EricDaRed81

iTrader: (10)

If your stupid enough to carry drugs in your car or any other illegal substance I'm glad they would use dogs to catch it.

If your against this then are you also against the terrorist watch list for airlines. Isn't that the biggest form of profiling ever?

SilverScoober02

Oh please. That is a pretty weak argument. The difference between myself profiling his name for sake of argument and the law doing it to incarcerate him is that he loses his freedom whereas I cause him no harm. I admit I speculated on his ethnicity. Sorry if I offended anyone....

While I don't condone the traffiking of illegal substances, I do think that this is going to set a precedence for other searches, and that is what I am most worried about. The issue isn't so much as the use of the dog to sniff for drugs as whether the officer deliberately extended the traffic stop that was legitimate at the beginning into a detention for the sole purpose of having a drug dog sniff for drugs. There is law stating that once the officer has finished with the purpose of the stop that he/her has to let said individual go on their way. My problem with this is that he was going to let the guy go and then another officer came by with the drug dog and began sniffing around. I don't believe that to be a legal search.

I didn't quote majority opinion because I don't believe it to be right. That's what your here for. And just because they ruled on it doesn't mean that in 5 or 10 years they won't revisit it in a different, but similar case and turn in a different ruling. I seem to remember a few from my history classes....

Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

or

Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

So just because they ruled doesn't make it set in stone.

*crosses fingers and hopes for some good justices to get nominated some day*

subaruguru

Man, you must've really gone to a good high school. Not only did you learn about some neat laws, you learned them so well that you know enough to dismiss any possible credibility 6 supreme court justices might have.

Seriously though: People need to understand one crucial thing, and that is that the constitution does not enact whatever protections we might like. That said, the idea that somehow there's a right to keep a car on a public highway free from any sort of police inspection is ridiculous. Would you be against the police in washington, DC, having sniffing dogs to check for bombs? And if a bomb sniffing dog happened to alert on a random car, should it be illegal to search that car?

Seems to me the only way to say no to the drug search, and yes to the bomb search, is to assume that selling drugs has some kind of protection that carrying bombs does not. Does that sound like good law to you?