New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | January 28, 2005

Jacob Sullum ponders the erosion of privacy safeguards—doggy style.

Comments

sage|1.28.05 @ 10:06AM|#

This renders pretty much useless the outcome of this case. I can't show this to the po-po's anymore. They'll sick the hounds on me. Oh well.

Warren|1.28.05 @ 10:39AM|#

Pretty much renders this case useless as well.

|1.28.05 @ 10:39AM|#

So....

A dog sniffs my car, without cause, and smells marijuana. I'm going to jail.

A dog sniffs my car, indicates marijuana, the cops open my trunk, find no marijuana but my entire stash of kiddie porn snuff films. Or my AK-47s. Or my pirated DVDs. Do I still go to jail, or is that search illegal?

I can't see much of a problem with the first scenario, unless it's going to lead to the second.

|1.28.05 @ 11:43AM|#

Memo to self: Get body out of trunk before it starts to smell.

|1.28.05 @ 11:51AM|#

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/dogs24.html

Good thing the Attorney General of Illinois is a good enlightened liberal Democrat and not one of those ass-backwards fascist Republicans you people in the red states have...

This is what Lisa Madigan does with her time when she's not too busy trying to take away, or otherwise restrict, our 2nd amendment rights.

Oh never mind, she only cares about gun safety and fighting special interest groups:
http://www.lisamadigan.org/press_pages/brady.htm
(heres a game, find all the lies in that link!)

Don't think of competing with the mafia boats, er casino boats, in Illinois either:
http://gamingmagazine.com/managearticle.asp?C=840&A=13319

(in fairness, past Illinois Republicans such as pussy Gov. Ryan, were not much better on gun issues. For a time Il poliitics was dominated by Republicans, but still no concealed carry in this state)

|1.28.05 @ 11:53AM|#

What's the difference between this and using thermal imaging / sonar or any comparable surviellance device to search a suspects premises from a distance ? Apparently, the implicit reasoning behind this decision is that the dog can't help having a "built-in" radar sense & doesn't possess volition. Whereas using a ray-gun signals intention to search and seize. I mean, its not like the dog had a court order to smell anything.
If that's so, then thank god the supremes are luddites.

|1.28.05 @ 12:02PM|#

SM:
That's not the logic of the decision. Thermal imaging has been ruled an impermissible (without a warrant) "search" not because it's higher tech, but because it reveals ancillary private information. The argument is that the dog ONLY barks if it detects drugs, while someone scoping your house with thermal imaging can also watch you (or your thermal form) having sex, going about your daily business, etc.

|1.28.05 @ 12:48PM|#

It seems the Court trusts a trained dog's nose more than a cop's eyes.

I didn't think I'd ever agree with them.

Larry A|1.28.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Excuse me, Julian, but you used "logic" and "court decision" in the same sentence. Around here that's a misdemeanor.

Xmas|1.28.05 @ 1:27PM|#

So then, is there a legal problem if I start spraying my car with these things:

http://www.aah-pets.com/pampering-outdoorfun-repellents.html

|1.28.05 @ 2:02PM|#

Supreme Court/Burns - "Send in the hounds."

aix42|1.28.05 @ 2:44PM|#

release the hounds!

|1.28.05 @ 3:12PM|#

Oh no, the dog related comment spam has spead to the headlines!!!

|1.28.05 @ 3:25PM|#

UFP:
I've been looking for kiddie porn snuff films on pirated dvds and an Ak-47. Can you help me out?

|1.28.05 @ 3:44PM|#

Damn, thanks to the war on drugs, you can no longer trust "man's best friend." Is this the society we want for our children?

"No honey, don't play with the dog, he might turn on you at any moment!" ;)

|1.28.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Julian,

My point was more about there being a subconscious anthropomorphism between the lines of the decision ie dog = god's creature, man + scanner = original sin etc, etc, etc. Or something like that.

But still, doesn't the courts logic make the decision even more scary ? Because -
1. Per Sullum's article, dogs do produce false positives.
2. What if someone creates a drugs/name-your-vice only scanner ? Not all that far-fetched, hook up the scanner to image processing & filtering software and viola !

|1.28.05 @ 5:10PM|#

This is just a precedent for when they invent X-ray glasses.

|1.29.05 @ 2:10AM|#

Not to belabour this, but the parallel between thermal imaging etc and dogs is an exact one. Krypto's olfactory receptors capture molecules from the trunk of suspects car; thermal sensors etc from "Orwell & Cheney, Inc" stop radiation emanating from your bedroom. So if the po-leeceman can find a natural born animal that has some sort of heat-sink behind its eyes, then the supremes should allow anything it sees as evidence.
OK, fellow reasonites, once the asians engineer these animals, we' re all done ...

|1.29.05 @ 2:51PM|#

"Whatever the cause of a false alert, it exposes innocent people to the inconvenience and humiliation of drug searches they have done nothing to justify....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the other dissenter in this case, warned that the Court's analysis "clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots," even of cars stopped at traffic lights."

I read Reason regularly and should probably know this, but what is the received wisdom on why this is bad?

If drugs are illegal, shouldn't you be able to deal with a little inconvenience and humiliation in order to help fight them?

If you don't have illegal stuff in your car, is the only problem that you're going to have to deal with inconvenience and humiliation?

If you do have other illegal stuff and the dogs indicate you should be searched (mistakenly), how is it tragic that you are busted?

What is so private that a search finding it (and not getting you in any trouble) is so devastating?

I am in need of instruction here. I attempt not to persuade you all, but to invite you to persuade me. Please don't flame me, I'm actually asking these things.

SteveInClearwater|1.30.05 @ 5:24AM|#

I'll play.

SG: If drugs are illegal, shouldn't you be able to deal with a little inconvenience and humiliation in order to help fight them?

Steve: I refuse to participate in 'fighting drugs', because I don't think possession of drugs should be a crime. Therefore I have no time to be inconvenienced and humiliated by those who do participate in the so-called fight. I am too busy working at changing the laws.

SG: If you don't have illegal stuff in your car, is the only problem that you're going to have to deal with inconvenience and humiliation?

ST: Nope. I operate a service business that runs 24/7. Lost time due to cops waging their useless drug war costs me money on top of that which is already taxed from me to in part fund the very officers who are unduly delaying me.

SG: If you do have other illegal stuff and the dogs indicate you should be searched (mistakenly), how is it tragic that you are busted?

ST: I don't carry 'other illegal stuff' in my automobile, so N/A.

SG: What is so private that a search finding it (and not getting you in any trouble) is so devastating?

ST: I'll let you answer your own question when I arrive at your front door today and ask you for consent to search every inch of your home, your automobile, your computer and all contents. And when you ask me "Why" I want to search, I will not tell you other than to say that I am looking for illegal activity.
========

(preemptive Response to your next Reply) If you tell me now in this forum that you would consent to such a request from me, I'm sorry, I don't believe you.