Previous   Next

Do you think it is OK to use drug dogs when there is no suspicion that the law has been broken?

Asked at Henry's, 11 E. Eighth St. on January 25, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Carolina McKee

“No I do not. I think that’s a bunch of baloney. I think it’s pretty much self-explanatory why that is unconstitutional. People have their right to privacy.”

Photo of Michael Hansen

“No. I think by using drug dogs they are insinuating someone is breaking the law. It sends the message that you are already guilty of something.”

Photo of Manny Manzani

“No, of course not. It goes against one of the original concepts in the development of this country. I think the Founding Fathers faced a lot of those violations from the king. That action leads toward a police state.”

Photo of Cheri Kliewer

“I would say no in a general sense, but when it comes to a drug-free environment such as a school, you have basically waived that right and have to play by the rules.”


tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

Just wait until W gets done with his next 4 years folks. The rights of the people he will take away will make this look like a cake walk.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

I'm all for it in schools. But out in the general public places I don't think its right.

jonas 13 years, 4 months ago

Thanks, Liberty, though now that I look over it again I notice that what I meant to say in the first sentence was "It won't happen all at once, but a step at a time. . . etc."

Larry 13 years, 4 months ago

In the privacy of one's home, absolutely not. In a public place, such as the mall parking lot, public schools, park - yes. Especially schools! Walking a dog up the hall way once or twice a week or several times a month is not a violation of my kids right. In fact, I welcome the police and their attempt to rid our schools of drugs. The administrators have a right to keep the school drug free. If the students don't have any drugs, the dog won't stop at his/her locker door. End of story! Same goes for city parks where the exchange of drugs can easily occur. I have no problem with the police coming by my car with a dog. (unless of course the dog pees on my wheels). Then, (whamo - we got a problem Houston) If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. I would say NO to simply searching car after car. BUT, if the dogs are simply walking through a parking lot, then point towards a vehicle, then I say - search the thing.

Kelly 13 years, 4 months ago

This question is from the Supreme Court decision that was decided yesterday, Illinois v Caballes. I do not think it is ok to use drug dogs when there is no suspicion that the law has been broken. Caballes' rights were violated.

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

The Holding:

Held: A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

7-2 bang.

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

W is on the Supreme Court!? When did this happen!?

mrcairo 13 years, 4 months ago

Who sniffs the police cars? Who sniffs the police dogs? Who sniffs the sheriffs and judges?

Something smells. And I don't like it.

If a dog produces a false positive, then you get hauled to jail, your car impounded, and you have to prove innocence. Proving innocence goes against the grain here folks....

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the outside of their car. Period. 7-2 ruling, not very controversial.

Lulu 13 years, 4 months ago

It is a violation of the dogs' rights to be forced into a job they have no say in having.

topflights 13 years, 4 months ago

Well like usual, a typical Liberal Lawrence attitude when it comes to helping any Law Enforcement Officer. Like said before, if you got nothing to hide, then who cares if a dog sniffs your car. And if you do have something to hide, like marijuana, heroin, meth, YES, THAT STUFF IS STILL ILLEGAL IN THE LEBERAL TOWN OF LAWRENCE, ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL. And i am sorry, your right to privacy does not make it legal to transport illegal drugs. Nor does it make it legal to kill someone. i think it is real funny how everyone wants to rid the school of drugs and you all say YEAH YEAH. But how do the drugs get to that school. Well first off, they got to get to the state of kansas. And how does that happen, i a car. Then the stuff has to be delivered into lawrence and how does that happen, in a car. Then the stuff has to get to the school and i am sure it just does not magically appear in a locker. Yes, marijuana is grown all over, but a majority is shipped into the city. So i am sure that you would have no problem with Joe Marijuana sitting on the street corner in his car passing out little baggies of marijuana to the school kids as the walk by, because he is in his car and it is his car and he has the right to privacy. Next thing you will all want to do is say that the police cannot bust an illegal grow of marijuana in someones basement. Sorry foks, when the dog hits, may as will give it up.
Also, someone refresh me on the rights of dogs in america, i did not realize that there was such a bill written. HOw many amendments do they have. These dogs have it better than any of your stupid house pets. They love to sniff for drugs, it is just like a hunting dog that loves to hunt. Someone, please briliantly respond. Are You all scared cause you have drugs in your car.

