.

But how about this concept?

Don't have dope in your ride, and know your passengers.

.

[MDS]

Agreed; to a point.

But how about this concept?

Don't have dope in your ride, and know your passengers.

.

With respect, sir, but that's starting to sound like redcoat talk. There's a reason why not even constitutional scholars have been able to find the "unless it makes coppering hard" clause in the 4th amendment...

[LSP972]

With respect, sir, but that's starting to sound like redcoat talk. There's a reason why not even constitutional scholars have been able to find the "unless it makes coppering hard" clause in the 4th amendment...

Okay, I'll bite… what's "redcoat talk"? And I have no idea what your second sentence is trying to convey.

.

[cclaxton]

Agreed; to a point.
But how about this concept?
Don't have dope in your ride, and know your passengers.
.

That just speaks of the mentality of "If you have nothing to hide, I should be able to search your car...."
Just wrong in my view.
Cody

[MDS]

Okay, I'll bite… what's "redcoat talk"? And I have no idea what your second sentence is trying to convey.

.

Sorry to be unclear, let me 'splain. No, no, there is too much: let me sum up.

I was just trying to be a little funny. Y "redcoat talk" I meant the kind of arguments used by old king George to justify his policing practices in the colonies. The kinds of practices that drove the framers to include explicit guarantees of security in papers and effects, and prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. The second sentence tries to convey that it's hard to do good police work with all these restrictions, but even the best intentions can't justify all this erosion in the fourth amendment. Not even the best constitutional minds, which seem to spend all their energy finding hidden clauses in our bill of rights, (like the "until a madman shoots up a school or other public place" clause in the second amendment,) can justify that kind of overreach based on how it makes normal police work difficult, they have to use Global Terroristic Threats To National Security for that much overreach....

[LSP972]

That just speaks of the mentality of "If you have nothing to hide, I should be able to search your car...."

Cody

Wrong. The dog hit; I don't know of any jurisdiction where that isn't sufficient probable cause.

You're concerned about police abuse of power; I get that. Me too, especially at the federal level. I certainly am not discounting your concern; that stuff happens, and all too frequently these days.

But pardon me for not shedding a tear over a simple doper getting popped by an alert cop. While I have no doubt that Mr. Rodriguez is high-fivin' his pals over his sudden admission to "The Ones That Got Away" club, I am equally certain that, down the road, he will again run afoul of the gendarmie for doing something stupid. Its what dopers (and drunks) do; they cannot help themselves.

.

[LSP972]

Sorry to be unclear, let me 'splain. No, no, there is too much: let me sum up.

I was just trying to be a little funny. Y "redcoat talk" I meant the kind of arguments used by old king George to justify his policing practices in the colonies. The kinds of practices that drove the framers to include explicit guarantees of security in papers and effects, and prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. The second sentence tries to convey that it's hard to do good police work with all these restrictions, but even the best intentions can't justify all this erosion in the fourth amendment. Not even the best constitutional minds, which seem to spend all their energy finding hidden clauses in our bill of rights, (like the "until a madman shoots up a school or other public place" clause in the second amendment,) can justify that kind of overreach based on how it makes normal police work difficult, they have to use Global Terroristic Threats To National Security for that much overreach....

Got it, thanks.

And I agree with you; some agencies are indeed getting out of hand, and are supported by the judiciary; like that district judge who just decreed that one's home can be commandeered by the po-lice under "exigent circumstances". That one is downright scary.

But this? C'mon. If he hadn't had the dope, the dog wouldn't have hit, and we would not be having this conversation. Yes, I know about slippery slopes and all of that. I don't think this particular situation is one that should raise an alarm. But then, I'm just an old retired JBT…

.

[voodoo_man]

Talked to a K9 guy in my dept. He said this doesnt do anything or apply to anything he or others like him do.

So concurred with my initial assessment.