Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/27/08 05:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

The fact that smells in air aren't private is because other PEOPLE can smell them. The concept does not extend to fucking animals.

Show me legal documentation that says that. Then you could sue the entire legal system for use of drug sniffers.

Then I guess we shouldn't be issuing tests to those who have the smell of alcohol on their breath.

At 4/27/08 05:54 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/27/08 05:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

The fact that smells in air aren't private is because other PEOPLE can smell them. The concept does not extend to fucking animals.

Show me legal documentation that says that. Then you could sue the entire legal system for use of drug sniffers.

"we the people."

not "we the dogs, cats, and birds."

First off, this case is in Canada, not the US. Second, police dogs are given special legal status. In some states the punishment for killing a police dog can be 10 years imprisonment or more.

Man kills K-9 and faces life in prison.

Obviously the law recognizes these animals as members of the law enforcement community. So why should their nose be treated differently?

At 4/27/08 07:25 PM, JoS wrote: First off, this case is in Canada, not the US. Second, police dogs are given special legal status. In some states the punishment for killing a police dog can be 10 years imprisonment or more.

Man kills K-9 and faces life in prison.

Obviously the law recognizes these animals as members of the law enforcement community. So why should their nose be treated differently?

Because your supreme court screwed up, just as ours is prone to doing. Just think of this as a Plessy v. Fergusen and expect the Brown v. Board of Education to come along as soon as someone from Al Quadia tries to use this case to argue that the bomb detection equipment at the airport violated his rights.

I know some of you are arguing that transportation security measures differ but you voluntarily bring any illegal items you might carry into those facilities with the understanding they may be searched just as children voluntarily carry illegal items into the school where the facility should have the right to search them. The Canadian Supreme Court just flat out fucked up on this case.

At 4/27/08 06:40 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/27/08 05:54 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 4/27/08 05:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

The fact that smells in air aren't private is because other PEOPLE can smell them. The concept does not extend to fucking animals.

Show me legal documentation that says that. Then you could sue the entire legal system for use of drug sniffers.

"we the people."

not "we the dogs, cats, and birds."

Going straight for the only answer availiable that specifically meantions species but dosen't require effort? Ok, I'll play. First of all if you had completed the sentence, which legal historians are kind of insistant on, you'd see the line is "We the people hold these truths to be self evident." So really the only context is that it's the humans who made the laws and says nothing negating the functions of other species within it. Don't even get me started on the bear arms.

At 4/27/08 08:23 PM, stafffighter wrote:
Going straight for the only answer availiable that specifically meantions species but dosen't require effort? Ok, I'll play. First of all if you had completed the sentence, which legal historians are kind of insistant on, you'd see the line is "We the people hold these truths to be self evident." So really the only context is that it's the humans who made the laws and says nothing negating the functions of other species within it. Don't even get me started on the bear arms.

I know.

But where does it say anything about animal rights to privacy. I mean there are abuse laws, but I don't see how a dog smelling something makes it public territory. As dog kind =/= the general public.

At 4/27/08 08:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
I know.

But where does it say anything about animal rights to privacy. I mean there are abuse laws, but I don't see how a dog smelling something makes it public territory. As dog kind =/= the general public.

These dogs aren't the general public. They're trained law enforcment officals. They're trained to in certain situations go for certain smells. If all you had to do to protect your bomb or your heroin from police dogs was distract them with a bone the program wouldn't have lasted this long.

I'm the kind of person who feels the stricter the anti-drug laws, the better. I'm terrible with habbits, and many habits i have started i have never been able to break. I just hate habits, and i hate drugs.

At 4/27/08 08:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But where does it say anything about animal rights to privacy. I mean there are abuse laws, but I don't see how a dog smelling something makes it public territory. As dog kind =/= the general public.

We aren't arguing the animals rigth to privacy, we are arguing that the air is public and therefore you have no right to privacy for the odors coming from your bag, whether it is an animal or human that smells them. The SC ruled that police dogs smelling the air constitute a search of your bag and violation of your privacy and right to be protected from unresonable search.

At 4/27/08 08:57 PM, JoS wrote:

whether it is an animal or human that smells them. The SC ruled that police dogs smelling the air constitute a search of your bag and violation of your privacy and right to be protected from unresonable search.

But if the animal wasn't there they wouldn't be able to smell it. So I agree with SC.

At 4/27/08 08:57 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/27/08 08:30 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

We aren't arguing the animals rigth to privacy, we are arguing that the air is public and therefore you have no right to privacy for the odors coming from your bag, whether it is an animal or human that smells them. The SC ruled that police dogs smelling the air constitute a search of your bag and violation of your privacy and right to be protected from unresonable search.

This kinda sets up a dangerous precedent doesn't it.

Say, the smell of alchohol from an open car, or on clothes or from someone's breath can give basis to a DUI charge.

Or what about bomb components. Say someone has an amoniam-nitrate based bomb in one of thier bags and a bomb sniffing dog comes by, would that also be unreasonable search and siezure.

It just seems to set up to many dangerous precedents.

At 4/27/08 09:24 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/27/08 08:57 PM, JoS wrote:

whether it is an animal or human that smells them. The SC ruled that police dogs smelling the air constitute a search of your bag and violation of your privacy and right to be protected from unresonable search.

But if the animal wasn't there they wouldn't be able to smell it. So I agree with SC.

Does walking a dog through a bus terminal though constitute a search. If an officer walks by you and smells wed he can search you, why doesnt the same hold rue for K-9s?

