Once again: that is on the Federal level. I was referring to state law. The state I mentioned -- as well as my own state, I discovered -- outlaws the practice, no matter how "commonly available" the technology is.
"It is not "trespassing" to just come onto someones property and come to the door, just like a trick-or-treater would."
Yes, it is. Police are specifically prohibited from certain activities that the general public can perform with impunity (or "immunity", if you want to think of it that way).
A police officer may not come onto my property unless they (A) are investigating a crime report or domestic disturbance, (B) are invited by the owner or resident, or (C) have a search warrant. In other words, they have to have legal justification.
Where I live, police had to abandon their practice of going door-to-door to sell raffle tickets or tickets to the Policeman's Ball (yes, it is a real thing), because as it turned out they were prohibited by state law. Their fundraising is not "legitimate legal reason" to be on my property.
So... NO. They cannot just walk up to my front door with no reason. They are legally and specifically prohibited from doing so.
When I was a small but very curious child, my mother used to say to me: "If you poke your nose where it doesn't belong, you will learn things that you did not want to know."
That might not be an exact match for this situation, but close enough.
"You mean the "Clever Hans" effect where the handler provides the cues instead of the smell? It's a know issue, both handlers and dogs are trained to try and avoid it."
Drug-sniffing dogs are TERRIBLE at their jobs. In the Chicago review of actual police statistics, the average reliability of drug-sniffing dogs was only 44% true positives (vastly too small a number to qualify as probable cause), and in the case of one minority (can you say "Handler bias?" Sure, I knew you could) it was only 27%. That's not theory, those are actual historical figures.
Unless some vastly better method of training comes up, drug-sniffing dogs need to be taken out of the picture. They are responsible for a huge amount of injustice in this country.
"In the US, the police occasionally pile in the squad car with IR shit and drive around X-raying houses to see what's going on inside."
They'd better not, because the Supreme Court has pretty solidly ruled that this is unconstitutional.
Ex-Texas State Trooper Barry Cooper, and his team of "Kop Busters", caught some Odessa, TX police doing this very thing. They knew the police were illegally using infrared imagers. So they rented an apartment, put a bunch of small fir trees (little Christmas trees) in it, with grow lights... along with a whole bunch of surveillance cameras. Hardly a week passed when the door was broken down and the police rushed in. Only to find a note that said, "Police: Nothing illegal is going on here. Except for you." Or something very much like that.
Guess what? While the cops fought like hooked fish, not only did Cooper walk away from it all, the woman who was unjustly imprisoned (the reason they targeted Odessa) also ended up walking free.
"Secondly, if there is a dog in front of your home on public property and they smell drugs, you need to invest in some better draftproofing. Your heating bills must be enormous in winter."
It wasn't public property. It was private property, off the street. (Jardine's front door, in fact.) Unlike some places, in the United States ALL of your property is your property... the walk to your front door from the street isn't considered "public".
"This isn't about dogs being used on private property without a warrant; this is about a dog being outside, on public property, indicating that it can smell drugs inside, and then a warrant being obtained based on that "evidence"."
WRONG.
The police were on Jardine's private property. At his front door, in fact. Sniffing around without a warrant.
"They can bust down your door, shoot your dog, and plant drugs, with no repercussions."
No, they can't. Look up 18 USC 242. It applies to ALL agents of the government, including police, your Senator, and the President. NONE of them are immune. The problem is that it is not applied often enough.
A common misconception is that 18 USC 242 only applies to cases of discrimination. That is incorrect. There is a very important "or" that separates the discrimination clause.
"... the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required."
No. That is a common misconception.
The commonality of a technology has no bearing on its legitimate use.
In a nearby state, for example, while you can walk down the street and glance into uncovered windows, if you stand on the sidewalk and peer into that same window with a pair of binoculars, it is illegal "surveillance", no matter whether you are a civilian or a policeman without a warrant. It matters not a whit if the curtains are open. Nor does it matter if you are 10 feet away or 100 yards away.
"In many states, revenue from alcohol/cigarette taxes are a major portion of the state's revenue."
