The recent Supreme Court decision allowing drug sniffing dogs to be used for finding illegal drugs during routine traffic stops is a refreshing breath of fresh air in an era of “soft”, criminal-friendly decisions by the same court. One is almost tempted to hope that they have had a sea-change in their philosophy in the wake of the recent presidential election. The “red state” tidal wave makes it clear that most Americans are in no mood for nonsense when it come to crime and criminals. The court couldn’t have avoided noticing that.
The decision basically says Americans have no “right” of privacy to violate the law. If you buy a dime bag, you have already committed a crime by that very act. The crime occurred when you got the drugs, not when the police caught you during a traffic stop. And law enforcement is not engaging in an unreasonable search when they let their dogs sniff your car. Police dogs, as law enforcement officers, have the right to “observe” you. They do that by sniffing.
Of course, not every action of law enforcement is reasonable. Nobody would approve of letting law enforcement officers wrestle you to the ground, strap a rubber hose around your arm, and draw a syringe of blood while you are strolling peacefully through the public park, even though that activity might catch a few drug users. That would be an invasion of your privacy –to say the least. However, this decision was limited to traffic stops only. It should have been taken further. For example, if while walking their dog through the parking lot at Wal-Mart, the dog signals you have illegal drugs, --you’re busted! Why couldn’t that be justified as follows: An “officer” of the law, using his specialized powers of observation, had reasonable cause to suspect a crime had been committed? In other words, the dog smelled your drugs. Wouldn’t the same officer be within his rights as a law enforcement agent if he visually observed something illegal in your car? Why not if his dog, -also a law enforcement officer, “observed” the same thing.
If you don’t want to be subject to such, don’t buy illegal drugs, --and if you do, don’t take them to Wal-Mart or anywhere else with you. You might get stopped for a broken tail light. If you do, you have nobody to blame except yourself when you get caught with the drugs.
The Supreme Court has said so.
3 comments:
...and you got it right too...They could have included the "probable cause" based on a trained police drug sniffing dog, bomb sniffing dog included in that thought process, on other than "traffic stops". I think it would be wonderful if the public knew that such "trained" enforcement tools were out just walking around on patrol for the bad guys, to include terrorists living amoung us.
RSS Announcer instantly and automatically submits your RSS feeds
Hi, I was searching the net for Increased search engine traffic stuff and came across your Increased search engine traffic blog. Pretty neat. If you have some time
please take a look at my Increased search engine traffic website at Increased search engine traffic Thanks for the
interesting read.
Post a Comment