New SCOTUS ruling on sniffs

[uncle sticky]

So the SCOTUS decided today that running a drug dog up onto your porch to sniff for drugs was a violation of civil rights, and amounted to a search with no warrant. Cops can still walk up onto your porch, peer into your windows, sniff around themselves, but they can't use a dog alert as probably cause. All good, if not far enough.

So, I'm bringing this up to ask for some opinion on whether a moving camper trailer, towed behind a vehicle, constitutes a home. I know they can sniff your car during a stop, as long as the time it takes to get the dog there and have him sniff doesn't exceed a "routine" stop duration. However, if the trailer is your domicile, albeit it temporary, can they sniff it during a stop?

[lemur]

what are you afraid of ?



not keeping anything weird in there, are you?

[Dork]

I'm kind of curious myself, even though I never have anything sniff-worthy in my car with me. I have been stopped and given the whole "just tell me what drugs you have before the dogs get here and find it" routine before, and it's nice to know what the regulations actually are.

[BBadger]

Remember that there is a difference between the porch on the land you own/rent, and the road/region of space that your vehicle occupies. The porch is part of your property, the road is not. I doubt this will affect anything with regards to dogs being used in the area outside your vehicle; however, it would apply to dogs sniffing inside your vehicle, which was already covered by the 4th amendment.

[EspressoDude]

and up in the NorthWet:
In Washington state, however, it is no longer a crime for someone of legal drinking age to carry up to an ounce of marijuana — and that changes the constitutional status of dog sniff. If a dog is trained to sniff out marijuana and cocaine, and it alerts after sniffing an adult suspect, that no longer would lead a “reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime” because it is likely the dog only reacted to the presence of marijuana on the suspect. Marijuana sniffing dogs cannot no longer provide probable cause that a suspect is engaged in criminal activity, because the dogs are trained to alert when the suspect is doing something that is no longer illegal under state law.
As a result of this constitutional dilemma, several Washington state police departments are retraining their drug sniffing dogs:
The passage of I-502 made things difficult enough for the humans tasked with creating and enforcing the laws for legal marijuana. Now, try explaining the difference between “personal use” and “intent to sell” or the gray area between state and federal law to a dog.
That’s why many law-enforcement agencies around the state, including the Seattle Police Department and Washington State Patrol, will no longer be training their drug-sniffing dogs to alert for marijuana. . . .
Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said the Seattle Police Department is already taking steps to desensitize its dogs to marijuana through rewards and constant training.
Currently, some law enforcement agencies continue to use marijuana-sniffing dogs in Washington. As a memo from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys explains, however, these dogs can no longer be relied on exclusively to justify a search.

[BBadger]

That grey area will be interesting. I wonder if those dogs could still be used to justify a search to determine whether the person possessing marijuana has less than an ounce in his possession.

[uncle sticky]

On the one hand, there will definitely be those LEOs who can't quite get with the program emotionally, and will try the "I thought he had more than an ounce" approach. I also think that would get tossed pretty quickly at the state level. Unless an officer saw a huge baggy of pot (how big a lump is an ounce?) it would be impossible to justify a search on a sniff.

[junglesmacks]

Reference to news story in question..

[illy dilly]

and up in the NorthWet:
In Washington state, however, it is no longer a crime for someone of legal drinking age to carry up to an ounce of marijuana — and that changes the constitutional status of dog sniff. If a dog is trained to sniff out marijuana and cocaine, and it alerts after sniffing an adult suspect, that no longer would lead a “reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime” because it is likely the dog only reacted to the presence of marijuana on the suspect. Marijuana sniffing dogs cannot no longer provide probable cause that a suspect is engaged in criminal activity, because the dogs are trained to alert when the suspect is doing something that is no longer illegal under state law.
As a result of this constitutional dilemma, several Washington state police departments are retraining their drug sniffing dogs:
The passage of I-502 made things difficult enough for the humans tasked with creating and enforcing the laws for legal marijuana. Now, try explaining the difference between “personal use” and “intent to sell” or the gray area between state and federal law to a dog.
That’s why many law-enforcement agencies around the state, including the Seattle Police Department and Washington State Patrol, will no longer be training their drug-sniffing dogs to alert for marijuana. . . .
Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said the Seattle Police Department is already taking steps to desensitize its dogs to marijuana through rewards and constant training.
Currently, some law enforcement agencies continue to use marijuana-sniffing dogs in Washington. As a memo from the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys explains, however, these dogs can no longer be relied on exclusively to justify a search.

In CO all the details are still being worked out. But, a recent article that I'm not finding again (might have been removed from the WestWord web site for being wildly inaccurate ) had a few sentences saying that law makers were leaning towards Dogs alerting at passenger doors to still be cause for search because it is enough probably cause the Marijuana was being smoked in the cab of the vehicle. Were an alert at the trunk of the car would not constitute probably cause. It also mentioned that an alert while a child in the vehicle would also constitute probable cause. The LEO would then have to prove that Marijuana was being smoked in the cab of the vehicle, or the driver was high.
One of the huge debates in CO right now is how to prove a driver is High while driving, what levels of THC in the body constitute being high, and how to conduct road side sobriety.

[junglesmacks]

One of the huge debates in CO right now is how to prove a driver is High while driving, what levels of THC in the body constitute being high, and how to conduct road side sobriety.

I have this vision of a Twinkie being dangled by the cop instead of the pen while performing the roadside sobriety eye check..

[illy dilly]

HAHAHA.

The officer sets two things on the hood of his car. He then tells you to pick one.
The first is a traffic ticket for a broken tail light, nothing more.
The second, is a bag of Funions.
Choose wisely.