|
Comments:
Laura - 2005-01-24 16:30:02 The Volokh Conspiracy, a law-oriented group blog, has a post about the case.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-24 17:00:00 Very interesting blog, Tim; thank you for the link! Excerpt from the discussion there: "The opinion today more fully reconciles the existing cases on use of technologies to detect what the human senses cannot (if you can consider Fido a technology), further cementing the idea of focusing on the nature of the information obtained rather than the way the surveillance works. ,br>"In my view, this is a potentially troubling development. The Fourth Amendment traditionally has focused on how the surveillance occurred, rather than the nature of the information obtained. Under the traditional approach, the government could not invade your property without a warrant no matter what information it wished to obtain. Under the rationale followed by the Court today, the government may be free to invade your property so long as they only obtain "non private" information." * * * * * * * * * * * * Vince Prygoski - 2005-01-24 17:10:59 And the War on Some Drugs becomes even more fascist and ridiculous. It is almost as though this is one of the last things that the government/corporate/military/police power structure feels it can repress people over and get away with it. Communism is no longer a credible threat if it ever really was, and oppression based on things like race, religion, and gender has become too politically incorrect for the most part (although this does not mean it does not still happen). That leaves "drugs" and "terrorism" as the two things that it is still OK to use as excuses to blatantly discriminate against and oppress people. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-24 19:23:46 I think this law establishes a very bad precedent of conducting a search without due cause/warrant. The police sicced the dog on the guy for no other reason that the suspected something. Well, I'm not the world's most conventional person, and it'd be all too easy for some profiling cop to sic a dog on me at a routine traffic stop. He wouldn't find anything, but I sure don't appreciate being treated that way--it's dehumanizing.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-24 19:25:15 er, I meant, thank you Tom, not Tim. Sorry for typo.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-24 19:28:19 That bit about "non private" info is a slippery slope, too. Far as I'm concerned, everything behind my door is private. I don't break laws or do drugs and I don't feel like having my private life invaded for any reason.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2005-01-25 08:51:19 The "non-private" info part of the ruling is the most dangerous, I think. As Kerr points out in the post I linked to, this gives the police a huge latitude to justify invading your home without a warrant. This goes far beyond the "war" on drugs.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-25 08:59:28 You are right Tom. I'd rather not someone else define what info is private and what is not in my very own home. This part of the ruling seems dangerous to me too.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2005-01-25 12:33:16 Don't let the dogs sniff your wallet. Turns out 80 % of US paper currency has traces of drugs on them. (off to do some money laundering)* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-25 12:36:53 Oh, how gross. Ick. Filthy stuff, money. One does wonder if the dogs can pick that up--dogs' noses are pretty darn acute. Nice little tidbit, Tom--thank you.* * * * * * * * * * * * Tuesday - 2005-01-25 15:54:05 I read that Volokh article. It focuses a lot on the fact that fourth amendment rights are forfeited because they found illegal substances. So, what happens if they run that dog through at a routine traffic stop and find nothing? Where do my rights stand then?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-01-25 16:04:27 Thoughtful question; I'd say those rights were trampled. * * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |