In the 2005 case Illinois v. Caballes, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that "the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog…during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests." The upshot od that police can get permission from a dog to rifle an innocent man's belongings. How did canines acquire this authority? As Senior Editor Jacob Sullum explains in the cover story from Reason's March issue, credulous courts have been mesmerized by the superhuman olfactory talents of police dogs. Yet this dog license is hard to square with the Fourth Amendment, Sullum writes, unless it is reasonable to trust every officer's unsubstantiated claim about how an animal of undetermined reliability reacted to a person, a suitcase, a car, or a house.
Fourth Amendment advocates win big in Lange v. California.
A social media struggle in the New Hampshire L.P. fractured a state party and triggered a national meltdown.
A training session for graduate students urged them to prohibit students from discussing problematic views.
"I didn't think it was a big deal," says Kim Blalock. "My son is perfectly fine."