Officer Chompy's Nose is News: FLA v. Jardines

[IndyDave1776]

I have ALWAYS said that we argue that Obama will put in liberal Justices or that Bush put in conservative and that is how the Court will lean but that is false logic. While there might be a few that are clearly one side or the other, most vote outside of the political leanings of the party that placed them there. This is a good thing.

I would have to add the caveat that the Republican appointees seem to act outside the philosophy of the party which appointed them significantly more often than Democrat appointees. I will agree that it is not good for justices to be party hacks reflecting the agendas of those who appointed them, but it is hard to find a justice who is truly willing to support the Constitution as written. When I hear such remarks as Justice Bader-Ginsburg saying that if it were up to her we would have an entirely different Constitution more like that of Mexico I have to wonder by what qualification she was nominated and confirmed to her office (even though she has had times of coming down on the right side).

 

[CarmelHP]

Do you really think police have flat feet these days? That implies walking a beat...

It was also supposed to refer to those who were 4-F because of the supposed disability of "flat feet" and joined the police force for the uniform.

 

[CarmelHP]

Originally Posted by rambone
In cases like these I like to check who favors police state tactics and who didn't.

So which party do I need to vote for to make sure the constitution is defended on the SCOTUS?


NO to warrantless dog searches of private property
Antonin Scalia (R, Reagan)
Elena Kagan (D, Obama)
Sonya Sotomayor (D, Obama)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D, Clinton)
Clarence Thomas (R, Bush I)

YES to warrantless dog searches of private property
Samuel Alito (R, Bush II)
John Roberts (R, Bush II)
Anthony Kennedy (R, Reagan)
Stephen Breyer (D, Clinton)


Court opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...1-564_jifl.pdf
.

An observation, Clarence Thomas continues to be the most consistently freedom loving, Constitution respecting jurist on the Court.

 

[kludge]

Yet in a 9-0 decision a dog's nose can't be called into question, allowing unscrupulous LEOs to manufacture reasonable suspicion/probable cause at will.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-harris/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I was shocked that Kagan and Sotowhatever agreed it was a violation of the 4th

Liberals worried about their weed.

I sincerely doubt their motives.

You can still have absolutely flawed reasoning and still jump to the correct conclusion by sheer accident.

 

[rambone]

Kentucky v. King

Quite frankly, I wished that MORE laws/procedures were challenged as there is too many poorly worded poorly implemented laws/procedures and clarification is always welcome. FTR I have never handled a run where I bought a K9 onto a porch to sniff for drugs. If I could smell it and I was there legally...PC...no need for a K9.

That SC decision gives far too much power to the police. Allowing the officer to manufacture probable cause because he claims to smell something inside a private home, or hears a toilet flushing, is very dangerous. Kentucky v. King


YES to warrantless home searches because officer claims he smelled illegal scent
Antonin Scalia (R, Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy (R, Reagan)
Clarence Thomas (R, Bush I)
Samuel Alito (R, Bush II)
John Roberts (R, Bush II)
Stephen Breyer (D, Clinton)
Elena Kagan (D, Obama)
Sonya Sotomayor (D, Obama)

NO to warrantless home searches because officer claims he smelled illegal scent
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D, Clinton)

 

[jedi]

@rambone
did you expect the kings men to vote against the machine?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

This thread makes me wonder something. If the U.S. ever decriminalizes use and possession of marijuana, won't that make every trained drug sniffing dog useless?

I mean, how could you train a dog to start ignoring the smell of weed?

 

[jedi]

the same way they got officer chompy trained to smell weed.

 

[Bunnykid68]

the same way they got officer chompy trained to smell weed.

Even when it is not there

 

[mrjarrell]

This thread makes me wonder something. If the U.S. ever decriminalizes use and possession of marijuana, won't that make every trained drug sniffing dog useless?

I mean, how could you train a dog to start ignoring the smell of weed?

It's already being addressed in Washington and Colorado.

Legal pot means big changes for state

 

[kludge]

The new line will be "The dog didn't smell the pot, the dog smelled ______."

 

[IndyDave1776]

the same way they got officer chompy trained to smell weed.

I would say the same way the dogs miraculously evolve on the spot the ability to detect things they were never trained to find.

The new line will be "The dog didn't smell the pot, the dog smelled ______."

Although it typically isn't, it should automatically be thrown out if the dog 'finds' contraband it was not trained to detect by indicating a false positive for something else. Case in point, if we revisit Franklin Roosevelt's gold grab, then the drug dog alerts on our trunk, officer helps himself, and surprise, surprise, there are no drugs, but what do we have here, two bars of gold! At that point, the search and confiscation of such materials should be immediately stopped. I know, I'm dreaming about pushing the .gov back into the bottle!

 

[jedi]

Even when it is not there

The new line will be "The dog didn't smell the pot, the dog smelled ______."

well duh we (the people) have allowed this fars so why should we expect anything to chnage?

 

[gunrunner0]

I particularly liked the portion of the opinion which discussed girl scouts and trick-or-treaters being able to determine the limits of implied invitation, while police officers apparently do not.