Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

[mamabearCali]

IMO if someone goes onto your property without invitation and/or a warrant then leaves something on you property I would think you could have them charged with trespassing and littering. LEO or not, I was under the impression that without probable cause/a warrant/an invitation that they were subject to the same laws as all of us. If they did leave a valuable piece of equipment on your property could you not then use it for target practice, after all if it was on your property it was abandoned and you are free to do with it what you will.

On the supreme court case....bringing a dog up is again IMO definitely a search. He was there to find drugs and since he could not go in legally he decided to use a dog to search where he could not. I don't see it as much different than taking a backscatter/airport search machine and bringing it to the front door of the house and firing it up.

[C-dub]

The dog was there specifically for that cause, that makes it a search.

That's what I was going to say. If the cop wasn't searching, then why did he bring the dog to the door and have sit there and sniff FOR SEVERAL MINUTES? That was a warrantless search.

How is that different from a LEO using a K9 to sniff out the exterior of a vehicle to get PC for a search?
And than there's the possibility of an induced hit.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM[/youtube]

IIRC, in the case of that particular video the handler was discovered to have cued the dog and he didn't really "alert" and the case was eventually thrown out because the guy was also unlawfully detained while he was made to wait for the K9 officer with the dog to show up. Or am I getting this mixed up with another video and case?

[sjfcontrol]

The dog was there specifically for that cause, that makes it a search.

That's what I was going to say. If the cop wasn't searching, then why did he bring the dog to the door and have sit there and sniff FOR SEVERAL MINUTES? That was a warrantless search.

How is that different from a LEO using a K9 to sniff out the exterior of a vehicle to get PC for a search?
And than there's the possibility of an induced hit.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM[/youtube]

IIRC, in the case of that particular video the handler was discovered to have cued the dog and he didn't really "alert" and the case was eventually thrown out because the guy was also unlawfully detained while he was made to wait for the K9 officer with the dog to show up. Or am I getting this mixed up with another video and case?

Yes, that's what I meant by "induced hit". He cued the dog. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in this case? And why would it be ok generally to use dogs for PC on cars, but not houses?

[C-dub]

IIRC, in the case of that particular video the handler was discovered to have cued the dog and he didn't really "alert" and the case was eventually thrown out because the guy was also unlawfully detained while he was made to wait for the K9 officer with the dog to show up. Or am I getting this mixed up with another video and case?

Yes, that's what I meant by "induced hit". He cued the dog. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in this case? And why would it be ok generally to use dogs for PC on cars, but not houses?

IDK, it could be because of the false premise of getting close enough to the house for the dog to try and get a hit at all and they could just walk the same dog through a public parking lot searching. I guess they could do that, right? I'm not sure.

[sjfcontrol]

IIRC, in the case of that particular video the handler was discovered to have cued the dog and he didn't really "alert" and the case was eventually thrown out because the guy was also unlawfully detained while he was made to wait for the K9 officer with the dog to show up. Or am I getting this mixed up with another video and case?

Yes, that's what I meant by "induced hit". He cued the dog. Who's to say the same thing didn't happen in this case? And why would it be ok generally to use dogs for PC on cars, but not houses?

IDK, it could be because of the false premise of getting close enough to the house for the dog to try and get a hit at all and they could just walk the same dog through a public parking lot searching. I guess they could do that, right? I'm not sure.

I guess they could walk the dog around the neighborhood, too.
I just don't see a big difference between using a dog to "alert" on a car, or on a front door. Especially if the dog can be "cued" to alert on command.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well I don't think they ought to be doing that without reasonable cause either. If you've been driving erratically or exhibiting some other behavior, like obviously throwing drugs out the window, which could be construed as reasonable cause (or whatever the legal terminology is) for a search, and a cop pulls you over and searches you, then maybe it is justifiable. But if you're just driving along and you get a routine stop for 5mph over the speed limit or some such, then there is no justification for being treated like a criminal. Now, you may in fact BE a criminal, but he's just going to have to develop his intelligence some other way; because you can't go around treating innocent civilians like they're criminals as your SOP.

