|
 I am not sure it is that broad. And, courts have looked at dog error rates a little. New
- Forum: BoaterTalk
Re:  Heads up all you rasta boaters on the Gauley zboat New
Re:  Nothing new. FS has been targeting drugs on the river for a while. curtis_elwood New
Re: Doesn't that fall under profiling and illegal searches? Yall_Watch_This New
Re: "enhanced senses" DonVitoCorleone New
Re: I can't accept that justification. Yall_Watch_This New
Re: doesn't matter whether "you can accept it", Supreme Court DOES accept it DonVitoCorleone New
Re: Well, if it's illogical, any defense lawyer worth his salt will get under it. Yall_Watch_This New
Re: plenty of laws that are illogical, doesn't mean you can fight them DonVitoCorleone New
Re:  DUDE, even worse... Yall_Watch_This New
Re: why are you bringing up reasonable suspicion DonVitoCorleone New
Re: Ok, I'm gonna try one more time, then I'm gonna let it drop, because you're evidently pretty damn hard headed Yall_Watch_This New
Re: last try for me too DonVitoCorleone New
Date: Oct 06 2008, 21:44 GMT
From: parknsurf
 |
|
 |
|
The more recent leading authority on dog sniffs, I believe, is Illinois v. Caballes, which can be read here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-923
I read Caballes to fully reaffirm the proposition from Place that a dog sniff is not a search. But, the non-search dog sniff is only characterized as permissible in the context of a legitimate traffic stop. The Court seems to draw the line there and does not decide the issue of whether pedestrian or parking lot random sniffs would result in admissible evidence. Of course, Ginsburg notes that the leap is hardly great in the wake of the majority's opinion. And, I would bet that there are state and circuit opinions that have made that leap since Caballes, but I don't think the Supremes have decided the issue yet.
I think the argument against random parking lot sniffs finds some support in Indianapolis v. Edmonds, which found blanket dog sniffs at traffic checkpoints set up to detect drugs to be unconstitutional searches. That opinion, if anyone is interested, can be found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=531&invol=32&pageno=41
Souter's dissent in Caballes also provides some good citation to cases noting the error rates of drug dogs (in about the fourth paragraph of his opinion). Some really interesting stuff in those opinions, although the majority in Caballes dismissed that portion of the defendant's argument - seemingly on a poorly developed record.
I will agree with you on one point for sure (not that I was disagreeing above) - it is pretty hard to argue about a dog's lack of training or error rate when your client was correctly found to have a bunch of drugs!! |
|
 |
|
 |
- Dat be what I was thinkin' <NT> Yall_Watch_This New
- Caballes affirms Place, Edmunds is a different situation DonVitoCorleone New
-
- Well, the Supremes haven't decided the issue, so I will continue to argue violation until they do. parknsurf New
-
 fair nuff - good analysis DonVitoCorleone New -
- And, if this election goes bad we could see the final nails put in the 4th. Scary. <NT> parknsurf New
|
BoaterTalk 
