2 ms·

The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's

The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.

nitrogen 12y ago
The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
etjossem 12y ago
Downvoter: you probably disagree with the Court's interpretation, and personally, I'm with you. Dog sniffs should in theory have nothing to do with traffic stops, because the point is something completely different - to find drugs and weapons. The way the Court historically treats the dog sniff is unique - it's not a classic search of possessions or property, because the only thing it reveals about them is whether or not they're contraband. Officers can freely perform a dog sniff during a Terry/motor stop with no additional requirement. The dog sniff does not require probable cause or even reasonable suspicion - in fact, it is frequently used to help establish them. Sure, we might not like it, but that's the way the law is currently read.

The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.

nitrogen 12y ago

The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

etjossem 12y ago

Downvoter: you probably disagree with the Court's interpretation, and personally, I'm with you. Dog sniffs should in theory have nothing to do with traffic stops, because the point is something completely different - to find drugs and weapons. The way the Court historically treats the dog sniff is unique - it's not a classic search of possessions or property, because the only thing it reveals about them is whether or not they're contraband. Officers can freely perform a dog sniff during a Terry/motor stop with no additional requirement. The dog sniff does not require probable cause or even reasonable suspicion - in fact, it is frequently used to help establish them. Sure, we might not like it, but that's the way the law is currently read.