Speak Outs
Speak Out
Can drug-sniffing dogs violate your Fourth Amendment rights?

Jan. 5, 2012

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects the privacy of your home.

It basically says police can’t just barge in and start snooping around unless they have a warrant and probable cause. That means a reason to suspect a crime might have occurred, or might be occurring. Where does probable cause come from?

Police can get it from observation – seeing things happening around the household that might indicate a crime. They can get it from information – tips provided by neighbors or associates of the suspected criminal.

But can probable cause come from a dog?

Lawmakers in Florida are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case of Franky the drug-sniffing dog, whose work during his seven-year career on the Miami-Dade police force led to the seizure of 2.5 tons of marijuana, 80 pounds of cocaine and $4.9 million in drug money from the region’s dealers.

Many of those searches and seizures occurred in public spaces, such as the airport. In the instance in question, however, Franky was able to smell marijuana growing inside a house through its closed front door. Police used the dog’s nose as probable cause to obtain a warrant and make a bust.

The question at hand: Can they do that?

Law enforcement advocates say that drug-sniffing dogs are an essential tool in carrying out their job. There’s also the argument that the scent Frankie detected did in fact lead to the arrest of somebody breaking the law. And drug-sniffing dogs have been protected by the high court before, in cases involving traffic stops and luggage.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the home is a private space entitled to more protection than a car or piece of luggage. In a case restricting thermal-imaging surveillance on a suspect’s home, the court ruled, “We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.”

What do you think?

Can drug-sniffing dogs violate your Fourth Amendment rights? Does their ability to detect suspicious activity behind closed doors compromise the privacy of your home? Or are dogs an essential law enforcement tool that should be allowed to lead police to those committing crimes? 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
3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, pa
Tristan
Hanna /stroydsburg sjhs
I do not think that drug dogs violate our fourth amendment rights because the police try very hard everyday to help the communities.By using dogs, officers have a easier chance to catch those who either use or sell the illegal substances.

3/16/2016
Stroudsburg, pa
Tristan
Hanna /stroydsburg sjhs
I do not think that drug dogs violate our fourth amendment rights because the police try very hard everyday to help the communities.By using dogs, officers have a easier chance to catch those who either use or sell the illegal substances.

9/1/2015
Sidney, Montana
Blaine Nelson
Mr. Faulhaber, Sidney High School
Police dogs are highly trained, almost machine like, and they almost never alert to a false alarm. That being said, they are still capable of mistakes. The dog should be used to assist in determining if the police have probable cause, but should not be the only determining factor.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Hana
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg JHS
I don't think that drug-sniffing dogs violate someone's Fourth Amendment rights. These dogs are used to catch criminals and potentially get to the center of drug dealing.The fact that they can detect suspicious activity behind closed doors does not compromise the privacy of my home at all. They are doing their jobs. A dog can not control what he smells or doesn't smell! We can't just assume he/she is the problem. 48% of criminals behind bars are in for something to do with drugs. These drug-sniffing dogs will continue to raise that Why would someone be worried if they have nothing to hide.

3/19/2013
Denver, CO
Courtney
M. Mumby
I think that drug sniffing dogs do not violate the 4th amendment rights. my reasoning for this is because if you have drugs that you aren't supposed to have than they should be able to check your house or yourself alone to make sure you don't have any thing dangerous or illegal.

2/18/2013
Rudyard, Montana
Aron
Mrs. Campbell, North Star
No drug-sniffing dogs can't violate your fourth amendments rights. Its ability to detect suspicious activity behind closed doors cant compromise your home. The fact is that drugs are illegal to possess. If you dont have any in your home and arnt doing anything wrong there shouldn't be a problem to let them look in your home just to prove that you arnt doing anything to give them reason to believe you are. Dogs still are an essential tool in law enforcment. Dogs are like breathalizer tests police couldnt one hundred percent prove your entoxicated without it. So just like with a dog they wouldnt be able to tell that you have drugs on your person or hidden without a dogs keen sense of smell. So as long as you arnt doing anything wrong there shouldnt be a problem with searching your home because a dog "might" smell something from your home.

