Top Court rules sniffer-dog searches are unlawful

[geo]

The way I see it... prosecution of low lifes who are nailed for drug posession or trafficking..... That's OK
we can still use the dogs & do a "catch & release" program.  Take away all those drugs and cash they have in hand & send em on their way.... make em poor & make em miserable.  Make em hide from their supplier... who will want to be paid for his merchandise....

 

[2 Cdo]

I just read all 9 pages and am amazed at the ignorance of some posters here. It WASN'T a random search of lockers and knapsacks. The only lockers and knapsacks searched were those which were identified by the police dogs as containing drugs.
Those of you applauding this decision need a good swift kick in the head to jar your brain into working mode again. :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'd be more concerned with the fact that the police couldn't find any reasonable grounds to search a kid with a crapload of dope and mushrooms in his backpack. If they can't succeed in finding reasonable grounds to search a schoolboy and then charge him, how inadequate were they? And how do they expect to catch any of the big druglords who cover their tracks a hell of a lot better than a kid at school.

You mean, such as a drug sniffing dog indicating there might be drugs in his backpack?  :  WTF are they supposed to use, crystal balls and the Jedi Mind Trick?? 

 

[scoutfinch]

The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.  

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.

 

[armyvern]

The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.  

Perhaps you could explain to me the difference that I'm missing in all this then:

The fact that the police also don't have probable cause to do a breathalyzer one someone at a random RIDE check until their personal "sniffers" detected the smell of alcohol during that particular random activity. If buddy there then blows over -- that breathsample result is certainly admissable against him in a court of law although it was obtained during a random search and without warrant.

Why is that considered "constituational" and the other not? It's the very same thing. They are both random, both without probable cause until that "sniffer" gave reasonable cause to presume an illegal activty was occuring.

Really, I'm still not getting the difference.  ???

I don't think one needs to be a lawyer or a judge to figure out that common sense does not necessarily court decisions make. As I think this ruling clearly demonstrates -- exactly because it seems to be perfectly acceptable in other "random" searches conducted without warrants.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.  

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.

I am not demostrating my legal anything.  I am saying my personal opinion is what it is.  Or am I not entitled to that?

Maybe you should shut YOUR hole on anything not Legal O related then.  :

 

[George Wallace]

Nor the fact that they were operating on an "invitation" from the School?  Do the Police now need to formalize their so called "random" searches at the invite of the School Board, with a "standing warrant" to that effect? 

This "Random" has to be defined more accurately, so that we don't have it illegal in one case, but perfectly legal in another.  It is a can of worms that is now leaving us citizens at the whims of the "Best Debater" in the Courts.

 

[scoutfinch]

I am not demostrating my legal anything.  I am saying my personal opinion is what it is.  Or am I not entitled to that?

Maybe you should shut YOUR hole on anything not Legal O related then.   :

I am a lawyer.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The fact that the police didn't have probable cause until using the dogs makes it a random search.  

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

I am not commenting on whether I think it is a good or bad decision.  But there are a whole lot of people WAAAAAAY outside their lanes on this as they try to demonstrate their legal acumen.

Bullshit,  I disagree with that definition of "random", that doesn't mean I, and others are window-lickin' morons who should just sit back and let OUR LAWS be dictated to us by those, once again, pathetic bastions of "I'm alright, I make enough money with this gig that I don't have to live with the consequences of my decision" clowns.
And, if one needs an example of that, why wouldn't they strike down the law about the airports, RIDE programs, etc?
Because that might effect their, or their families safety. Yup, "I'm all right. Jack", for sure.
We need to bring "legal acumen" back to the public domain........

PS,
I guess the "random" searches that I and my cohorts conduct in prisons will be next to be deemed 'illegal', because once again........Jack.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Eye in the Sky.......................watch your tone.

 

[scoutfinch]

Read what I said... I am not commenting on whether this was a good decision or not .  I haven't read the Courts written decision.  I also didn't comment whether I agree with the practical results of this decision.  I was commenting on the attitude that prevailed in this thread as people were sniping back and forth about how they were 'more right' than the last person.  

My 2 cents:  The search was random when they used the dogs. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks.  They used the dogs to determine whether there could be drugs in some.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags... but the use of the dogs rendered the search random as defined at law.

George really hit the nail on the head... the courts have to clearly articulate a definition for 'random'.  But that is really what the commonlaw does... it interprets the words in our legislation in accordance with legal principles.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

Sorta hard to misunderstand the meaning of that comment...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am a lawyer.