craigers 13 years, 4 months ago

Larry, it has been awhile since I have seen one of your posts on here, but maybe I just missed the days you posted. However, for the question I think it is perfectly fine to use drug dogs even if there is no suspicion. I also don't think the cops will go by random houses and smell around, but usually when "sniff test" occurs, it means there is some suspicion.

Liberty 13 years, 4 months ago

According to the good captain, "Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the outside of their car. Period. 7-2 ruling, not very controversial". Therefore the police can expect to be monitored on video tape by the public with cameras on and off duty in all public places. That would mean that when they are at the bar sitting beside another woman, this would be acceptable to send to their wife since they have no expectation of privacy in public places. What is good for the goose is good for the gander...

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

That's fine liberty. You can record anything you want as long as you don't use it for extortion purposes. By the way, you recording public events does not violate the constitution. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in your public comings and goings. So, you can be recorded coming out of the adult video store you frequent and as long as I don't use that video tape to extort anything from you, then you have not been "violated." I don't necessarily like it, but just like some things the Supremes have to say, you have to live with it. And, Kelly, how were his "rights" violated again?

Adam 13 years, 4 months ago

Using drug dogs is dangerous. What if the drug dogs get all hopped up on methylampehtamines and go on a biting spree? I think if the dogs have a drug problem they should go to rehab and not be out looking for more drugs.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

Hope your still laughin' when were all living in a police state captain.

donsalsbury 13 years, 4 months ago

I don't like drugs or people who sell them. I'm not a huge fan of people who use them. But I don't like the idea of drug dogs in public with no suspicion of a crime.

As the question is posted, "No Suspicion" is what sticks out at me. No suspicion = no search in my book.

jonas 13 years, 4 months ago

"If you don't have anything to hide, you won't have a problem." Ahhh. . . the battle cry of the conservative!

In my opinion, the most dangerous viewpoint of the entire conservative viewpoint. There is no end at all to how far you can stretch that.

Schools? Maybe. It can be generally understood that while in a state facility you are a ward of the state, and subject to some different guidelines. Out in public, it is a gross violation of privacy, and directly contends with the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty, which is, as much as some would like it otherwise, the lynchpin of a free society. What would the probable cause be in just walking through a park?

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

Oh, also, if the dog smells something, it just now means that they have probably cause to search your car FOR DRUGS AND NOTHING ELSE, not impound your car and haul you off to jail. This is a narrow search.

Let's not get crazy, unless you have drugs, nobody's going to jail.

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

Oh, and Liberty, only a government actor can violate your constitutional rights. quick lesson.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

captain_whatever..I didn't say he was. But he'll smash every right he can just the same.

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

Smash it to pieces, little pieces, tiny-little pieces? Smash....haha, I like it.

I'm with Adam, save the drug dogs, get them off meth.

Hey, isn't that cruelty to animals? Uh oh, topic for another time.

Lulu 13 years, 4 months ago

I totally agree with tell it like it is. You keep telling it and spread the good word. FREEDOM!!!!

Stop corporate America from spreading their greedy ways by incorporating their puppy mills into producing fear mongering dogs to intimidate the citizens of America.

Drug sniffing dogs. THIS IS AMERICA!

I don't think dogs should be the judge and jury. Even if we are a polluting breed of humans. They should judge themselves only, and humans should judge themselves only.

Dogs have rights. They are taken as little puppies and hopped up on drugs to like them. Then they yank them off the drugs, and send them into the field with brownshirts to find the thing they crave the most - drugs.