2/6/2013
PA
Jaden P
Central Dauphin High School
No, the dog's nose is not probable cause because you cannot violate the person's home because of the dog's senses from the out side of the house. you had no warrant to enter the house, and had no business to barge in without a warrant for an arrest.

1/7/2013
Montgomery/TX
Paula
Metzger/MHS
Drug sniffing dogs are just what the article says, a tool. Often referred to as "search dogs" I believe them to be under the category of "search" in search and seizure. Depicted this way, they may only be used with consent or court appointed warrant. The act of arrest was unlawful because the dog was implemented as a tool without prior reason to investigate the household

12/10/2012
CA
Yovana
MHS
I do not think drug sniffing dogs violate the fourth amendment. It is simply a way to ensure that there are no illegal substances on campus or in your home. If you are clean, then you have nothing to worry about. Dogs are simply and essential law enforcement tools.

5/11/2012
porterville,ca
salinna
smith/monache
I belive that they arernt violating the 4th ammendement. Since there only doing what they were trained to do. They dont know what are the possibility's of them busting someone. THough it is a good thing since being something bad could be going on in those house beside drugs. they could be saving a childs life with there incredible smell. Thus they are protecting us by getting those drugs off the street.

5/11/2012
Porterville, CA
Andres
Mr.Smith/Monache
I don’t think drug-sniffing dogs violate peoples fourth amendment. I say if you don’t got anything to hide then y worry about the dog violating your fourth amendment. I don’t think that police should be able to go into peoples house unless they have a warrant from the court just because the dogs smells something suspicious inside.

5/10/2012
Porterville CA
Anthony
Smith/Monache
Yes in some ways but honestly drug-sniffing dogs are used to prevent drug use. It is to protect the overall society not an individual. I believe that the dogs are used for a good reason and do not go against the Fourth Amendment.

5/7/2012
Jackson Michigan
miguel gutierrez jr
myself
If it does it does and if it don't it don't, I believe it does and that's because they are using the animal to establish probable cause and that is a 4th amendment requirement.

4/27/2012
Porterville/CA
Mario
Smith/Monache
As stated in this article, these police sniffing dogs are just tools to provide order. In a way, yes, this does violate a fourth amendment right however, if a dog would to sniff something out without being on property, then they aren't violating any right. These steps are just to insure order in our society.

4/12/2012
Irving/Texas
Trey Masters
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't believe that the fourth amendment is violated by drug sniffing dogs, by any means. When writing the bill of rights, the intent was not to protect criminals, as it seems that the article would like to suggest. The original fourth amendment was to protect the innocent from being found guilty, and fr this reason. I believe that drug dogs are a Viable source of information when determining when to make a bust. The homes of tthe public are private, but drug dogs are only going to be able to find trace amounts of illegal substances if the substances are just that: illegal. In the simplest terms, "if you don't want to be caught performing illegal acts, don't perform illegal acts". Turning the issue into a constitutional matter seems to be more of a clever lawyers way of escaping than a real violation of rights.

3/23/2012
Belleville/New York
Kayla
Miss.Colby/Belleville Henderson
I dont think it can especially when people are smuggling in illegal drugs. If you choose to have illegal drugs then you should be searched. If you can break the law therefore you should be punished by the law.

2/28/2012
Irving/Tx
Jordan
Nimitz
I do not think that drug dogs violate our fourth amendment because the police try very hard everyday to help the communities.By using dogs, officers have a better chance to catch those who either use or sell illegal substances.

2/20/2012
Irving/ Texas
Michael
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug sniffing dog does not violate our fourth Amendment right because dogs help officer to track drugs and people behind bars. Their ability to detect suspicious activity behind closed doors compromise the privacy of your home. The Dogs ability to smell behind doors is such a powerful ability they have to smell narcotics and bombs to prevent casualties. The police officer also have special training for dogs to find the suspected bags and have trust on their dogs. The dogs and police officer work together as team both have trust. The police also have look more deeply in their investigation and come up with final judgment to put people behind bars and also before the police get in your house they should have warrant to search your house .