At 4/27/08 03:38 PM, JoS wrote: As for the second case, the guy in the bus terminal, he is totally fair game. If the police walk by and smell pot they have grounds to search his bag, they aren't sticking their nose in his bag, they smell it in the air around him, just like a K-9 smells the drugs in the air.

I see what you're saying, that it's almost exactly the same as a human officer noticing one thing or another with their senses that alerts them to an illegal activity.

Would a problem arise though, if the dog nozzled a person's purse or bag, prompted a search that subsequently yielded nothing? How far should cops be allowed to act on the suspicions of the dog, a simple search which could yield an illegal substance, or the detainment of all people within the area the dog had a "hit"?

Can we have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the smells coming out of our bags into public air.

Nope, just because the dog can smell better than a person, doesn't mean they can't walk a beat like any other street cop. I'm trying to think of an unreasonable search when a drugdog 'hits' a substance, and the only I could think would be the subjection of multiple individuals to a search when the dog doesn't 'hit' on their person specifically.

Could a citizen instruct the officer to "keep the dog away from me" at all?

When a dector dog picks up a scent he or she can narrow in on the source of the smell, walking to find where the odor is strongest, brining it to the bag, locker etc which contains the substance. So its not like it limits it down to a room, or a few people, the dog will find the source. And I guess you could say keep the dog away from me, but there is no reason the officer has to obey that. As long as the dog doesn't touch you it hasn't invaded your space, just like I can walk behind you all I want, even if you tell me not to.

You know the only people that should be worried about a dog sniffing around for drugs, bombs, ext. are those who have those things in their bags, so if you don't have the stuff you have nothing to worried about.

At 4/27/08 09:46 PM, JoS wrote:
Does walking a dog through a bus terminal though constitute a search. If an officer walks by you and smells wed he can search you, why doesnt the same hold rue for K-9s?

Because we aren't dogs. Is the dog the one that is going to arrest me.

At 4/28/08 10:24 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/27/08 09:46 PM, JoS wrote:
Does walking a dog through a bus terminal though constitute a search. If an officer walks by you and smells wed he can search you, why doesnt the same hold rue for K-9s?

Because we aren't dogs. Is the dog the one that is going to arrest me.

A radar detector doesn't write you a ticket but it's still allowed to accuse you of speeding.

Once again the Canadian Supreme Court made a dumb ass decision which will probably end up as a very bad precedent.

At 4/28/08 12:44 PM, BeFell wrote:
Once again the Canadian Supreme Court made a dumb ass decision which will probably end up as a very bad precedent.

ANYONE can see a speeding car. Radar just measures it.

This is like if police had a detecting system to tell if you had car insurance or not. Because with a human sense, it cannot be seen/detected.

At 4/28/08 04:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/28/08 12:44 PM, BeFell wrote:
Once again the Canadian Supreme Court made a dumb ass decision which will probably end up as a very bad precedent.

ANYONE can see a speeding car. Radar just measures it.

This is like if police had a detecting system to tell if you had car insurance or not. Because with a human sense, it cannot be seen/detected.

Bullshit, a human being may be able to detect excessive speeding but not a difference of 5 to 10 miles per hour. You're also ignoring the fact radar is used to Detect as well as measure speeding. Although probably not much longer in Canada if this ruling has the legs the SC appears to have granted it.

You're also ignoring other means of automatic detection such as cameras at stop signs.

People are really arguing whether ODORS can be considered property available for ownership?

Good Christ the system goes too far sometimes.....

It's gonna be a sad day when I get sued for having BO that's a copyrighted odor.

At 4/28/08 05:04 PM, BeFell wrote:
You're also ignoring other means of automatic detection such as cameras at stop signs.

Well there you go more rights gone away. The difference is that these are actions taken at that moment, at that intersection etc. Whereas a smell could be from a previous thing.

At 4/28/08 06:05 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/28/08 05:04 PM, BeFell wrote:
You're also ignoring other means of automatic detection such as cameras at stop signs.

Well there you go more rights gone away. The difference is that these are actions taken at that moment, at that intersection etc. Whereas a smell could be from a previous thing.

No, the smell comes from you, at the moment, being in possession of a legal substance. It isn't a passive thing, being in possession of something is an action akin to an action.

At 4/28/08 06:05 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Whereas a smell could be from a previous thing.

You underestimate how well trained these dogs are.

At 4/28/08 06:09 PM, BeFell wrote:

No, the smell comes from you, at the moment, being in possession of a legal substance. It isn't a passive thing, being in possession of something is an action akin to an action.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isen't the crime indeed called possession?

If they smell you it means you have had drugs recently, but a hand search would turn up that you no longer have them. However for the dog to pick it up either you had a massive quantity or it was until very recently you had it.

At 4/28/08 08:32 PM, JoS wrote: However for the dog to pick it up either you had a massive quantity or it was until very recently you had it.

Yeah haha now that you mentioned it I was at the airport once and I reeked, didn't have anything on me. The dog just walked by.

I think the fact that they detained the students when they brought the dogs in makes this one a clear-cut case of an unreasonable search.

At 4/28/08 11:57 PM, Elfer wrote: I think the fact that they detained the students when they brought the dogs in makes this one a clear-cut case of an unreasonable search.

Or maybe it's the fact that you admit to using drugs and live in Canada.

The school was just one of the two cases, the other was a bus station. While I would probably agree putting all the kids bags in the gym is unreasonable walking a dog through the halls during class or something is not. The same goes for the bus station.