Speak Outs
Speak Out
When does use of a drug-sniffing dog violate the Fourth Amendment?

April 5, 2013

Here are the stories of Franky and Aldo, two drug-sniffing dogs whose skills put them at the heart of two U.S. Supreme Court cases about the Fourth Amendment’s protection again unreasonable search and seizure.

Acting on a tip, law enforcement officers in Florida took Franky, a drug-detection dog, to a house where marijuana plants allegedly were being grown. On the porch, Franky gave a positive alert for drugs. Police then obtained a warrant to search the house and found marijuana plants.

The occupant, who was charged with drug trafficking, got the evidence suppressed, arguing that the sniff by Franky was an illegal search. The case made its way through the Florida state courts. Ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and said use of a drug-sniffing dog is a government intrusion into the privacy of a home.
              
The case, Florida v. Jardines, wound up at the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices upheld the Florida ruling by a 5-4 vote.

The Fourth Amendment says: "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..." This means that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials, such as the police. Law enforcement has to have probable cause for a search and must get a warrant. A search can include a frisking by a police officer, a blood test or a search of a home or car.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure extends to a house’s surroundings. “This right would be of little practical value” if the police could stand on someone’s porch or in a yard and freely look for evidence, Scalia wrote.

The opinion said Franky’s nose was considered to be a detection device, which can’t be used by police to “see” inside a home without a warrant. Scalia referred to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Kyllo v. United States that said police could not use heat-detection devices outside a house to detect whether marijuana plants were being grown inside. Use of such technology violates people’s expectation of privacy inside their homes, he wrote.

In a concurring opinion in Franky’s case, Justice Elena Kagan agreed that it was an unconstitutional search, but because of the right to privacy as well as trespass. A person’s home, she said, is not only his castle but “his most intimate and familiar space.”

In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that a police officer also detected the smell of marijuana outside the house. “The conduct of the police officer in this case did not constitute a trespass and did not violate respondent's reasonable expectations of privacy,” he wrote.

Aldo’s case involved a truck, not a home. His handler, K-9 Officer William Wheetley, had pulled over a driver for a routine traffic stop. Because of the driver’s behavior, Wheetley asked for permission to search the truck but was refused. Aldo stepped in and gave an alert at the driver’s side door handle. Wheetley decided Aldo’s reaction gave him probable cause for a search, which turned up ingredients for making methamphetamine. Charged with illegal possession of the ingredients, the driver tried to suppress the evidence by questioning Aldo’s training and performance.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Wheetley lacked probable cause to search the truck based on Aldo’s dependability. “[W]hen a dog alerts,” the court wrote, “the fact that the dog has been trained and certified is simply not enough to establish probable cause.” The court said police must provide detailed evidence of the dog’s reliability before establishing probable cause for a search.

However, Aldo won the day in the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices decided in a unanimous vote that if a detection dog has passed a certification or training program, that’s good enough to trust his alert.

“The question – similar to every inquiry into probable cause – is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in Florida v. Harris. “A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test.”

What do you think?

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Franky’s or Aldo’s case? Is a dog’s sniff a search? Should using a detection dog require probable cause and a warrant? Does using a drug-detection dog outside a house violate the occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy? Is an alert by a drug-detection dog enough to establish probable cause for a search? Join the discussion!

Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
4/15/2014
Sidney/MT
Lexi
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The issue of this article is whether or not a drug-sniffing dog is enough probable cause for the search to be legal and not violate our Fourth Amendment rights. I disagree with the ruling in Florida v Jardines. I believe that the dog sniffing is like the technology in the Kylo case. Even though the dog can sniff and alert its handler, there isn't enough probable cause to go in and search without a warrant. I would agree with Reanna and Nicole that dogs have a higher sense of smell and should be considered a tool for search. Justice Scalia stated that this Fourth Amendment right wouldn't be practical if the police could stand on someone's porch and look freely for evidence. We need to protect our right of unreasonable searches and seizures to our house surroundings. At the privacy of our own homes, we have an expectation of privacy. Drug detection dogs should require a warrant before sniffing and searching.

