K-9s and "Free air" searches?

tyme wrote:
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.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY.

The issue here, and the reason for the protection from unreasonable searches, is that we should be able to keep private whatever is inside our private spaces. The authorities are not allowed to FIND OUT what is inside our private spaces unless they have probable cause, or a warrant (which shall issue only from probable cause).

So we have a case where there's a windowless van in a parking lot (tint covers the windows that they do have). The authorities want to know whether there are drugs inside -- even though they don't have reason to suspect that there are. The van is one of hundreds of vehicles in the parking lot, and they're ALL being "sniffed." Why is the government (the police) allowed to FIND OUT what's in the van AT ALL -- just because they haven't entered, they are not violating the expectation of privacy that covers the interior of the van?

This is a bu!!s#!t end-run around unreasonable searches -- the government thumbing its nose at the Constitution and at us, saying, "What? We didn't go INSIDE the vehicle! So what if we used other means to find out what's inside, even though we would never have been permitted to actually enter?!"

What is most deplorable is that we have cheerleaders for this kind of thing right here on TFL -- people who seem to enjoy when the police have more power over our lives rather than when they have less.

Next, these people will be telling us that if we develop "x-ray-vision sensors" to get a picture of the inside of the house, that'll be perfectly square with the expectation of privacy we have in our homes. "We didn't go INSIDE your home. It's not our fault that we have the technology to see a perfect visual image of the inside of your home just by aiming this peeper-thingie at it!" :rolleyes: :barf: :mad:

-blackmind
 
Actually, the use of thermal detection has already been disallowed, so your "xray vision sensor" argument is moot, but why let facts get in the way of hysteria. :rolleyes:
 
tyme: I'm not quite following you. What does 100 years ago have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Before all the major advances in physics and chemistry last century, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy based on the technology of the times. The founders lived in an environment where authories couldn't tell whether someone had tea residue on their clothes, so they couldn't use that kind of thing to build a case against the suspect as a smuggler. The founders based their concept of what searches were reasonable on what the authorities could readily discern back then, not what authorities with metal detectors, chemical detectors, and spy planes/helicopters can discern today.

Sendec said:
If I have to use technology that is at least a hundred years old, I guess that means I cannot carry my 1911
Click to expand...
Sendec, do you think you could be any more disingenuous? I said that use of such technology in warrantless (speculative) searches should not be allowed, not that use of advanced technology should be totally forbidden to LE. If a LEO has a legitimate warrant that was authorized by a reasonable, rational judge (not rubber-stamped by some puritan law&order judge), she should be free to use IR imaging, chemical detectors, drug dogs, trash digging, DNA sequencing, whatever.

Furthermore, a gun is a gun is a gun (at least except for scrap metal like Jennings and Lorcin). DNA profiling, chemical detectors, etc. are vastly different from the investigative equipment of 75, even 50 years ago.

I realize technology also presents threats that didn't exist a hundred years ago, but using that observation as an excuse for allowing police to use any available technology on anything that isn't strictly private is dangerous. It shrinks citizens' zone of privacy to an unacceptable degree.
 
While there is no founding in law, Tyme's 100 year principle is something that will hopefully become a standard.

Airborned chemical analysis, multispectral imaging, Van Eck phreking and smart radio analysis are all 'passive' methods of gathering very intrusive information. The idea of privacy must be inforced with a definition that remains close to the concept of those who first penned it.

On top of that, greater levels of purported detection create new arenas for framing and corruption. No longer do you need to plant evidence to get a warrant; now you simply need to leak it into the air.
 
So the Constitution should be evaluated in the terms of the technology that was available to the Founders at that time. Hmmmm, so "arms" means a Brown Bess musket, not an AR15? You certainly cannot believe that, but that is the crux of your argument.

"Warrantless" searchs are not speculative, they are just exceptions to the search warrant requirement. In the apartment complex example no one individual or group is getting searched by walking a dog thru the complex. When the dog alerts, then a warrant or consent needs to be obtained to search a specific apartment or vehicle.
 
"No longer do you need to plant evidence to get a warrant; now you simply need to leak it into the air."

Interesting. Can you post an example of that actually occuring? I dont know of any.
 
Modern police investigation sans warrant is not merely passive.

Take the SCOTUS decision legitimizing warrantless dumpster diving by police. Can you imagine someone going through someone else's garbage 200 years ago? They might well have been shot.

I hadn't thought about the 100 year concept as a sliding scale (in 2100, will we allow warrantless searches of anything publically observable -- with y2k technology?)... but it might work, since citizens would have a 100 year advantage in technology to protect themselves... at least against unwarranted searches and seizures.
 
Sendec,

Why do you keep confusing arguments about searches with arguments about guns? That's twice.

But, the point holds, to a certain extent. It isn't the specific level of technology, it is the type. An M-16 is still an excellent example of an individual infantry weapon, and a good analogue of the brown bess. But a tactical nuclear rocket is perhaps not what the militia is all about.