2/20/2012
Irving/Texas
Melissa
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that it is violating the Fourth Amendment. The people who had all the drugs knew that they were already breaking the law, so getting caught should not be a surprise. They do not have the right to say that the Fourth Amendment was violated because they were the one's breaking the law. I don't think so, because all that they are trying to do is keep this place safe. People should not be worried if they don't have anything to hide. If they're not guilty of anything than they'll probably even let them search their homes. I think it is a great idea to have drug dogs. It's a shame that so many kids my age can get their hands on drugs and how easy it is. Having drug dogs that are able to sniff out where and if there's drugs can be a huge help. This way, the people who are distributing the drugs can go to jail or get whatever it is that they are going to get and the people who used to get their drugs from them, wont have a way to get them.

2/13/2012
Irving/ Texas
Marlene
Bradley/Nimitz
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. The reason our airport security is more rigid is because of the horrible acts of 9/ll; the reason why school systems have implemented more guidelines for the security of their students is because of certain disgruntled shooters; and the reason why we have drug dogs is because we have drug users, sellers, and producers. If our nation were secure, then we wouldn't have the need for all of the security. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry. So, maybe the constitution frowns upon these measures, but these measures are what keep us secure. Now, there may be room for mistakes and it may be that these measures aren't always comfortable, backed up or correct, but they make me feel like action is taking place for my security.

2/11/2012
Irving/TX
Dalena
Bradley/Nimitz
Many may argue that narcotics detecting dogs aren't violating the fourth amendment rights, but are rather helping our society. Yet, I bet to differ. Though one may love a visit from a cute, friendly dog, many may not love a surprise visit from the bombarding police without a warrant. Though these drug sniffing dogs are a helpful tool to help police officers do their job, these drug sniffing dogs still don’t provide us with a warrant. Drug sniffing dogs are trained to locate the odor of drugs, not invade the privacy of our rights. It’s indubitable that marijuana is illegal and being in possession of marijuana is a crime. However, is marijuana life threatening in any way? Why is it more important to invade a home without a warrant because of marijuana when we can spend that time to receive a warrant to invade a home that has left evidence to be life threatening?

1/31/2012
Warrenton VA
Samantha
Auburn middle mrs.loch
I don't think it violates any amendment because they are just trying to protect us for the future and they are just doing their job. Th drug sniffing dogs are trained very well and they know exactly what they are doing and they are not trying to violate any amendment.

1/25/2012
Irving/Texas
Mayra
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug-sniffing dogs are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, they are just doing what they are trained to do. Which is look for suspicious behavior. They are well trained and would not hurt anyone. Dog's are an essential part of the law that help catch criminals. The only people that probably have a problem are the ones that are doing something illegal, and do not want to get caught.

1/20/2012
Benson/Az
Shay Harris
Mr. Sorenson
Probable cause can come from a dog. Using the dog's sense of smell is an advantage for the police and doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. When the dog smells something then the police have the probable cause to get a warrant to enter a house for a search. Its the same as if the police can get a warrant to enter a house on a simple form of probable cause such as an incriminating piece of information about someone.

1/20/2012
Irving/TX
Yasmin
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug-sniffing dogs are not violating anything, especially not the Fourth Amendment. So the question: “can drug-sniffing dogs violate your Fourth Amendment?” shouldn't even be asked. The Fourth Amendment shouldn't be violated and what these dogs are doing, like Frankie, is getting criminals where they belong, not violating the 4th amendment. People that are in possession of illegal drugs should be caught and the dogs are an excellent source to catch them. Having the help of dependable source like a dog, is better than asking a neighbor and having them say what they “think” is going on. And even if it seems like these dogs are violating you fourth amendment by coming in your house, these dogs are trained to act civil and to not harm anybody. Their purpose is to go wherever they are taken and search for illegal substances. These illegal substances not only harm the person in possession of it but also that certain community where it was found. Dogs should still be able to go and search the house that might be committing illegal activities.