4/15/2014
Sidney/MT
Reanna
Mr. Fauhlaber/Sidney High School
The issue discussed in this article is whether or not a drug-sniffing dog's skills violates a person's fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The affirmative would argue that it does violate the fourth amendment. They would argue, like Nicole Moore did, that dogs have a higher sense of smell and should be considered a tool for a search. She said "using drug dogs does violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy." The negative side however, would argue that a drug dog's hit is not unreasonable and is enough to establish probable cause. I agree with Justice Kagan who in the article said, "A sniff is up to snuff when it meets the test." A drug dog has gone through extensive training to learn the necessary tools to become reliable. In the case of Florida v. Jardines, I disagree with the courts ruling. I think the court failed to acknowledge that the police officers had been watching the home and they too could smell the marijuana coming from the house. Using the dog on the porch was not an invasion of privacy. I do not believe that the porch should be considered such sacred grounds as it was in this case. A mail man, milk man, and everyone else all have the right to go up to your porch. A police officer and his dog should be no different. Furthermore, drug-sniffing dogs are trained for a purpose in the criminal justice field. If a dog is not constitutionally allowed to provide reasonable suspicion to get a warrant, why is the time being wasted to train them? I think the court should have treated both dogs, Franky and Aldo, the same as in the case of Florida v. Harris.

4/14/2014
Sidney/MT
Nicole Moore
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue at hand is whether or not a dog search is a true search and a violation of the fourth amendment. I believe that using dogs is a true search and that it violates the fourth amendment. I also agree with Justice Elena Kagan that it was an unconstitutional search because it violates the right to privacy as well as trespassing. Since dogs have a higher sense of smell and detect things that the average human may not, it would be considered a tool for search. I also agree with Joshua B. who stated "..you can not search a person property without a warrant and that is what the police are doing with the dogs...no warrant the case should be thrown out." I feel this is a reasonable view and that if the evidence is not obtained legally, you can not process the case. Using drug dogs does violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. There are other ways to determine if suspicious activity is going on, and to prove that a warrant should be obtained.

2/3/2014
Watertown/MA
Issa
Rimas/WHS
i wouldn't know. i have never seen a dog searching through8 stuff.

12/23/2013
Aurora, CO
John
Fox Ridge Middle School
How does the Courts ruling in Florida v Jardines affect the ruling in New Jersey v TKO? Is a students locker equivalent to their domain as the defendents home was in Jardines?

12/10/2013
new jersey
Jacob
rg
excellent

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Cody
Rimas/ Watertown High School
I completely disagree with the court ruling. With probable cause dogs should be able to sniff around a property, just as it's legal for a cop to pull over a car that is weaving across a road. In this situation, the police had a tip and investigated it, and once the dog makes confirms drugs, a search is definitely allowed.

9/25/2013
Santa Rosa, California
John
Morton/Piner-Olivet
I agree that a police dog can't be used on your property without a proper warrant because it violates the occupants reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of Aldo, I agree with the ruling because the officer had a reason to pull him over and the dog was well trained and doing its job.

9/13/2013
Sidney Montana
Ethan
Mr Faulhaber/Sidney High
Dogs are a great idea when it comes to a search, after the dog barks and lets officials know that there is some sort of propaganda, then it should be limited to how the police search after

9/9/2013
Rudyard/MT
Kristyn
Campbell/North Star
A detection dog can be used as long as it is not in the house or fenced yard without a warrant. A lot of people walk up to your front door, so why is that not an invasion of privacy. They sniff around our cars and schools and that's not an invasion of privacy. I believe as long as it is not in a fence or house it should be okay. The alert by the dog is definitely a probable cause and evidence because they go through so much training. By the time they actually go into the field, the dogs have passed so many tests that their alerts should be treated and count as reasonable cause.

5/2/2013
Benson/ AZ
Rhiannon
Sorense/ Benson
As long as you have a search warrant, they drug-sniffing dogs should be allowed. If a person is allowed to search through a home with a warrant, that should also include the search with a dog.

4/26/2013
Benson, AZ
Kourtney
Sorensen
I think that if the search dogs find anything they should be able to take it and it's the people's fault for growing drugs or doing anything like that and I don't think that those kinds of things should be allowed in our country in the first place.

4/24/2013
Benson, AZ
Ashley S.
Benosn/Sorenson
I think that this isn't violating any law because the dog was not in the home. When we have to stop at border patrol check points, the dogs sniff along our cars but we dont consider that a violation of privacy. I think that if a dog can smell it from the front porch it shouldn't be considered illegal. If the house is fenced in and the officer and the dog have to get through the fence that could be considered violating privancy, but walking up to the door shouldnt be illegal because anyone can do that.