Which is a crime. Or should be. There is no moral / ethical basis for this. It is not the place of Government to tell us what to do, and enforce it through the pocketbook.
WE are supposed to tell the government what to do. That is what is meant by "the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed."
"... there's, of course, a balance to be struck... "
That is why the state of California enacted a law specifically authorizing you to kill anyone who is forcibly trying to enter your home (as long as they are not police who adequately announce themselves and have a warrant).
This is one of the more rational laws the largely-dysfunctional state of California ever passed.
"You're assuming the function of the police is to fight crime. The function of the police is social control."
No. The societal function of police IS to fight crime. The fact that they engage in social control is what prevents them from properly performing their their function.
The court case says something about trespassing, since it is about the police going onto private property to sniff around with dogs, without a warrant.
This is not a case about police with dogs walking down the middle of the street and accidentally smelling a pot farm.
Here's how PC makers can profit: build their machines using Apple-compatible hardware. Then people can (legally or not) make Hackintoshes out of them. It's a popular pastime and everybody wins -- even Apple, though they are loathe to admit it.
I should qualify that: in the United States, you are not liable for somebody else's use of your internet connection, as long as you were not party to the illegal activity yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Once again: that is on the Federal level. I was referring to state law. The state I mentioned -- as well as my own state, I discovered -- outlaws the practice, no matter how "commonly available" the technology is.
That's a Federal decision. Repeat: in a nearby STATE, it is illegal to use even commonly available means to "surveil" someone's residence.
Many other states have similar provisions. And note: in a case like this the more restrictive state law prevails.
"It is not "trespassing" to just come onto someones property and come to the door, just like a trick-or-treater would."
Yes, it is. Police are specifically prohibited from certain activities that the general public can perform with impunity (or "immunity", if you want to think of it that way).
A police officer may not come onto my property unless they (A) are investigating a crime report or domestic disturbance, (B) are invited by the owner or resident, or (C) have a search warrant. In other words, they have to have legal justification.
Where I live, police had to abandon their practice of going door-to-door to sell raffle tickets or tickets to the Policeman's Ball (yes, it is a real thing), because as it turned out they were prohibited by state law. Their fundraising is not "legitimate legal reason" to be on my property.
So... NO. They cannot just walk up to my front door with no reason. They are legally and specifically prohibited from doing so.
When I was a small but very curious child, my mother used to say to me: "If you poke your nose where it doesn't belong, you will learn things that you did not want to know."
That might not be an exact match for this situation, but close enough.
When I first started reading your post, that video was the first thing that came to mind. I recommend it to all of my friends.
"You might find this story interesting."
Interesting and informative personal anecdote, but the meat of it is still just reporting about the UC-Davis study.
The idea that "I don't care because I'm not doing anything wrong" has done as much to destroy freedom in this country than anything else in history.
YOU are the enemy.
"You mean the "Clever Hans" effect where the handler provides the cues instead of the smell? It's a know issue, both handlers and dogs are trained to try and avoid it."
No, they are usually not, and even when they are, they are still notoriously, and ridiculously, unreliable.
Study after study and analysis after analysis prove you wrong.
Drug-sniffing dogs are TERRIBLE at their jobs. In the Chicago review of actual police statistics, the average reliability of drug-sniffing dogs was only 44% true positives (vastly too small a number to qualify as probable cause), and in the case of one minority (can you say "Handler bias?" Sure, I knew you could) it was only 27%. That's not theory, those are actual historical figures.
Unless some vastly better method of training comes up, drug-sniffing dogs need to be taken out of the picture. They are responsible for a huge amount of injustice in this country.
"I think that 856.011(1) is subjective enough that it could be applied to anyone who was thought to be intoxicated anyway"
If somebody tried to prosecute me on that basis, using that law, I could get a CHEAP lawyer and fry their asses in court.
"In the US, the police occasionally pile in the squad car with IR shit and drive around X-raying houses to see what's going on inside."
They'd better not, because the Supreme Court has pretty solidly ruled that this is unconstitutional.
