Author	Topic:   Are drug-sniffing dogs violating the 4th Amendment??
Lauryn	posted 3/4/03 1:42 AM     well the Supreme Court did say that the sniff doesn't count as a search. But if your stuff was being searched without your permission, would you say "Your violating the 4th Amendment"? Just tell me on what you think if it's violating the 4th Amendment or not.
student	posted 3/4/03 2:31 AM     yes i believe it does violate the 4th amendment (search and SEIZURE) because it creats reasonable suspicion so they can search you. it is trying to trick you by siezing then searching.
Sizmo	posted 5/4/03 7:19 PM     Not only is it a violation but it's unbelievably inaccurate. Go to any school and ask them to open their books to you. The comparisons between DOG ALERTS and actual ARRESTS will astound you. It's like 1 in 15 or so. These doggy cops boast about insane accuracy percentages but that's on a sterile test coarse. In the real world there's too many things that make these muts go bonkers. Look at yourself and your car right this minute. Can you vouch for all the bills in your wallet? Where have they been in the last 2 or 3 days? How about the change in your pocket or purse? Loan your car to anybody lately? Given anyone a ride? Hugged your girlfriend or boyfriend today? Check out a library book? Any of these things or people could have certain odors on them (transfered to you, your car or your locker) that would make one of these dogs go off. Other things include legal drugs,candies, magic markers, spent ammo from your last outing in the country, the list goes on and on. Nowhere in the world of law enforcement are inaccuracies like these allowed, only in the world of drug dogs, makes you wonder why.
Steve	posted 5/30/03 5:55 AM     The Court has decided that the sniff by a trained drug dog does not rise to the level of intrusion as to be protected as a search by the standards of the 4th amendment. It is a minimumly intrusive search, yes, but it does not meet the standards set by the Court to be protected by the 4th Amendment.
Suzette	posted 6/11/03 5:45 PM     It's ridiculous to argue that by creating reason to search you that it violates your rights. If you see someone with a gun it creates reason, that's just another of the five senses. If you don't want to worry about follow the drug laws and you have nothing to worry about.
Molly	posted 6/17/03 3:51 AM     OK Suzette. Then let's create a reason to search everywhere, not just in the schools. It's been said before and I'll say it again. There's more weed at biker rallies, skating rinks, night clubs and college dorms than in any high school. There's probably been as much dope in the thousands of cars that go through a typical Wal-mart parking lot every day than there is in a high school parking lot in a week. Tell me why the dogs rarely visit THESE places and target our kids? Now, show me in the constitution where it says anything about the youth of this nation not being protected by civil rights.
Goldfinger	posted 7/9/03 3:30 AM     follow the laws and you have nothing to worry about, sure suzette. you'll be one of the SHEEP that follows your masters through roadside checkpoints, video cameras on every street corner and tracable microchips in everything you'll buy at the store. maybe you're right, who knows. your rights are vanishing so fast i guess we all had better walk the straight and narrow.
Ben Gilkey	posted 9/25/03 0:23 AM     You idiots dont even know what search and seizure is. Your vehicle is not seized then searched. It can only seized or forfeited to the police department if you have narcotics in your vehicle. I think the people who enforce the law and make the laws can interpret them alot better than you junkie highschool drop outs/pot heads. You are tootin your little horns on the internet because no one else will listen to such horse shiit. Id be embarassed to even make such stupid, uneducated comments on the internet, Sober up, come down to the real world, be a real man, dont lean on some drug to compensate for your personality defects and character flaws.