Ditto for a home owner. When a cop knocks on the guy's door, unless you have proof of my guilt about something, you had darn better well treat me like I'm innocent. If you think I'm guilty, go get a warrant. I catch you on my property without one, I'm going to treat you like a home invader.

[urnoodle]

I onced asked a retired LEO friend of mine about a dog alerting during a traffic stop that I saw on one of those cop shows. I didn't think it was legal but he said since the traffic stop occurred on a public street, the officer had the right to have the dog with him. It was a K-9 unit that did the traffic stop. My friend said if the dog happened to alert then that it's considered probable cause. I don't know thats true or not but that's what he said.

[RottenApple]

I guess they could walk the dog around the neighborhood, too.
I just don't see a big difference between using a dog to "alert" on a car, or on a front door. Especially if the dog can be "cued" to alert on command.

A K9 being walked around a vehicle that is on public property (roadway, parking lot, etc) is 100% legal and not an intrusion of privacy. But a house should be a different issue. That is (or should be) an illegal search as the officers had to trespass in order to get to the front/back door. To my mind this is clear cut, black and white. But IANAL.

The real grey area would (or again, should) be with an apartment. The area immediately outside the front door (and around the apartment itself) is considered public or community space. So while walking a K9 around a house (which is surrounded by private property) should be illegal, walking a K9 around an apartment should not be.

[sjfcontrol]

I guess they could walk the dog around the neighborhood, too.
I just don't see a big difference between using a dog to "alert" on a car, or on a front door. Especially if the dog can be "cued" to alert on command.

A K9 being walked around a vehicle that is on public property (roadway, parking lot, etc) is 100% legal and not an intrusion of privacy. But a house should be a different issue. That is (or should be) an illegal search as the officers had to trespass in order to get to the front/back door. To my mind this is clear cut, black and white. But IANAL.

The real grey area would (or again, should) be with an apartment. The area immediately outside the front door (and around the apartment itself) is considered public or community space. So while walking a K9 around a house (which is surrounded by private property) should be illegal, walking a K9 around an apartment should not be.

So, a non-intrusive "search" is OK as long as it's on public property? OK, lets set up TSA-style scanners everywhere somebodies driveway meets the street. We can have K-9s search all the cars as they enter or leave, and require the people to pass thru the scanners.

I am not a lawyer, either. But it doesn't make sense to me that an officer can use "sensory enhancement techniques" (dogs, x-rays, scanners,etc. to detect substances below the sensory threshold of human beings) just because he feels like it. Now if there is some activity that suggests something illegal might be going on (odors in the car, odors coming from a house, a house using 10x the normal amount of electricity, etc. that can be detected by the officer without 'enhancement') then the location (house or car) might be subject to further examination.

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.

I see nothing there that says "except when on public property".

[RottenApple]

So, a non-intrusive "search" is OK as long as it's on public property? OK, lets set up TSA-style scanners everywhere somebodies driveway meets the street. We can have K-9s search all the cars as they enter or leave, and require the people to pass thru the scanners.

Except that a TSA-style scanner is scanning inside the vehicle/persons in the vehicle. A dog would be smelling something emanating from the vehicle. Huge difference IMHO and no different that an officer seeing something through the window.

I am not a lawyer, either. But it doesn't make sense to me that an officer can use "sensory enhancement techniques" (dogs, x-rays, scanners,etc. to detect substances below the sensory threshold of human beings) just because he feels like it. Now if there is some activity that suggests something illegal might be going on (odors in the car, odors coming from a house, a house using 10x the normal amount of electricity, etc. that can be detected by the officer without 'enhancement') then the location (house or car) might be subject to further examination.

I don't disagree with that at all and, I believe (but am not positive), that they do have to have some kind of PC for calling in a K9 to walk around a vehicle. But how hard is it for an officer to "manufacture" PC? "I smelled something suspicious" or "they were looking very uncomfortable, like they were hiding something", etc. And if the dog doesn't alert on anything, the officer can explain it away as just being mistaken. And let's face it, as many good officers as there are out there, there are also plenty of the other type who would do something like this.