1/19/2012
Irving/Texas
Randie
Bradley
I think that in some ways this is a violation of the fourth amendment. Because you have the right to have privacy in your own home. And it wouldn't be fair to allow the dogs to sniff around someone's home without them having any knowledge of it. I think their ability to detect suspicious behind closed doors does compromise the privacy of your home. However, the dogs are an essential law enforcement tool to the police. So yes, they should be allowed to lead police to the people who are committing crimes, but only under certain conditions.

1/16/2012
Irving, Tx
Lucy
Bradley / Nimitz
I don't think that drug-sniffing dogs would violate our Fourth Amendment because it's not like the dogs are going to attack anyone or harm us....They're primarily trained to keep the bad guys off the streets. If we don't have anything to hide within our homes, then what's the big deal? If someone is running illegal business within their home, they deserve to be caught because it's ILLEGAL. Would you want to live next door or down the street from a house knowing that he/she is doing suspicious activities? People who are guilty are the only ones that would feel invaded by such a thing.

1/14/2012
Irving/Texas
Kacie
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that this could go either way. It could be violating the fourth amendment because if the drug dog is sniffing marijuana through a closed door and is not visible, how is that fair? The fourth amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. So how are they able to bust people without a warrant? However, drug dogs could be considered as not violating the fourth amendment because there could be neighbors that give tips about the marijuana house, therefore causing the drug dogs to come into action. I do agree that the use of drug dogs are the same as attaining a “search warrant” but I also believe that they could be misused in a way.

1/13/2012
Irving, TX
Lilly H
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug sniffing dogs obviously compromise the privacy of one's home, but their actions do not violate our fourth amendment rights. These dogs are basically like our typical nosy or concerned neighbors that observe and report disturbances to police officers. If police officers are allowed to accept tips from others, then they should also be allowed to accept the accurate information coming from their crime busting partner's keen nose. The dogs play a vital part in helping law enforcement identify the people who are in illegal possession of drugs, and they should be able to continue to provide communities with that invaluable service. Besides, there shouldn't be any problems if you don't have anything to hide.

1/13/2012
Irving, Texas
Fatima S
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion drug-sniffing dogs do violate the Fourth Amendment. A home is a private and personal place. Dog sniffing dogs are invading personal and private property. Even if they are not human they are usually accompanied by some sort of law enforcement officer that can make it a legal case matter. Just because they are dogs does not give them the right to barge in to a home. If the dog smells illegal drugs in a home then there should steps taken to obtain some kind of warrant that will legally let the search for drugs continue. Illegal activities can persuade any sane person to agree to any terms, but if they are not preceded with caution they can turn ugly. It is best to carry out things in a legal and organized matter.

1/13/2012
Irving, TX
Jocelyn
Bradley
A drug dog does not violate the Fourth amendment, it really is that simple. If you would let a police officer enter your house with a search warrant, then why would you not allow the officer to enter your home with the canine? It may not be the same thing, a dog to a paper, but it does have the same reason behind it. If officers are allowed to receive information from neighbors, which sometimes cannot be a reliable source, then why shouldn't the trained nose of a dog be a non reliable source? After all they are trained by officials. The amendment says that they cannot snoop unless they have a probable cause and a trained dog by officials smelling drugs, whether it be something miniscule like a luggage bag to something massive like a home, is a good enough reason to.

1/13/2012
Benson AZ
Jess
Benson/ Sorenson
It can violate the fourth ammendment by just going in to your property but on the other hand if you look like your a threat to the public anyone can file a report and the police are able to go to your house with the papers and see if your doing something wrong.

1/13/2012
Irving,TX
Richard
Bradley/Nimitz
I can understand why others see drug-sniffing dogs as a violation of the fourth amendment, but we must remember that these canines are trained to sniff out drugs. Sniffing out drugs are there specialty. They are just doing there jobs. The dogs could care less about violating the fourth amendment. In my opinion, it is the officer, not the dog, that is violating the fourth amendment. When the canine begins sniffing around an area, it should be up to the officer WITH the canine to retrieve a search warrant and a probable cause. Though, to be honest, the drug sniffing around a certain area should be enough probable cause. As I mentioned earlier, the canines are trained to sniff out drugs. When one begins to sniff around your home, there is a probability that there are either drugs inside or that something suspicious in going on inside. I do not see drug-sniffing dogs as a violation of the forth amendment. They are simply doing what they were trained to do. They detect drugs and help police departments keep drugs of the streets.