Modern technology can make walls transparent to those who can afford the technology. Large amounts of money can also restore that privacy.

Privacy is both de facto, and a concept. Technology and money can easily overwhelm what seemed to be privacy, so we must go with a conceptual standard if we want to preserve equal rights and protection of all citizens, regardless of monetary status. That's one of the reasons the concept of domecile extends to even a hotel room - even a simple rented space represents the same rights as a walled mansion.


Anyone who spends much time engaged in science and futurism can see that we need to establish a standard now, or face ubiquitous law enforcement and the loss of all free will in the very near future.
 
sendec wrote:
"Warrantless" searchs are not speculative, they are just exceptions to the search warrant requirement. In the apartment complex example no one individual or group is getting searched by walking a dog thru the complex. When the dog alerts, then a warrant or consent needs to be obtained to search a specific apartment or vehicle.
Click to expand...


No, in the apartment complex example, "no one individual" is getting searched -- ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE GETTING SEARCHED.

When the dog alerts, a warrant could well be issued, yes, but it's a warrant to search that is predicated on a "search" that was already conducted -- albeit a passive one. The police didn't necessarily show up at that apartment complex because they knew of some illegal activity that was going on. They went to a place where they didn't know anything illegal was going on, sniffed the air and got in inkling that something illegal was going on, and then got a warrant.

We call that a fishing expedition, and it's always been something that we expressly DON'T allow law enforcement to do.


-blackmind
 
I hadn't thought about the 100 year concept as a sliding scale (in 2100, will we allow warrantless searches of anything publically observable -- with y2k technology?)... but it might work, since citizens would have a 100 year advantage in technology to protect themselves... at least against unwarranted searches and seizures.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. In the zeal to allow the police to keep ahead of criminals, the legislatures might well, by that point, have outlawed the civilian use of technology that could counter such surveillance. Think about NY and VA outlawing radar detectors.

If some company came out with a "sniffer defense" or some field generator that would foil IR or X-ray viewing, they would just make use of such a thing illegal. Then they would make a detector that could detect the use of such a device, and use it to bust you for using the search-countering device.

-blackmind
 
so we must go with a conceptual standard if we want to preserve equal rights and protection of all citizens, regardless of monetary status.
Click to expand...

When we do this with guns, we get accused by the left of, "Look, the NRA types are trying to protect criminals' right to commit crimes with guns!"

In this case, if we outlawed the kinds of intrusive and abusive searches that statists love to champion (you know, for our safety), they will say, "Oh, so you want to protect the privacy of drug dealers so that they can make that killer meth that is destroying our children?!" :rolleyes:

-blackmind
 
TBO, that very scenario, is why I said that the Courts have held that I have a lessoned expectation of privacy. You point blank said I had none. You are point blank wrong... And it shows, by the way you answered and back-peddled.

So, what was your point?

Sendac, I agree with you. I tried to cover that when I mentioned the multi-unit building that is very common in the east, but not as common in the west. Apparently, I failed to make myself clear.

And finally, TBO? Is that your foot that your are nailing?
 
They can say it all they want, and both people like us and the ACLU will tell them where they can stuff it.

Believe it or not, privacy advocates are rampant amongst liberals. And the invasive Patriot Act was supported by conservatives. This is definitely a bridge issue.
 
It was rubber-stamped by BOTH sides, Handy -- none of whom read the thing, because they all knew that they had to appear to be "doing something" in the wake of 9/11. They were terrified (pun intended) that their constituents would raise hell with them (i.e. not vote for re-election) if they didn't appear to throw their full support behind "fighting the war on terrorism."


-blackmind
 
"Before all the major advances in physics and chemistry last century, people had a reasonable expectation of privacy based on the technology of the times. The founders lived in an environment where authories couldn't tell whether someone had tea residue on their clothes, so they couldn't use that kind of thing to build a case against the suspect as a smuggler. The founders based their concept of what searches were reasonable on what the authorities could readily discern back then, not what authorities with metal detectors, chemical detectors, and spy planes/helicopters can discern today."

Congratulations, Tyme.

You've just made a wonderful argument for outlawing ALL firearms but those that were available and known to the Founders.
 
Mike, you're being even more obtuse than sendec. Try re-reading my comments, paying special attention to the context.

Hint: It doesn't even have anything to do with LE possession of technology, much less civilian possession of technology.
 
I already addressed your comment, Mike.


I'm really surprised to see who can't fathom that something being possible isn't the same as it being logical, or good for the country.
 
Before any of us go off on a tangent, a scenario. You are traveling and you are armed. You become tired and stop at a chain motel, hostel or B&B. You take your weapon into your rented by contract space. The K-9 handler is searching the motel, hostel or B&B and alerts at your door because the last renter was using the space to cook meth. This is common. You are now armed, the K-9 says there is a scent of drugs and you are out of town with no friends or any locals to vouch for your character. Do you demand a warrant or allow the K-9 and handler to go fishing? Remember the 78 Firebird?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top