K-9s and "Free air" searches?

I knew that. The local PD is performing these at Section 8 hosing developments/apartments. There have been some arrests made based on search warrants obtained. All well and good. Schools, factory sites and other businesses have begun requesting free air searches of parking lots and lockers. That seems a stretch.
 
A stretch? That sounds much better than domicile searches. School grounds and factory owned locker rooms are not the property of the car or locker owner. If the owners/administrators want a search, it's their decision.
 
Schools, factory sites and other businesses have begun requesting free air searches of parking lots and lockers. That seems a stretch.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It comes down to "Expectation of Privacy".
There is no expectation of privacy in public (a parking lot), and employers and schools own the lockers. That is the difference between a search there, and one in your home. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home.

TBO
 
TBO, you just made the argument for the defense. A renter has an expectation of privacy. A civil rights watchdog group called the Sons of Liberty says that apartment dwellers/renters should not have the police k-9s smelling the doors and surrounds/environs of vehicles and rented property for any reason.
 
The doorways, lots and surrounding areas are common grounds with public access. The expectation of privacy is within the apartments, not the common areas.

Furthermore, the air within the apartment has migrated outside without governmental influence. It is no longer within the protected confines of the dwelling but is within public airspace.
 
William,

I was making the same argument. I wonder who has the authority to "request" a free air search immediately outside my door. It reminds me of the doorknob drug trace searches of last year.

Fishing trips.
 
Not at all. It comes down to "Expectation of Privacy".
There is no expectation of privacy in public (a parking lot), and employers and schools own the lockers. That is the difference between a search there, and one in your home. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home.
Click to expand...
When I am out and about, whether on foot or in my car, I have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. When I am in my home, I have a pervasive and paramount expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court has said this. They have never said I have no expectation of privacy, rather that I have a "lessoned" expectation.

If it was as you imply, TBO, then you could lawfully stop and interrogate me at your whim. That is not the case. You must have an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime was or is about to be committed and that I might be the criminal in order to detain and thereby invade my privacy.
The doorways, lots and surrounding areas are common grounds with public access. The expectation of privacy is within the apartments, not the common areas.
Click to expand...
Sendac, this would be true in enclosed buildings, such as what I have seen most of the East is made up of. Here in the west, many apt. complexes are open arraingements, in which case, you might be wrong. That would be similar to walking your dogs across my unfenced yard, past my door, going from yard to yard. Somehow I think the Courts might not like this sort of privacy invasion....

But after some of the cases that I've read this year, who really knows? :rolleyes:
 
Antipitas while out and about in town you walk past a trained and certified drug detecting dog while carrying a bag or marijuana.
Are you saying that the dog hitting upon the sent of the marijuana on you is "unreasonable"?

Answer, no, it's not. Now take the same situation, but just a human Cop there, who smells the marijuana. It's still good.

Now take the same situation (human Cop alone) BUT he does not smell/see and marijuana. If he wants to shake you down just for the heck of it, then YOU are RIGHT, it's UNREASONABLE.

That is how it works (regardless of personal feelings, or "it should be"...).

TBO
 
Antipitas,

A public breezeway or the surrounding grounds to an apartments' terrace, patio or balcony may also fall under the open field doctrine. The concept of curtilage would not apply to a common hallway, but might to the patio or balcony itself, as they are typically included as part of the leased property. Of course, with the exception of those surrounded by privacy fences, they are subject to plain view.
 
This is BS. It shouldn't matter whether something is a common area or not.

The issue, IMO, is whether it would have been detectable with the technology of 100 years ago. Dogs are a bit of a grey area, because they existed 100 years ago... they just weren't tasked with seeking out BIG BAD DRUG DEALERS.

So my philosophy is basically that if it's not patently obvious -- that is, if the police have to bring in dogs or fancy chemistry sets that measure drug concentrations on surfaces or in the air -- they should need to get a warrant.
 
Antipitas,

A public breezeway or the surrounding grounds to an apartments' terrace, patio or balcony may also fall under the open field doctrine. The concept of curtilage would not apply to a common hallway, but might to the patio or balcony itself, as they are typically included as part of the leased property. Of course, with the exception of those surrounded by privacy fences, they are subject to plain view.
Click to expand...
diy0169_hardwdflrpatch7.gif
 
An employer (and I don't like it) can use whatever means to do an outside search of your car/vehicle. If they have a no guns policy and the dog "hits" then the worse they can do is terminate you. You could take it to court I guess but it depends on which state you live in.

The only "loophole" that I know that exists is if you drive an RV to work. An RV is considered your home and the castle dealy thing is in effect.

I don't agree with section 8 housing though, that the government thinks that they can ban guns from those apartments. My mom lives in section 8 (for old people on a set income) and they have a "no guns" policy. The people that may need the best source of self-defense are ones that the government wishes to disarm.

When I was stationed at Holloman AFB in NM, I bought a 1978 Firebird (anyone see a pattern here :D when it comes to Firebirds) and since #1, it was a 1978 when maryjane was still popular and easy to get and #2, it's considered a high school student "cool car" I had it checked by the LEO's on base.

Dog hit on maryjane, coke, and they found a piece of herione in the car (granted, I let the dog cover the entire insides of the car). Because I showed reciept of purchase (and the seeds, coke and herione were ages old, yes, they tested it) I was given a "get out of the brig free card" (but they would still test to see how "fresh" it was) if the dogs hit.

About 10 months later I had one of the dogs just about jump into the car (young pup being trained), scared the poop outta me. Of course I was searched and I gave them the card. Got to play with the dog though while they were doing their paperwork so something good came of it.

Wayne
 
If I have to use technology that is at least a hundred years old, I guess that means I cannot carry my 1911 :(
 
The doorways, lots and surrounding areas are common grounds with public access. The expectation of privacy is within the apartments, not the common areas.

Furthermore, the air within the apartment has migrated outside without governmental influence. It is no longer within the protected confines of the dwelling but is within public airspace.
Click to expand...


How is the government planning to prove that the "migrated air" came from within an apartment? No one can see the air swirling. One could just as easily argue that the air that wafted out of the apartment was the NON-drug-fume-containing air, and that the drug-vapors came from a different apartment.

-blackmind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top