Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Hearing Case On Drug-Sniffing Dog "Fishing Expeditions"
sgunhouse writes "Wired is running an article on a Supreme Court challenge (well, actually two of them) to the use of drug-sniffing dogs. The first case discussed involved Florida police using a drug-sniffing dog as a basis for searching a suspected drug dealer's home. The court in Florida excluded the evidence obtained from the search, saying a warrant should be required for that sort of use of a dog. Personally, I agree — police have no right to parade a dog around on private property on a 'fishing expedition', same as they need a warrant to use a thermal imaging device to search for grow houses. I have no use for recreational drugs, but they had better have a warrant if they want to bring a dog onto my property."
Exactly.
Dogs with a human handler are too open to abuse. The handler may intentionally or unintentionally signal the dog, so it then indicates, and they then have permission to do a search. If a dog cannot be calibrated, and the accuracy known, it should not be used for law enforcement.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
You can try and invent imaginary rights and legal rulings to justify drug use, but at the end of the day, it's dumb.
I would need a lot of convincing to understand why the police would need to get PERMISSION to use IR gear in public to find grow houses (as if the IR signature of your house has some kind of right to privacy): they do it all the time in the UK, and only bikers, gangsters, druggies and idiots would have a problem with it.
Your attitude indicates you have never lived under a free system, because if you had, your own opinion would be repugnant to you.
No, he just hasn't lived in a country as screwed up as the USA, to understand why such protections are necessary there.