Ex-Texas State Trooper Barry Cooper, and his team of "Kop Busters", caught some Odessa, TX police doing this very thing. They knew the police were illegally using infrared imagers. So they rented an apartment, put a bunch of small fir trees (little Christmas trees) in it, with grow lights... along with a whole bunch of surveillance cameras. Hardly a week passed when the door was broken down and the police rushed in. Only to find a note that said, "Police: Nothing illegal is going on here. Except for you." Or something very much like that.
Guess what? While the cops fought like hooked fish, not only did Cooper walk away from it all, the woman who was unjustly imprisoned (the reason they targeted Odessa) also ended up walking free.
"Secondly, if there is a dog in front of your home on public property and they smell drugs, you need to invest in some better draftproofing. Your heating bills must be enormous in winter."
It wasn't public property. It was private property, off the street. (Jardine's front door, in fact.) Unlike some places, in the United States ALL of your property is your property... the walk to your front door from the street isn't considered "public".
That said, it's still good advice.
"This isn't about dogs being used on private property without a warrant; this is about a dog being outside, on public property, indicating that it can smell drugs inside, and then a warrant being obtained based on that "evidence"."
WRONG.
The police were on Jardine's private property. At his front door, in fact. Sniffing around without a warrant.
"They can bust down your door, shoot your dog, and plant drugs, with no repercussions."
No, they can't. Look up 18 USC 242. It applies to ALL agents of the government, including police, your Senator, and the President. NONE of them are immune. The problem is that it is not applied often enough.
A common misconception is that 18 USC 242 only applies to cases of discrimination. That is incorrect. There is a very important "or" that separates the discrimination clause.
Here's another example: thermal imaging. It is now rather common, well within the budget of many American households.
However, it is STILL illegal for police to use it without a warrant.
"... the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required."
No. That is a common misconception.
The commonality of a technology has no bearing on its legitimate use.
In a nearby state, for example, while you can walk down the street and glance into uncovered windows, if you stand on the sidewalk and peer into that same window with a pair of binoculars, it is illegal "surveillance", no matter whether you are a civilian or a policeman without a warrant. It matters not a whit if the curtains are open. Nor does it matter if you are 10 feet away or 100 yards away.
What matters is how the technology is used.
"In many states, revenue from alcohol/cigarette taxes are a major portion of the state's revenue."
Which is a crime. Or should be. There is no moral / ethical basis for this. It is not the place of Government to tell us what to do, and enforce it through the pocketbook.
WE are supposed to tell the government what to do. That is what is meant by "the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed."
"... there's, of course, a balance to be struck... "
That is why the state of California enacted a law specifically authorizing you to kill anyone who is forcibly trying to enter your home (as long as they are not police who adequately announce themselves and have a warrant).
This is one of the more rational laws the largely-dysfunctional state of California ever passed.
"You're assuming the function of the police is to fight crime. The function of the police is social control."
No. The societal function of police IS to fight crime. The fact that they engage in social control is what prevents them from properly performing their their function.
You don't live where I live. Many of them ARE the shit and scum.
The court case says something about trespassing, since it is about the police going onto private property to sniff around with dogs, without a warrant.
This is not a case about police with dogs walking down the middle of the street and accidentally smelling a pot farm.
"856.011Disorderly intoxication."
You are mistaken.
That is not a law against public intoxication. It is a law against being disorderly while publicly intoxicated.
That is a VERY different thing.
I believe the case in question, though, involved Law Enforcement taking dogs onto private property to sniff around the house.
Legally, that is vastly different from trying to get a whiff from the sidewalk.
Well... almost everybody. I know of at least one company that does lose with that formula... but who cares?
Here's how PC makers can profit: build their machines using Apple-compatible hardware. Then people can (legally or not) make Hackintoshes out of them. It's a popular pastime and everybody wins -- even Apple, though they are loathe to admit it.
I should qualify that: in the United States, you are not liable for somebody else's use of your internet connection, as long as you were not party to the illegal activity yourself.