Farmer Joe	posted 9/28/03 3:02 PM     Sizmo hit the nail on the head. And Gilky, I read your posts all the time. Sometimes you write well and sometimes you mispell every other word and have scattered thoughts. Do you use drugs or is your keyboard just getting stuck?
pothead	posted 10/2/03 2:45 PM     f!@# all you fags, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. why can't we all just sit and take bong hits? f!@# off!
twig	posted 10/3/03 0:08 AM     Lauryn. To answer your original question, I think everyone agrees that it goes across the grain of the 4th amendment, there is no probable cause to search these young people. The only problem is when a dog alerts on a kid or his/her locker it BECOMES PROBABLE CAUSE. Since the dog is not touching their belongings and only sniffing the air they can say it is not a search. This is just a loophole created by a bunch of "lawyer types" to violate your rights. It's smart thinking and you have to tip your cap to them. There's a lot of problems with this way of thinking though. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON SOMETHING AS INACCURATE AS A DOG ALERT. Take an hour to search the sites put up by drug dog companies. You'll find that they themselves admit to an arrest rate of less than 15%, and that's using their numbers. Truth is, when a dog is taken off his sterile obsticle course and out in to the real world they aren't that good at what they do. So, the question becomes...how accurate should a cop and his dog be to create solid probable cause. If all it takes is 15% accuracy then it's time we all start thinking about life in another country, dipite how much we love America. Ever seen those movies where a cop gathers evidence then goes before his superiors or a judge to get a search warrant? That's how law enforcement should be. If the police officer in that movie had been before the same judge seeking various warrants 99 times before BUT FAILED TO OBTAIN AN ARREST 85% OF THE TIME do you think the judge would grant him one? The answer is surely NO! In closing let me say this. When you talk to a dog handler about his dog's accuracy rate don't let him tell you that 75 or 85 or 95% of the time they find a reason for the alert because the "reason" can be many many things, most of them completely legal. Ask them "what percentage of alerts lead to solid arrests"...that's when they start studdering.
Arky	posted 10/6/03 7:10 PM     Twig. I'm so glad you brought up the subject of inaccuracies in dog searches. I worked as a handler at a K-9 training center during the mid-ninties and the number of false alerts was astounding to say the least, it's the main reason I moved on to another career. For those of you in the dark about this subject let me give you a little test. I'm going to tell you some information on 12 imaginary students, what they've done that day or what they've come in contact with. It's now 2pm and a dog who's trained on drugs and explosives is now taking control of the school and the parking lot. YOU tell me which students (or cars or lockers) will be alerted upon by the dog. Student #1: Works for a landscaping company and has a major job to do right after school lets out. His boss tells him to take one of the company trucks to school to save time. Under the seat is half a joint. It was left there by a fellow employee who used the truck 72 hours ago. Student #2: Uses a locker right next to the locker of a student who stores weed in their's. Student #2's gym shoes were in her locker for a month but she just took them to her car because she wanted to wash them at home. Student #3: Took 2 drags off a joint in the Wendy's parking lot, had a burger, washed his hands and went back to school. Student #4: Has 4 road flares in his trunk. Student #5: Just bought 4 pencils from the student store. She recieved 2 quarters in change that were handled the night before by a student who was using cocaine. Student #6: Did the same thing as student #5 except he recieved 4 one dollar bills in change, handled by the same coke head. The bills are secure in his zipped up wallet. Student #7: Went hunting yesterday and still has a couple of shotgun shells in his glove box. Student #8: Has a severe headache and has 4 Tylenol tablets in her pocket. Student#9: Just gave her boyfriend a big hug and a kiss, he was rolling weed ten minutes before. Student #10: Has a case of 24 Magic Markers sitting in the back seat of her car. Student #11: Shook hands with a teacher who had just come from a bathroom stall where she snorted a line of coke. Student #12: Is using a book he borrowed from a girl who, last night, spilled a couple drops of perscription medication on the cover liner. Sound like a rough school? Get a dose of reality, this stuff happens every day and these are all cases I've seen, some repeatedly. The answer to this test? In all likelyhood you'll have 11 dog alerts and one solid arrest. The only problem is that student #1 is the