4/22/2013
Irving/TX
TJ
Bradley/Nimitz
The judge gave credible evidence and why the detection was unconstitutional. However that is what the dog is trained to do, detect illegal narcotics on a individual. So how can detecting illegal narcotics be unconstitutional? They are trying to strech out the admendments making them apply to things they have no relevance to.

4/22/2013
Irving/TX
Dennys A.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court provided an adequate ruling in both Franky and Aldo's case, but a dogs nose is a form of detection device and to come within distance to verify whether or not an individual has illegal substances is an illegal search if not provided with a warrant to do so. Furthermore i believe a drug-detection dogs ability to determine an alert should be probable cause for search because they're trained to detect and if an officer is unable to act in that situation in spite of probable cause the consequences could be dire better to be safe than sorry.

4/20/2013
Irving/Tx
Joshua B
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes Drug sniffing dogs violate the fourth amendment because you can not search a person property without a warrent and that is what the police are doing with the dogs and I believe if the dog does find something illeagal and there was no warrent then the case should be thrown out.

4/19/2013
Irving/Texas
April K.
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings in both Franky's and Aldo's case. A dog's sniff should be considered as a search, because the dog is being used as a detection device. A detection device can not be used without a warrant. Therefore, using drug-detection dog outside a house violates the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy because of the Fourth Amendment. Also an alert by a drug-detection dog is not enough to establish a probable cause for a search.

4/19/2013
benson/AZ
kayla
sorenson
i believe if its not private property or the dog is not in the yard they should be allowed to sniff at least the front of the yard. allowing this does give probable cause which you then can get a warrant. that is the whole reason why they train these dogs in order to stop drug abuse.

4/19/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica A.
Bradley/Nimitz
The ruling in the Supreme Court was fair. It's not the same to go and just search someone's home without a warrant. Searching a home compared searching someone's car when they get pulled over. Using a drug dog outside a person's home does violate their privacy because you have nothing to prove they've done anything wrong. Unless you have a warrant, you should not be on their property. Alert by a drug- detection dog is enough to establish probable cause.

4/19/2013
Irving/TX
Alexis
Bradley/Nimitz
There is a reason why Dogs that are trained to detect marijuana and thats to detect unlawful activity. If a dog sniffs out marijuana it grants probable cause for an officer to get a warrant and find out if someone is breaking the law. If the circumstances meet probable cause and obtaining the appropriate documentation to search a home is done, then in no way should it be suggested that a search is unreasonable. It does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

4/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Alan
Bradley/Nimitz
The Florida Supreme Court is very reasonable in it's decision to say that it is unconstitutional to conduct a search into another person's home through other methods, such as a dog, without a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court was also right in its decision saying that Aldo was trustworthy enough since he had passed a certification or training program. A dog sniff is a search because it allows the person to know what is really there without asking for permission, or even attempting to get a warrant. There is a difference in searching in a car and a home, specially if the driver had been stopped for a different violation.

4/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Jessica W.
Bradley/Nimitz
The police and the drug dogs were not in violation of the fourth amendment. Using the dogs were not a violation of privacy because they did not go into the persons house they just sniffed around it. After realizing that there were drugs being made in the house, then the police got a warrant to search. The dogs were not physically in the house so it did not violate the amendment at all. The dogs are highly trained so there should not have been any suspicion that they were wrong about the marijuana plants so I do believe that it is enough to establish a cause for a search.

4/18/2013
Irving/TX
Steven Hutchason
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Aldo's case but not their decision on Franky's case. It is enough evidence if a dog smells something that is illegal. That is what the dog is trained to do right? To sniff out the bad stuff? If the dog is certified then its sniff is up to snuff.

4/18/2013
Irving/Texas
Darian
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the supreme courts ruling on Franky's case. The police violated the fourth amendment by using the drug dog. We have to protect every Americans right even if their not the perfect american. A dogs sniff is a search the dog is searching for illegal substances. A alert by a drug dog is enough evidence police should need to cause a search.