1/13/2012
Irving, TX
Grecia
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion drug sniffing dogs do no violate the Fourth Amendment. These trained and intelligent dogs only help the police do their job even better! Drugs are certainly illegal in the U.S, and if these dogs can help the law to find out who is breaking it, then how is it not a benefit to society? The ability to detect suspicious activity at your home, does not invade your privacy because, these dogs are trained specifically to smell drugs and illegal substances, nothing more nothing less.

1/13/2012
Irving, TX
Grecia
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion drug sniffing dogs do no violate the Fourth Amendment. These trained and intelligent dogs only help the police do their job even better! Drugs are certainly illegal in the U.S, and if these dogs can help the law to find out who is breaking it, then how is it not a benefit to society? The ability to detect suspicious activity at your home, does not invade your privacy because, these dogs are trained specifically to smell drugs and illegal substances, nothing more nothing less.

1/13/2012
Irving TX
ELizabeth
Bradley/ Nimitz
Drug-sniffing dogs do not violate our fourth Amendment rights. Using dogs as a probable cause is a very smart idea. The fact that they can detect suspicious activity behind closed doors is something to praise them about. Being able to smell drugs from outside a home leads to the home owner being arrested and making the street safer and a better place for the surrounding people. It does not matter if the drug-sniffing dogs violate the privacy of a home for what they are doing is illegal and far worst. It is drug-sniffing dog. It will only violate your privacy if you have illegal drugs in your home and if that is so, then you should worry more about going to jail then someone violating your fourth amendment. Police have every right and should most definitely be allowed to use dogs to lead them to those committing crimes. It is for the safe being of all of us.

1/12/2012
Irving/TX
Cathy
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug-sniffing dogs cannot violate your Fourth Amendment rights. They are merely doing their job. People should see them detecting the smell of drugs and marijuana coming from houses as a talent, not something to turn a case out of. If every other person agrees that drug-sniffing dogs are violating the Fourth Amendment, drug dealers and criminals will probably take advantage of that new open opportunity and continue illegal doings on their property. Drug-sniffing dogs can't help it that they can detect drugs behind closed doors, that's what they are trained to do. They aren't trained to think, “Oh, that's someone's house, I can't go in there because I'll be violating their Fourth Amendment.” They do way more good then harm, and we shouldn't limit their capabilities. Therefore, I strongly agree that dogs are an essential law enforcement tool that should be allowed to lead police to those committing crime. Even if people claim drug-sniffing dogs violate their Fourth Amendment rights, I say that they are only doing the deeds that they were taught as a puppy. If you don't want drug-sniffing dogs busting through your doors and violating your Fourth Amendment, don't grow marijuana on your property or do anything to that extent.

1/12/2012
Irving
Lauren
Bradley/Nimitz
Drug-sniffing dogs do not violate the Fourth Amendment. These trained canines that have experience, and obvious talent, should definitely be considered a source of probable cause. After all, the police used the same judgment they would have used when considering a neighbor's complaint and they went through the process to get a warrant and complete their successful investigation legally. I agree that “the home is a private space entitled to more protection” but that does not mean it is unapproachable by law-enforcement. Illegal actions can, and often are, conducted in the home and if canines can help to root out crimes then the police have the right to utilize this valuable resource.

1/11/2012
Irving/Texas
Nicole
Bradley/ Nimitz
Frankie is obviously successful, seeing as he has caught many people breaking the law. On the other hand though, I agree that the home is a special, private, sacred place. In saying both of those things, I don't think people should be allowed to plant marijuana in your home and that be acceptable. I disagree that drug-sniffing dogs violate any amendments. If a drug dog can smell that you're keeping/hiding drugs in your home then you messed up and you should-if you're really going to do them- get a better hiding place. I think that the drug dogs are an amazing asset to law enforcement. They have an amazing God given talent to be able to detect things that humans can't and I can't really picture what all would be going on in our world if the drug dogs weren't there to help out.