only arrest and he's totally innocent. The only guilty person is #3 and he will get off Scott free (most likely). In the mean time 10 innocent kids will be hassled and taken out of class. Their parents will be phoned if they do like they do here in S.E. Arkansas. This test speaks directly to the issue of inaccuracy and no dog handler can disput it, this happenned to us daily and we had 4 of the finest K9's in the country. Here's the down side. Dispite this clear violation of students rights the concept that "a sniff from a dog is not a search" must hold steadfast and be upheld. I don't like it and you may not either, most Americans are appauled by it and I can't blame them. It won't be long before someone nails these bottom feeding, bottom of the food chain, scum licking dog handlers and gets them thrown out of the school system. They'll do it on the basis that probable cause can't be based on a dog that only has a 10 or 20% alert to arrest rating. The problem occurs when these dogs get removed from our borders, airports and docks using the same courtroom logic. I'm walking a thin line and I know it. It's hard for me to justify taking dogs out of schools and leaving them in other places. Remember though, I'm using govermental logic and though it's wrong many times it's good in others. Since 9-11 it's probably best that we secure our borders better (not so much drugs but major explosives) and dogs might be part of the answer. Don't toot your horn, shout victory, and think your safe forever because all of you guys that push to get your dogs in the schools should have your rear ends kicked. First of all you are clearly violating the rights of students and all it's going to take is for ONE tough defendant with deep pockets and the right connections to blow your little world away, they'll win one in court. After that, may God have mercy on us because you may have just opened up our borders. http://p p
CJREED	posted 10/20/03 1:00 PM       Nice site, Visit my tooECOS Home Page http://www.geocities.com/downyarrogant/index767.html
Peanuts	posted 11/13/03 2:53 AM     What about those parents who employ a private firm to go into their home and search their teenagers room, and the dog finds 2grams of crack. The search group dispose of the drug, and allow the parents to have proof of activity to then figure out a route to help the child.Opinions on this?
Ginger	posted 11/16/03 4:05 AM     As a parent you may own the home, pay the bills and be in total control of what goes on under your own roof but there's something basically wrong with having your kid's room searched by dogs. It's total lack of trust and a bad lesson in civil rights to the child. If it's gotten to that point you haven't been an involved parent and need to brush up on your skills too.
reality ck	posted 11/22/03 4:13 PM     Ginger, you are right about trust...alot of parents who trusted their children without question...have also burried their children...knowledge is power...and may save a life. You can choose as a parent to be blind but be prepared for the outcome of blind trust. Trust and respect is earned in the REAL world. Children want their parents to care and know what their doing and who they are with...it's called FAMILY!!
CJREED	posted 12/4/03 4:58 PM       Nice site, Visit my tooDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering -- Cornell University http://www.geocities.com/lusernegro1646/index29510.html
Freedom from people like you	posted 2/15/04 7:56 AM     Ben Gilkey, when I first read that you claimed to be a police officer or something, I thought "yeah right" he's just a wanna be with something to proove. Then I read more of your crap and realized, in order to come up with the rude, insulting, nasty comments that you make, you must be a nazi-basteard cop with a chip on your shoulder who is going to police the whole world and skrew civil rights. Not that I have anything against cops, just as*holes like you.
CJREED	posted 3/29/04 1:29 PM       Nice site, Visit my too lazystudent.co.uk : Top : Religion/Beliefs http://www.geocities.com/iou_ngo_lat1052/index26166.html
CJREED	posted 4/3/04 4:06 PM       Nice site, Visit my too Theology/Religion/Catholic Education Resources http://www.geocities.com/feelsadslag1542/index26111.html
CJREED	posted 4/9/04 1:26 PM       Nice site, Visit my too DeFrank - Community Resources - Groups http://www.geocities.com/bigbmynah1674/index7298.html
CJREED	posted 4/13/04 7:02 AM       Nice site, Visit my too Hobbies-Plus Brookite Flying Models (The Kite People) http://www.geocities.com/indaoctahedron435/index15180.html
CJREED	posted 4/15/04 4:54 PM       Nice site, Visit my too http://www.appollo.org http://www.appollo.org
CJREED	posted 5/26/04 3:43 PM       Nice site, Visit my too Ontario Pharmacists' Association -- OPA in the News http://www.geocities.com/mokastrigram1732/index13140.html
SAMMY WAMMY	posted 3/4/08 2:49 PM     you guys are so smart

Back To  | Post New Topic