4/17/2013
Irving/TX
Gabe
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion, the police and their drug dogs were not in violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures unless a warrant is issued upon probable cause. The officers got their warrant after the dog provided a probable cause of possible drugs. The thing about a dog, is that it signals for a possibility of drugs, and is not creating proof of drugs. The signal that a dog gives is the probable cause that is needed to get a warrant. If the dog's ability to signal for drugs could be held up in court without the actual proof of the drugs, and could convict on smell alone, then yes, it would be a violation of the fourth amendment, but dogs can signal false positives, which means the dog made a mistake and there were no drugs, there. A drug dog's signal is not convicting evidence, therefore, it is not in violation of the fourth amendment.

4/17/2013
Benson Az
jacob
mr. sorenson
It is only right to let police have aa dog because it helps the department out because if you are not up to good then you will get caught eventually and its just a quicker way of justice nocking on your door and if you are up to good then you will not have anything toworry about you can let the dog sniff anywhere that you please.

4/17/2013
Irving/Texas
Elyssa
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug dogs are used by police just as police are used by the city. Drug dogs can be used as a device but not as invasion of privacy. They are confirming any suspicions that anyone may have. In Frankys case they did not need a warrant because they were only on the porch. As for “seeing” inside the house they weren’t actually looking in their house but used their dog to confirm a suspicion they had. If a person walks by someone and smells marijuana or any other drug they can report it but they aren’t considered a device. A drug dog shouldn’t need a warrant either because they aren’t searching personally through anything. A warrant is only needed if a police is going through your “Personal” items. A drug-detection dog is a probable cause for a search because these dogs are trained well enough to know the drugs. Police should be able to use drug-detection dogs to confirm a suspension and a warrant to actually search through a persons personal things.

4/16/2013
Irving/Texas
Kelsie
Bradley/Nimitz
Using the dog is a sniff search there is no way around it. The detection dog is an way for police to gain charges and things to put against you. In my opinion the government is just trying to be sneaky and go around the rules. Having a dog coming on your property and sniffing is a violation of your privacy and the evidence that the dog finds can not be used aginst you in court because they didn't have a warrant in the first place,

4/16/2013
Irving/Texas
Helen
Bradley/Nimitz
The police officer used the dog as a "device" to confirm his suspicions that the owner of the house was in fact in possession of marijuana. While the officers intentions might have been good he did violate the 4th amendment just like the supreme court said.

4/16/2013
Irving/Texas
Samantha N. S.
Bradley/Nimitz
A police search is not unreasonable when a certified drug dog is able to detect the smell of an illegal substance. In the case with the home, the police had already smelled the marijuana outside the home, and once the house tested positive for drugs according to the dog's trained nose, the police still had to obtain a legal warrant before they were able to search for any drugs. The alert by the drug dog should be enough to establish probable cause for a search if it's a qualified and certified dog. People have no need to begin worrying that their right to privacy is being violated- it's not as if there are police officers walking in every citizen's yard hoping for their dog to detect the smell of drugs so that they can raid their homes. People are still secure and safe in their homes and the police will not search it without reason or warrant.

4/15/2013
Irving/Tx
Tasia
Bradley/Nimitz
I do agree with the supreme court ruling because using the dog in a sniff search is just like using any other device that police officer has. It still helps them convict people and use it against people. Using a detection dog the police should have a warrant because in the end that dog is a lot of help in proving their case or the innocence of a person. It also violates the privacy of a home owner.

4/15/2013
Benson/Arizona
Brandon
Sorensen/Benson
As the case states Franky the drug dog only went onto the front porch of the house and if the yard was not fenced in this is not considered trespassing. The police officers already had a probable cause from a tip then Franky hitting on the house just reassured the tip and then gave a probable cause for a search warrant. They were not walking around to every house with the dog. Besides a dog sniffing is not forcibly entering a house without a warrant. Everyday at checkpoints along the borders drug dogs sniff vehicles for drugs being smuggled into the United States. This is perfectly legal and not much different from the case in Florida. Drug dogs are a tool to help keeps drugs off of the streets and should be used to do so.

4/15/2013
Irving/Texas
Wesley
Bradley/Nimitz
A dog can be seen as a device by which the police use to detect illegal substances. Thus, the police cannot use a dog without a search warrant. Much like heat-detections devices and satellite imagery, the use of a dog infringes upon the 14th Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Now, the problem here is the wording. “Unreasonable” makes people assume that because the dog sensed illegal substances, the search is now very reasonable. Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment infringement happened the moment the dog smelt the drugs and alerted his officer. This act of smelling, which can be refereed to as the use of a detecting device, happened without a warrant, which makes it an “unreasonable search” and violation of the owner's right to privacy. This was the case with both Franky and Aldo. Thus, a warrant must first be issued before a dog can start sniffing around. In response to the question about whether or not an alert by a drug dog is sufficient evidence for a search, I would argue in favor of the dog. A dog that has gone through training is well prepared for its job. If the dog happens to be wrong, then no harm is done because the person who was searched is innocent.