It's a fascist plot!!!! GW is their leader. Just look at how he stole the second election. Remember Ohio? Just like Florida.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

Lulu...Thank you! Is that really how they train the drug dogs? Thats pretty damn bad if so.

acg 13 years, 4 months ago

Okay, I hate the idea of drug dogs running all over town sniffing out people that previously had been suspected of no wrong doing. It's smacks to me of police state, privacy violations, etc. Actually it makes me want to puke and to me, is another example of conservative America doing its level best to get into the private lives of every citizen in this country.

Lulu, you're a dork. My bro-in-law's Uncle breeds, raises and trains K-9 officers for the Delaware State Police. I've visited his home and work area many times. No, drug dogs aren't hopped up on drugs and taught to try and sniff them out to help some sort of jones the dog is suffering from. Certain dogs have abilities to detect certain scents and the dogs that are geared towards drugs are trained to block everything but those scents out of their mind and focus on sniffing out those smells only. Are you also saying a cadaver dog is fed dead people and that's how they find cadavers? Or what about bomb sniffing dogs? You think that the authorites are feeding poor Fido some plastique explosive.

Man this blog was quiet and peaceful and then the insanity comes back in full force. We're trying to have an actual adult discussion re: civil rights and improper search and all your empty head can come up with is save the dogs? Girl, you need to go play under a traffic light for real.

remember_username 13 years, 4 months ago

Let me start by saying that I believe in a strong 4th amendment. I believe that the police cannot search my person without probable cause regardless of where I happen to be standing.

But a dog sniffing the air near my person does not violate my fourth amendment rights any more than walking through a metal detector does. If the detector goes off it means probable cause to search for weapons just as if the Dog goes off it means probable cause to search for drugs.

The key is prior information. A metal detector at the airport is clearly expected, I have the chance to protect my person from searches by not bringing a gun on the plane. A school or park similarly posted with use of sniffing dogs gives me the chance to protect my person from a search by not entering the location.

I don't feel it is right to randomly use a dog or detector without prior notice. Yes, this gives the criminal the ability to avoid detection but the idea is to protect the school or park from criminals not to capture criminals.

I don't think that's too difficult to follow.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

Hey quit picking on my gal Lulu. She is just as entitled to state her opinion as anybody else.

TheBowman 13 years, 4 months ago

Let me be very blunt about this: this is a very screwed up ruling.

Whatever happened to a little thing called 'probable cause'?

Anybody for a little refrain of "Lieder Horst Wessel"?

wichita_reader 13 years, 4 months ago

I wanted to point out that either Captain Poindexter's "7-2 bang" comment or the Supreme Court syllabus is incorrect, and I assume it's the good Captain who has erred. According to the syllabus, it was a 6-2 decision, with Justices Breyer, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joining in Justice Stevens' majority opinion, Justices Ginsberg and Souter dissenting, and Justice Rehnquist not participating. Of course, one would be hard pressed arguing that it wouldn't have been a 7-2 decision had Justice Rehnquist participated.

As far as the ultimate question is concerned, my opinion is that the prohibition on cannabis should come to an end. It should be legalized for persons of 18 or 21 years of age and regulated by the federal government. The revenue it would generate would be incredible. You know what, people are going to get high, legally or not. The government might as well take a piece of the pie. It's time for our government, liberal or conservative, to start being a little more progressive.

And about the "gateway drug" theory, what about alcohol and nicotene? Both gateway drugs, both much more prevalent than pot, which are closely regulated and taxed by the government.

BunE 13 years, 4 months ago

Having dogs do the sniff will place people in the postion of public ridicule. Just wait until one of you "who have nothing to hide" are pulled over and subjected to this "search" You will a criminal, if even for a moment. This slippery slope is just the beginning. We already have cameras checking us out. What will be next? Recruiting our kids and neighbors to rat us out for disagreeing with the state?

The State wants the ability to casually "check you out". They want to remind us that they have the power. You conservatives out there should be freaking out!!!

