joeroket
Regular Member
While I'm being "Mr. Smarty Pants" I'd like to point out that Freud said no such thing as what you have in your signature.
You're wrong about a dog alerting in a parking lot, because that pesky fourth amendment requires a warrant. Under Illinois v. Caballes, it was decided that a dog's sniff does not constitute a search and thus does not require reasonable, articulable suspicion to do during a legitimate traffic stop. The question of a dog randomly searching the parking lot, then requiring opening a trunk, is of a different nature. Moreover, the court did not address the actual search portion of the sniff-test. That is, while use of a dog may not constitute a search, the violation of privacy of what is held in the non-public areas of a vehicle most certainly does constitute a search. To uphold that under the fourth amendment requires a warrant under any reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment. That warrant can be obtained using the dog's alert, with the affirmation of an officer that the dog did alert and what the dog alerted upon.
Important to this discussion, as well, is the protections afforded by the WA state constitution that go beyond the federal in some means. Under Article 1 Section 7, it reads "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." This is critical, because even with ****-poor decisions like Illinois v. Caballes (or Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz), our state provides greater protection for the individual, as it does not allow merely "reasonable" searches. Direct authority of law must exist to violate your private affairs. In the case of a dog, this comes back to the "get a warrant, or go away" standard.
I couldn't care less if he actually said it or not. I like the phrase and that;s all that matters. I removed his name from it. I was not aware as that is the first time I have seen that specific article.
Listen, I am not disagreeing that the decisions that have been made by appellate courts are crap. I don't think a dog sniff should provide probable cause for a search, but they do. The fact of the matter is that they did make them and they will be relied upon as case law. Illinois v. Caballes agrees with me in the fact that the search did not violate the subjects 4th. However this case deals strictly with the use of a dog during a lawful traffic stop. The cases I posted specifically deal with dog sniffs in a school parking lot, not just any parking lot, and that the subsequent searches of the car were lawful.