1/11/2012
Montgomery/Texas
Kayla Robison
Metzger/Montgomery High School
My opinion on this is that whenever the dogs smell something illegal, and the dogs know that the stuff is illegal, then its illegal. Like that quote "dogs are an essential law enforcement tool that should be allowed to lead police to those committing crimes."

1/10/2012
Irving/Texas
Aubrey G.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
Franky the drug sniffing dog stuck his nose where it didn't belong and violated the fourth amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their... houses... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" First of all, why were the police looking for trouble around people's homes? It's not ability to have technology that's able to find illegal substances behind closed doors, but using this in order invade a person's private house is against the amendment. Knowing that people can tell what you are doing or what you are hiding in your own home takes away the security of having said home, and unless my quotation of the fourth amendment is incorrect, that is exactly what isn't supposed to happen. I think that instead of a warrant being obtained from what the drug hound found, a warrant should be necessary to use a drug-sniffing dog around a personal home because what is determined by the dog is an invasion of the activities and contents or a private place which takes away the people's right of security.

1/10/2012
Irving Texas
Jocelyn Erickson
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not think that drug sniffing dogs are violating your rights. If the police didn't have a warrant and were just barging in, then that's another story. But drugs are illegal no matter where they are, and in order to keep them off the street, you have to keep them out of the houses they are produced from. The dogs are just doing their job in my eyes.

1/10/2012
Rudyard
Taylor
Mrs Campbell
The Fourth Amendment consists of the protection of the privacy of your own home. This amendment basically means that law enforcement is not allowed to just barge into your household without a warrant or a probably cause. However, lately, law enforcement relies highly on the help of dogs. On the Miami-Dade police force, with a help from their trustee dogs, they have seized 2.5 tons of marijuana 80 pounds of cocaine and $4.9 million in drug money. Although these dogs are helping seize unjust criminal actions, many people and States are having a riot over these helpful dogs. They believe this is violating the 4th Amendment; however, technically it isn’t. You can not consider a car and luggage to the privacy of your home. These dogs are protecting our society and causing more help then trouble.

1/10/2012
Irving/ Texas
Ashley Lenart
Bradley/Nimitz
The Fourth Amendment protects your house and belongings from being searched without a probable cause. In my opinion, drug dogs are just doing their jobs, and keeping citizens safe from substances that were made illegal in the first place; therefore, Franky is not violating your fourth amendment right when he detects that you are in possession. If you don't want to be suspected of holding illegal substances or risk being searched, then you shouldn't have drugs in the first place. If you choose to do or sell drugs you're making a personal decision that you should know you can get in trouble for. I do think that drug dogs are an essential law enforcement tool that police should be able to use. Without police dogs, we probably wouldn't catch near as many people who are breaking the laws. This wouldn't necessarily hurt the economy, but it would hurt the people that kept using the drugs.

1/10/2012
Irving/TX
Carly T
Bradley/Nimitz
A home might be a private place, but it is still a place built on American soil, and therefore, under American law. Drugs are illegal in America and therefore, having drugs in a home makes it a crime scene. If a person wants to keep their rights given the American government, they have to follow the laws. Otherwise, that person becomes like a child wanting play time in exchange for disobeying. If these drug dogs were leading police into homes that had nothing to hide, there might be a little more reason for indignation on the homeowner's part, but its obvious there is legitimacy to the canine cop approach, when one dog can lead to the “seizure of 2.5 tons of marijuana, 80 pounds of cocaine, and 4.9 million dollars in drug money.” A dog with a nose for drugs' hunch is just as good as a warrant, when the results are as undeniable as the ones above. The drug trade endangers American life, with its negative effects from use and dealing, and when someone, and if a person is willing to get involved in it, they are a threat to the public. This takes away the privacy provided by their home. And funny enough, most people who have nothing to hide are not protesting the drug dog searches in the homes.

1/9/2012
Montgomery ,Tx
Brenda
Metzger/Montgomery High School
I believe that dog drugs should be able to sniff anywhere in public places, such as school and airports because police is just there to help keep places safe. If a dog showed up at a house to smell for a probable cause, they would most likely already have a cause for being there to search for illegal things. I do not believe it is violating our fourth amendment right

1/9/2012
Rudyard, MT
Shelby L.
Mrs. Campbell
When people are participating in illegal habit that can affect others around them then a dug dog should be alright to use. If Franky was able to smell the marijuana outside of the house then I’m guessing the neighbors could also smell it. Once it starts to be a hazard for other people the right to your privacy goes away. Drug dogs are now a huge part of law enforcement and can accomplish things that humans cannot. The people that are against drug dogs being used are only against it because they are probably the ones that are doing the illegal acts.

1/9/2012
Irving/Tx
Marvin G.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
This is very ironic. Is it illegal, to catch someone doing something illegally? Really, it's truly controversial. If this we're a math problem, both would cancel out and the end response would be yes, it is illegal. It's absolutely fine if it's in the airport. The drug sniffing dogs have the right to do their job there, even at schools, but to attack someones home after you have punched out from work and are just going on a jog with your dog is illegal. In my opinion anyways. "Home" represents a sanctuary to most people. It's their escape from the world, and it's theirs. Period. It's their house. their front door. They can do what ever they want in there unless the government thinks there's something going on and have evidence to prove it then they can be searched. But the airport isn't anyone's property, the school's aren't owned by any certain individual. You have no 4th amendment in these places to save you. But in your house you do. Or you should anyways. To close off my comment, dogs are just doing their jobs and they are a great tool for police officers everywhere. On the job, they are police dogs and should be treated like so. At the same time though, they can not and should not, be used to take away someones rights.

1/9/2012
Irving/TX
Taylor G
Bradley/ Nimitz
Drug sniffing dogs do violate Fourth Amendment rights. The dogs are trained by specialist to detect oders. The dogs are not wrong often and do promote a probably cause to search a building. The main problem with dogs searching by the police is questionable though. Why would police have a dog searching a neighborhood or house without any leads or suspicious activity in the area? In a high crime area I would suspect that, if an officer that happens to be with a dog and the dog has to be used, it would be reasonable that if the dog sniffed something out would lead to probable cause, however; dogs with officers on duty would be attack dogs and not specifically trained to detect drugs. These dogs are found at airports and on specific locations where they have been called in to detect drugs in a public place. A drug dog should, like all police searches, have probably cause or warrant to search a citizen's property.

1/9/2012
Irving, TX
Allison
Bradley/Nimitz
Using a police dog's detections to initiate a drugs bust within a home does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If police officers are able to rely on second-hand information or their own observations to obtain a warrant to search a home suspected of harboring drugs or drug dealers, then why couldn't they use a reliable and effective source of information to successfully catch criminals, even if this source happens to be a canine? The Fourth Amendment protects against searches and seizures that are “unreasonable,” but using information from a dog that has helped seize 2.5 tons of marijuana and 80 pounds of cocaine does not make a warrant unreasonable or the use of it unconstitutional. If the police can use drug dogs to perform its duties more successfully, then the Fourth Amendment isn't stopping them.

1/9/2012
Irving/Tx
Itzel
Bradley
Regardless of what something may be, if it is illegal, it's illegal- end of story. The abuse of drug use has become a larger problem as our generations keep getting out of hand. Personally, i don't understand the use of it. If it's illegal, then it shouldn't have to be a problem. Unfortunately, it is. In order to prevent a broader distribution and consumption of the drugs, the forces have to take action. One of the ways is by using the famous drug sniffing dog. For those whom think these keen dogs violate the Fourth Amendment in any way, I strongly disagree. On the contrary, they are doing their job and actually helping our society and our surroundings as well. When people are under the influence of the drugs no one knows what could happen, because they aren't in their right state of mind. I believe the drug sniffing dogs serve as a profuse help to the police men and help drastically towards catching illegal doings. In no way are they violating any homes or privacy, because if it is illegal, it shouldn't be done in the first place.