The answer is to decriminalize all contraband and social restrictions. Guns for all, tax them to pay for gun safety and hospitals;drugs for all, tax them to pay for addiction recovery;abortions for all, tax them for to pay for reproductive safety and health programs;hookers for all, tax 'em to pay for health care and self policing; Faith for all, tax the churches to pay for science education and stem cell research

Let the people make the choices.

tell_it_like_it_is 13 years, 4 months ago

BunE...Your so right. We talk about a police state but really I think we are already a lot of cases more than we know! I myself hate drugs and what they do to people..but I think its just one more excuse..this dog sniffing crap to get into our lives. We better wake up before its to late folks!

Jay_Z 13 years, 4 months ago

Oh my goodness...the sky is falling and all of our rights are being taken away!! Get a grip liberals. Let the dogs sniff randomly in all public places. If you ain't hiding anything, you shouldn't care.

topflights 13 years, 4 months ago

You people on this board are killing me. You act like there are just as many drug sniffing dogs as there are police officers. Do you no-it-alls realize that there is only one K-9 dog in Douglas Co. So for all of you to say that every car stopped is going to be searched is absolutley false. The officers that use the K-9's are trained in drug interdiction and are only stopping cars that they suspect of having drugs in them. So again, they are not going to be sniffing every damn car. There is also a little thing called reasonable time. An officer cannot sit on a car for 1 hour to wait for a drug dog to come sniff. Yes, there will be times when it is convenient and the dog is close, but, i am going to give the benefit of the doubt to most police officers and say that they are not going to want to sniff every car. They are going to sniff the cars that they believe illegal activity is going on in. Officers are going to have a pretty good idea of who might or might not be involved in illegal drugs. COME ON FOLKS. THESE ARE THE SAME DRUGS THAT YOUR KIDS ARE USING.


jonas 13 years, 4 months ago

Jay-Z: For some of us, the point is that if we're talking about surrenduring all of our rights, it won't happen one step at a time, and it's best to voice displeasure every step of the way, rather than just letting it build up silently. And again, the much repeated line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" should be constantly compared to this quote: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's amendment IV of the constitution, if you're paying attention.

topflights: I don't know about the rest of us, but I was simply responding to the above question, not making a comment on the particular ruling, or the applicibility to Lawrence.

By the way, Lulu isn't real. Or, if she is, she's totally insane, and shouting at her will not do any good.

Liberty 13 years, 4 months ago

Kinda makes you wonder if some of these people on this board have ever seen the Constitution or if they just enjoy a power trip??? They only seem to trust what a Supreme Court Justice says as though their decision were a law. But we know that only Congress can make law. The Supreme Court only makes judgements on the laws that Congress passes when in a court case as to whether they are Constitutional laws or Unconstitutional. If the police support what ever the Supreme Court says as though it's decision creates a law, then we have a Judicial tyranny, not a Constitutionally limited Republic. That is why we should practice "Jury Nullification" and utilize the power of a Grand Jury. "Jury Nullification" is when a Jury tries and judges whether the law is a good law and not just the person that is on trial. (The Judge does not decide in these cases, only the Jury). If the Jury finds the law is bad, they can nullify it by throwing it out. It is then no longer a law even if the Supreme Court backed Congress on it.

Great response Jonas, you're right on!

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

I'm glad everyone is paying attention to the Supreme Court.

And, yes, wichita reader guy, I was assuming that our good ole Chief Justice would have sided with the majority. I guess I can't count, oh well.

Folks, read the opinion. Probable cause questions and all your other questions are stated well in the opinion.

At least we're not talking about Brittany Spears.

captain_poindexter 13 years, 4 months ago

You know, sometimes I sit in the corner of my house and wondering if the police are listening in on me. Or, when they will start listening to me. Or, when, in the not-so-distant-future I will be walking down the street when a black helicopter swoops down and snatches me.....

uh oh, I'm freaking myself out now.

Larry 13 years, 4 months ago

Good grief Jonas.
I don't believe that one person who posted, including myself, supports search of private homes or private cars without reasonable cause. What I said is that it is okay for a dog to go through a public parking lot, not personal drive ways. AND YES - it is a great saying "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" when talking about public places. You twist everything around and cause people to get paranoid about the far right and invasion of privacy in homes.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.