Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Drug-Sniffing Dogs
Unanimous decision says that dogs signaling alerts amounts to probable cause.
Dogs had their day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The high court ruled unanimously that a Florida police officer's use of a drug-sniffing dog to search a truck during a routine traffic stop was appropriate, even though the drugs found were not what the pooch was trained to detect.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I still want to see one of these dogs, as an officer of the court and my accuser, raise its right paw, take an oath in court and sit for cross examination.
Unfortunately what this ruling means is that a police officer can take the stand on behalf of his dog and basically put words into an animals mouth. . .
"Scotland Yard used dogs to track Jack the Ripper,"
Really? And when did they catch Jack?
Ahh, ignorant people making ignorant decisions. Next they'll be deciding laws about this fad thingy they heard about called the "internet"