4/12/2013
Irving/Texas
Giancarlo
Bradley/Nimitz
Privacy is a big controversy in America but how can it be defined? Jardines really did get away from the law. Franky's sense should have been probable cause because it is trained to sniff drugs. The officer followed through with a warrant but Jardines did get away. There are many ways to look at this case but Jardines' lab should have been shut down, and he should be in jail for drug trafficking.

4/12/2013
Benson/AZ
Krystal
Sorensen/Benson
I think the first case when the police got the tip that they should have gotten a warrant. Although I don't think a warrant was needed with the second case with the truck. The dog was doing what he was trained to do. I think that cause is "probable" enough to search the vehicle, with or without the owner's consent.

4/12/2013
Irving/Texas
Maddie
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court's ruling in Franky's case should've gone the other way. It's not an invasion of privacy if a dog smells weed from outside your house. Aldo's case ruling was fair though because Aldo had gone through proper training. Using a detection dog shouldn't require a warrant because dogs are going to smell things anyway. I don't think that a drug-detection dog outside of a house violates privacy, because they aren’t on the property. An alert is absolutely enough to establish probable cause for a search because that obviously means that there is some type of drug. Regardless if drug-detection dogs violate privacy, if someone is on and possesses meth or if they’re growing weed in their home, it’s illegal.

4/12/2013
benson,az
Abbey
sorenson/benson
The dogs sniffed and found a good for nothing criminal so who cares if its ethically right, because the dude is just messing up our country so lock the a hole up.

4/12/2013
Benson, AZ
Richard Rose
Marv Sorensen/Benson High School
Using a dog to detect or invade a person's personal effects is a violation of a person's privacy. A dog's alert, however, is enough to justify a search, but only with a search warrant. If that dog was used to detect a person's property on their property, i.e. within the boundaries of their property, or inside their truck, without a search warrant then that is a violation. In Aldo's case, neither him nor his handler had a search warrant. His sniff may have been probable cause to search the vehicle, but only with a warrant. The truck was the property of the individual and as such could not extend past what is actually the truck. So, while Aldo was allowed to sniff the vehicle, his handler needed a warrant.

4/12/2013
Benson/AZ
Dylan L
Sorensen/Benson
I think that the dog will need a search warent before it will go into the car and sniff for drugs. Its just like when a person wants to search private property they need a search warrent.

4/12/2013
Benson/Arizona
Shawn
Sorenson/Benson High School
I do believe that a drug sniffing dog is unlawful and violates the fourth amendment of the Consitution. Because if a dog smells drugs, that gives an automatic probable cause for the police officer, even though the dog is not human, the dog is what violated the person's rights. Not the police officer, but it is still unfair and unlawful to allow such things. If the dog has a Sniff Warrant, by all means use it to the greater advantage, but otherwise the dog is breaking the law.

4/12/2013
Benson Arizona
Allison Ford
Marv Sorenson/ Benson High School
The dogs are reliable. They don't have to have a search warrent, I believe that they should be allowed to use the evidence in courts.

4/12/2013
Benson/AZ
Brendon
Sorenson/Benson
The dogs are smarter then all the guys in the supreme court anyways so they should be allowed to conduct a search if the officer has a good reason too.

4/12/2013
Benson/Arizona
David
Sorenson/Benson
If a dog has passed a certification or training program, then its alert should be enough to allow an officer of the law to conduct a search. In the case that the dog has given an incorrect alert, then the citizen in question will have nothing to hide, and thus should have no problem with a search. If a criminal is caught on the evidence of a drug sniffing dog, and that dog's abbilities are later called into question, then this should have no effect on the criminal's trial for the simple reason that they are still a criminal, and have still broken the law.

4/12/2013
Benson, Arizona
Michael
Sorensen
I say the search was legal because they did not technically go inside the house without a warrant until after they got one. I believe they should overlook the dog sniffing part because it isn't a searching device.

