Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:20:11 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote:
>
>> "BE" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> > But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
>> a
>> > diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
>> home, and
>> > that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>>
>> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
>> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>>
>> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
>> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
>> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
>> when they are in a vehicle?
>
>You have just elucidated the problem with the view that holds that
>driving is just a privilege.
>
>If driving is just a privilege, then we (the people) can be said to have
>given up our rights in order to obtain the privilege, can't we?

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. The courts have ruled thus
in relatively clear terms. The authorities like to keep it a secret.
It turns into a privilege when you are driving for commercial
purposes, such as being in the business of hauling stuff to deliver,
most likely if you are driving a taxi, etc. But as a private citizen
just traveling to and from work, the ball game, etc, you have a right
to use the public streets with the almost meaningless and easily
passed hurdle of getting a drivers license.
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>
> Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...

Nope, it tends to tip the cops to the marijuana in your trunk.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> BE wrote:
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> The concept of probable cause.

Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for arrest.
Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a K9 sniff a
vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for the air coming from
our vehicle to the outside.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

jaybird wrote:

> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>>
>>Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...

> Nope, it tends to tip the cops to the marijuana in your trunk.

I'm glad they didn't think so when I was pulled over for expired tags
(back when I was 16). I was very nervous back then since it was the
very first time I had an encounter with a police officer on the side of
the road.

As someone else pointed out, if you don't get somewhat nervous when
you're pulled over, you're being pulled over way too often.

In any case, do you get suspicious if the driver you pulled over acts
smug and / or confident when you ask for his license and registration?

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for arrest.
> Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a K9 sniff a
> vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for the air coming from
> our vehicle to the outside.

Or anything else that dogs or technology can detect from the outside of
our homes or vehicles by that logic. Such as the heat signature coming
through the walls of our homes.

It's all the same thing. The boundries of home and vehicle are merely
arbitary and easily breached. (and often have in the war on the bill of
rights er drugs)

"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote in
message ...
>
> "BE" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
> a
>> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
> home, and
>> that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>
> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>
> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
> when they are in a vehicle?

I can explain that. A great expectation of privacy is inside our home. It
lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is mobile (in a
nutshell). Where the line has been drawn for K9 sniffs is that while it is
true that your vehicle and its contents are "effects", the air that is
around it is not private property. If your vehicle has air coming from it
to the outside, that air is not your property either. If a dog, or other
means are used to detect an illegal substance in that air which is coming
from private property, that gives cops the same reason to investigate where
that air is coming from as it would if they were to look in your vehicle's
windows from the outside and see something illegal.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"AZGuy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:20:11 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote:
>>
>>> "BE" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>> > But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You have
>>> a
>>> > diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
>>> home, and
>>> > that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>>
>>> " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>>> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>>> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
>>> to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
>>>
>>> Just my opinion, but a closed vehicle constitutes a person's "effects."
>>> We wouldn't tolerate the police patting down or using a drug sniffing
>>> dog on people who are walking on the street, so why do we tolerate it
>>> when they are in a vehicle?
>>
>>You have just elucidated the problem with the view that holds that
>>driving is just a privilege.
>>
>>If driving is just a privilege, then we (the people) can be said to have
>>given up our rights in order to obtain the privilege, can't we?
>
> Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. The courts have ruled thus
> in relatively clear terms. The authorities like to keep it a secret.
> It turns into a privilege when you are driving for commercial
> purposes, such as being in the business of hauling stuff to deliver,
> most likely if you are driving a taxi, etc. But as a private citizen
> just traveling to and from work, the ball game, etc, you have a right
> to use the public streets with the almost meaningless and easily
> passed hurdle of getting a drivers license.

That's not entirely true. Your state has to issue you a valid driver's
license to operate a vehicle on our (the citizen's) roadways. There are
violations outlined in your state's laws where those privileges can be
suspended, cancelled, or revoked. It is true that we all have the right to
travel freely throughout the country, but driving a vehicle on public
roadways has restrictions outlined in the states' traffic codes.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> I can explain that. A great expectation of privacy is inside our home.

Why?

> It
> lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is mobile (in a
> nutshell).

Why?

> Where the line has been drawn for K9 sniffs is that while it is
> true that your vehicle and its contents are "effects", the air that is
> around it is not private property.

Neither is the heat signature of your home visable from the street. Nor
the sounds that can be picked up with a sensitive microphone.

> If your vehicle has air coming from it
> to the outside, that air is not your property either. If a dog, or other
> means are used to detect an illegal substance in that air which is coming
> from private property, that gives cops the same reason to investigate where
> that air is coming from as it would if they were to look in your vehicle's
> windows from the outside and see something illegal.

And if they hear you say something suspicious they should be able to
burst right into your home to.

There is no difference in the logic. Once you erase the bill of rights in
one place, you effectively doom it everywhere.

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> That's not entirely true. Your state has to issue you a valid driver's
> license to operate a vehicle on our (the citizen's) roadways. There are
> violations outlined in your state's laws where those privileges can be
> suspended, cancelled, or revoked. It is true that we all have the right to
> travel freely throughout the country, but driving a vehicle on public
> roadways has restrictions outlined in the states' traffic codes.

Travel freely? There is no such right anymore. Use public transportation,
you may be subject to search. Don't like it, don't use it. You travel by
air, same thing. Travel by rail, again, same deal. Travel by bicycle?
codified that a bicyclist can be stoped by an officer at any time. Walk?
well that court case was lost too, cops can demand papers. So what is
this right to travel freely jaybird? Because as I look around, each mode
of transportation has fallen. We have to give up our other rights to
travel from place to place.

You can sit there and parrot the party line of your masters and tell us
the slippery slope isn't there, but each time we look around we are
further down the slope.

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
>Arif Khokar wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>>
>> Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...
>
>But if you have nothing to hide, you should not be nervous.
>On the other hand, if you act nervous on purpose, then don't complain
>about being searched.

****ing fascist moron.