I know that, hence my comment.

 

[scoutfinch]

Precisely... people should 'suck back on their attitudes' .  Exactly what I said.

Back to the subject matter of the thread.  I suggest any further 'off-topic' comments should be delivered via PMs so as to not distract from the discussion.

As a member of a Canadian Bar, I am qualified to speak on Canadian legal matters. 

 

[2 Cdo]

Perhaps you should suck back on your attitude unless you know what you are talking about.

Well why don't you just fill us ignorant types in with your knowledge. :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

                                            MOD POST


Enough.............All, the poster is posting in her field and is therefore much more of an SME than the rest of us, doesn't mean we have to agree but she will be afforded the same respect that others would be when posting inside their "lanes".

Keep it civil, only warning.

 

[scoutfinch]

I would like to apologize to 2Cdo for the tone in my post.  It was inappropriate.  It shouldn't have been directed to him as it was.

 

[armyvern]

...

My 2 cents:  The search was random when they used the dogs. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks.  They used the dogs to determine whether there could be drugs in some.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags... but the use of the dogs rendered the search random as defined at law.

George really hit the nail on the head... the courts have to clearly articulate a definition for 'random'.  But that is really what the commonlaw does... it interprets the words in our legislation in accordance with legal principles.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

~Sigh~

I don't think I've been posting with an "I know better attitude".

I keep asking, and nobody has bothered to yet explain to me why this differs legally from random RIDE checks.

I'll use your post above to illustrate my confusion yet again, and perhaps a legal expert can then explain to me what the difference is. Or perhaps, how this most recent ruling does NOT have the ability to effect changes to other "preventative" programs which are meant to ensure that LEO has the ability to prevent and detect threats to my, your, and our families' safety -- which IS the concern being expressed in this thread by those who do not agree with the ruling.

The RIDE check set up on the side of the roadsearch was random when they used the dogs human nose to detect the smell of alcohol. They had no means of determining whether there were drugs in any, all or some of the backpacks actually any drunk drivers on the road that night.  They used the dogs their noses to determine whether there could be drugs in some an intoxicated driver based upon the smell of alcohol being present.  They then had reasonable probable cause to search some of the bags by requesting a breath sample... but the use of the dogs human noses to detect the scent of alcohol rendered the search random as defined at law.

Seems to me that one has now been declared unconstitutional, while one has not. And, it certainly seems to me that this ruling certainly does have the ability to directly affect my families, and the publics safety with the precedent that it has set.

What am I missing?? A RIDE check is random. This ruling SCARES me.

 

[scoutfinch]

~Sigh~

I don't think I've been posting with an "I know better attitude".

I keep asking, and nobody has bothered to yet explain to me why this differs legally from random RIDE checks.

I'll use your post above to illustrate my confusion yet again, and perhaps a legal expert can then explain to me what the difference is. Or perhaps, how this most recent ruling does NOT have the ability to effect changes to other "preventative" programs which are meant to ensure that LEO has the ability to prevent and detect threats to my, your, and our families' safety.

Seems to me that one has now been declared unconstitutional, while one has not. And, it certainly seems to me that this ruling certainly does have the ability to directly affect my families, and the publics safety with the precedent that it has set.

What am I missing?? A RIDE check is random. This ruling SCARES me.

Vern:

Let me read the decision and I'll tell you what I think.  I genuinely don't know how the Court distinguished the search from a RIDE search but  I am sure it did.  I just don't want to comment unless I have read the two decisions myself.

For what it is worth, I have from good family sources (ie. cops), most jurisdictions haven't done drug dog searches of schools in ages because they felt they were unconstitutional and wouldn't stand up in court.  This decision will not change how most police departments or school districts operate one bit.

 

[the 48th regulator]

As long as this judge has not set a precedence.  What if this is now applied to Airports, pot of entry, and border crossings.  How will we stop the smugglers.

This is a scary challenge, in my opinion, and reaches a lot farther than the halls for some High school.

dileas

tess

Which is what I was saying that scares me the most.

This judge has opened the door for this "defence" to be used elsewhere;

It has the potential to poke holes through the Laws right to actually protect us, by doing searches.  Think about it;

Airports, borders, port of entries, Sporting events, Concerts, Movie theatres etc etc

dileas

tess