1/8/2012
montgomery/TX
alex
Metzger/montgomery
i believe that this is not a violation of your fourth amendment rights because if the trained dog smells drugs that means you might have them so the cops should at least check the cops still have to get a warrant and if u are doing nothing wrong then you shouldnt complain because you arent going to get in trouble.

1/8/2012
Montgomery/Tx
Melissa S
Mr. Metzger/Montgomery High School
No, I don't believe it is violating your Fourth Amendment rights. If you are involved in any illegal acts, you shouldn't have the privilege of privacy.

1/7/2012
Irving, Tx
Adam
Bradley, Nimitz High School
Drug sniffing dogs do not violate the fourth amendment. Law enforcement is allowed to attain a warrant at the viable suspicion that illegal activities are taking place with in the residence. If officers are able to get a warrant by tips from neighbors and from suspect behavior then the trained nose of a drug dog should be an allowed source of information. The home is a private dwelling and should have more protection from search and seizure then airport luggage and such, but in my opinion, if you aren't hiding anything then why should it be a controversy that the police entered your home?

1/6/2012
Montgomery/TX
Alexis
Metzger/Montgomery
I believe that drug-sniffing dogs do not violate your Fourth Amendment rights. They are not invading your space by their ability to smell drugs. If you're breaking the law, but in your home and no one is illegaly watching you or actaully in your house, then you're not being violated. It was your choice to break the law, and you should have known that there are resources out there that can catch you. You are responsible for your own actions, and you should pay the consequences. The drug dog was just doing it's job, and it was able to smell marijuana outside the house. Most places that it caught people doing illegal things were in public anyways. Your home is not being invaded if a dog is able to catch a wiff of an illegal substance in your house while the dog is oustide of your house.

1/6/2012
Montgomery, Tx
Courtney Bowers
Montgomery High School/Metzger
If you are violating the law then the drug dogs will seem a problem to you. I see a problem if they are bringing the dogs into people's houses when they call the police and they have no evidence of having them. If the police have evidence from other source or other violations from that person, than I can see the dogs being used. If they come to the house for like loud noise disturbances then there shouldn't really need a dog.

1/6/2012
Irving, Tx
Areli M.
Bradley, Nimitz High School
I honestly don't believe that drug-sniffing dogs violate any amendment at all. I agree that they are a valuable tool in helping us catch perps within our nation and communities. They aid in the catching of criminals that can influence the younger generation to carry on dangerous tasks. Probable cause is extremely important, yes, so I don't believe that it compromises the privacy of anyone's home. If it's illegal, why do people do it? They WILL get caught eventually and it's not like they are busting through anyone's door, just sniffing around.

1/6/2012
Montgomery/Texas
Jennifer
Metzger/Montgomery
Considering that in the fourth amendment the Bill of Rights guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause..It is my opinnon that the drug sniffing dogs do violate a persons rights. Unless a police officer has evidence that the person has anything illegal in their house hold they should not be able to just barge in and go through all of your things because of something a dog sniff's out.. Being said that, even though dogs are trained to sniff out illegal drugs I also do not think that probable cause should be able to come from a dog. The police should have to look more into the investigation and come up with evidence on there own first, then use the dogs for further more actions.

1/5/2012
Montgomery, TX
Dawn E.
Montgomery High School
I believe that in most cases, many people would agree with using "Franky" to find illegal substances, but there should be restrictions. Yes it is helpful for finding illegal substances in private homes, but they are PRIVATE homes. If the police are allowed to use a dog to say it is probable cause to search your home, where will they stop? There are many laws and restrictions that are invading the privacy of people's homes where they are supposed to have the most privacy. It's understandable to use "Franky" in a pubic place such as an airport or a park where it is a PUBLIC place, not a PRIVATE residence. The fourth amandment, 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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, is clearly being violated in my opinion.

1/5/2012
montgomery tx
Ricardo
Montgomery High School
I agree that police should use dogs that are trained to sniff your car, or your house. If cops suspect that a person has drugs people shouldn't have to worry about anything if they don't have anything illegal.

Related News
Related Resources
Share