Heads up on a SC decision

[nietzsche]

Thought some of you might wanna know about this for whatever reason or something.....i'm not implying anything.....

ILLINOIS v. CABALLES, No. 03-923
CABALLES. In a 6-2 decision by Justice Stevens, the Court concluded that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop did not violated the Fourth Amendment. According to the Court, no "articulable suspicion" was necessary to authorize the dog sniff -- rather, the driver had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the smells emanating from the trunk of his car. Justices Ginsburg and Souter dissented and the Chief did not participate.

[empath]

that's awesome.

I love america.

[LibertyinmyLife]

The justices have an interesting view on privacy, it seems. I find it difficult to believe that things in my car that only dogs can smell are now public domain. The way they take rights away from us when we enter a vehicle is upsetting.

[nietzsche]

you're kidding right? orange text? I'm not even sure I wholly agree with the opinion.

[nietzsche]

that was to empath.

[empath]

of course, I think it's stupid.

I don't really care though because i'm not carrying around weed in my trunk, but it's just one more thing.

I mean, when you've got an administration that believes the president has the absolute authority to arrest, detain and torture anyone, anywhere, without evidence or a trial, this seems kind of small, doesn't it?

[nietzsche]

The justices have an interesting view on privacy, it seems. I find it difficult to believe that things in my car that only dogs can smell are now public domain. The way they take rights away from us when we enter a vehicle is upsetting.

right. it's not like dogs are just there for some other purpose. they employ the use of dogs for that reason. Can they then train some other animal with a more acute sense of smell to detect odors from miles away? where's the slippery slope on this?

a few years ago they struck down the use of heat detecting imagery to find people who were growing pot in their house. but why? because it was a machine and not an animal? seems like odd reasoning to me.

[Shakey]

A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E. P.O.W.E.R. That's what america thinks it is right now.It sickens me.

[Light Touch]

Yeah, I'm with you, Brian -- slippery slope.

[zartan]

right. it's not like dogs are just there for some other purpose. they employ the use of dogs for that reason. Can they then train some other animal with a more acute sense of smell to detect odors from miles away? where's the slippery slope on this?

and the fact is that dogs are fallible especially since police officers can "interpret" their reactions any way they want. i saw a report a few months ago about the shoddy training of many police dogs. and you know that the dogs are going to come out more often for the black guy driving home from work in south central than the rich kid with coke in his glove compartment.

[Light Touch]

and you know that the dogs are going to come out more often for the black guy driving home from work in south central than the rich kid with coke in his glove compartment.

Of course: dogs are racist.

Not sure I get where you're going with this...IMHO, it undermines your valid point about poorly trained dogs.

[zartan]

um, the dogs don't decide when to get out of the police car. the officer does. get my point?

[Skandar]

Dogs see in black and white. Not that that necessarily implies anything, just sayin.

[Light Touch]

um, the dogs don't decide when to get out of the police car. the officer does. get my point?

Ah, alright. I thought you were hating on dogs. :wink:

[gabriel]

slippery slope my ass. we've fallen...can we get up?