4/12/2013
Benson/ az
Joe Dirt
sorneson/ benson
if its that noticable they guy deserved the punishment he sould have gotten, if he is gonna be that dumb and let the people all around him see what he was doin then he should be taken off of the street and punished, if yoiu are gonna be that dumb you shouldnt even be able to breath, obvisoly its not that hard to hide look at all the other people that do it and dont get caught.

4/12/2013
Benson,AZ
Antonio
Sorenson/Benson High School
I think if its that suspicious than they should be allowed to be using drug dogs. Drugs are bad and country boy dont like them. They could be like normal peopl;e and crack cold ones and put good dips in. Aint no trouble in that!

4/11/2013
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley /Nimitz
The supreme court did the right decision by agreeing with the defendant and said use of a drug-sniffing dog is a government intrusion into the privacy of a home. Because everyone in there house has the right of privacy. A house is the only place were a people can be comfortable. A dog has a great nose because they can sniff from distance away. The sniff from the dog was not a search because is something know one can bloke away from a dog in certain events. To use a detection dog there should be a warrant stating that the officers can have a search.

4/11/2013
Irving/Texas
Misael
Bradley/Nimitz
The court ruled fairly in both cases since a home is much different then a vehicle. Since our home is our alone a cop should not have the right to just walk up to our front porch to try to incriminate someone. But if a dog sniffs something during a traffic stop then there is a probable cause to search of course with the use of a search warrant. Of course a dogs sense of smell is amazing and these drug dogs are continuously trained so their sniff is really up to snuff and does entitle a probable cause for search.

4/11/2013
Irving, Texas
Timothy Betts
Bradley/Nimitz
Aside from the fact that I disagree with the illegality of marijuana, I agree with the ruling from the supreme court. In a rare agreement with Justice Scalia, Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor concurred with a ruling that a sniff by a drug dog violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unwarranted search and seizure. This is one of the basic protections guaranteed by the constitution. Simply, we have to assume that a drug dog sniffing constitutes a search, and based on this definition, the Fourth Amendment is violated. Simply, we have to look to what the Constitution says, realize that there is no change in the idea of protection from search seizure, and conclude that the rights were violated.

4/11/2013
Irving/Texas
April S.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Florida Supreme Court decision is very reasonable. They did not have proper cause to take the drug dog to the man's house. Any where that is a person's property should not be invaded with drug dogs unless there is a warrant to search the house. The drug dogs are trained very well and are often very accurate. Though this is true, they can also detect prescription medicines which might make their alert false for illegal drugs.

4/10/2013
Irving/ Tx
Samantha S
Bradley/ Nimitz
Hands down, there should always be a warrant issued out before any type of search. Any level of officers and the K-9 Unit defiantly have a high authority than he common men, yet "the common men" holds the right to privacy. Besides if any one is issued with a search warrant or a warrant for their arrest, they now there is a reason to invade that privacy. in the other hang i think the K-9 Unit is a great government program that we can benefit from greatly

4/10/2013
Rudyard MT
Donovan
Mrs.Campbell Northstar
I think that if a dog smells something that doesnt smell right. Like drugs,that the cop needs a warrant just to go in to some ones house or on to someones property. I understand that cops and K-9 units are doing their jobs, but still you need a warrant just to go search peoples propertys and houses. I agree with Zachery from Irving Texas, warrant first , then search house.

4/9/2013
Irving/Texas
Zachery
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the both the Supreme Court’s rulings dealing with Franky’s and Aldo’s case! If a dog is certified to detect narcotics then that should probable cause enough to acquire a warrant. However there has to be probable cause in order to have a dog start sniffing around. I do believe that using a drug-detection dog outside a house does violate the occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy, if it wasn't a violation against the privacy of our homes, a K-9 unit should be sniffing around every persons property looking for drugs. There needs to be rules set in stone dealing with drug-detection animals in the United States because if the animal is certified, is should be probable cause enough to give reason for a search.

4/8/2013
Irving/Texas
Yessica
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because bringing a drug dog to someone's front porch is in violation of their privacy, because they did it without a warrant. A dog's sniff is a search because they are gathering evidence to use against the person in court. However a trained dog's nose is a powerful tool for police therefore they should be used as often as possible. Therefore using a dog that is trained and alert, should be used as sufficient evidence to receive a warrant and preform a reasonable search where the offence was once "sniffed."

Related News
Related Resources
Share