i think that police should be able to use drug sniffing dogs. They can be very reliable and helpful in finding hidden drugs or other illegal possesions. The article said dogs make mistakes but thats just in the nature of this world, humans make mistakes too. Most of the time the drug sniffing dogs will find what it is suppose to find.
Absolutely, I think that police should be allowed to use the drug sniffing dogs. Like they said, the same way a police can use his nose to sniff out marijuana so should drug sniffing dogs be able. The article said they were only right 12% of the time but it could be raise to 70% of the time depending on how you look at it. Drug sniffing dogs should be perfectly legal, the only people who fear it is the people using.
Police k-9 dogs cannot just go up to some ones house and sniff at the door for illicit drugs out of suspicion (4th amendment right) it’s unconstitutional. A dog can smell 50-100 times more powerful than a human. The dog could possibly smell the drugs on money that is in the wallet next to the door. 90% of United States currency has traces of cocaine on it. That will give the police another away around the fourth amendment, next to the patriot act. Now if the police officer was called from one of the neighbors that they can smell illegal drugs coming from the house, then the office can go up to the door. If the officer smells or sees any illegal drugs, then there is probable cause and the home owner lost his 4th amendment right. Now there can be a search and seizure on the spot if the drugs are seen, but there needs to be warrant if he only smells it. The K-9 can smell to confirm that it is illegal drugs and the whereabouts of them in the house after the warrant. Apartment buildings can be tricky because all the renters sign a contract stating there is no selling or using illegal drugs on the property. Police only need consent from the property owner to use the dogs, like in public schools. There was a similar case to this article Illinois v. Caballes, it was sent to the Illinois state Supreme Court. The police were using drug dogs to sniff cars for drugs on a simple traffic violation. The Supreme Court deemed that it was unconstitutional to search a car without probable cause from the police officer on the traffic stop.
I believe using drug sniffing dogs is unconstitutional, but should be used in the police force. It’s not like the dogs are hurting anyone, they only help to discover crime. Maybe Congress could make an amendment that would make drug sniffing dogs constitutional so they can continue to be used in law enforcement. No harm was found from using these dogs and I believe that they are a good thing. They just need to refine the terms and restrictions placed on these dogs.
These drug sniffing dogs are well trained in what they do. Some people claim that they are inaccurate and will alert to things because they are just excited, like a tennis ball for example. This however is not actually the case most of the time in a well trained and experienced working dog. Then people also complain about when the dogs will alert and nothing is found, but just because they don't find something on the person right then doesn't mean that person wasn't in contact with a substance recently. The dogs are trained to alert to the smallest traces of these substances, and they are aided in doing this because their sense of smell is much greater than ours. With this in mind I feel the dogs are very useful, but I think that using the dogs by sniffing under doors is wrong because they don't have a reason to be searching there. Now if they have probable cause to search there then by all means let them search. I feel using the dogs is a search, so they should have proper legal reason to search with the dogs; whether that is a warrant or probable cause would depend on the situation.
I think using dogs that can sniff out drugs is great because the dog depend on their noses for so many things so they are always right when it comes to sniffing stuff. I also think that if a dog sniffs for drugs without a warrant then I think that’s illegal like if a dog comes up to a door that is closed and smells underneath the door crack and smells the drugs then I think that is wrong because the police officer doesn’t have a warrant to do that. Besides that one dislike about the blog I still think that using drug sniffing K-9s is a great and safer way to crack down on drugs.
I think that drug sniffing dogs should be used in helping the police because they're main objective is to find illegal narcotics and make a more sober and safer country. If a dog picks up a scent from outside a house, a police officer should be able to go get a warrant and search for the dog's scent. It may sound like it butts into peoples' rights but they know what they are doing is illegal and will get caught eventually.
Even though the k-9 unit is very helpful in stopping crime, I believe that it should not be legal for k-9 dog units to go around and sniff for narcotics under peoples doors. The reason being is because that it’s an invasion of someone’s privacy. It may be legal what that person is doing behind those closed doors, but what they do in their own home is their privacy.
I would definitely question the constitutionality of using drug sniffing dogs outside of someone’s door without a search warrant. In my opinion, to just go fishing around someone’s private property with the hopes of finding them with illegal drugs is a violation of privacy. I can see using drug sniffing dogs in certain situations; such as the case with Clayton Harris in the traffic stop; because he was not in the privacy of his home and it was executed during a routine traffic stop. I also feel that drug dogs would be constitutional in cases where another incident had lead the police there. For example, the police have received a tip/tips that a location is illegally manufacturing drugs. I do not however find it constitutional to go walking around in people’s yards with drug dogs to try to ‘catch them’. With all of this being said, I personally feel that the war on drug is a HUGE waste of our criminal justice system's time, money, and resources.
I think that using a dog to sniff out drugs is a great idea, but I also believe that sniffing outside someones house without a warrent is unconstitutional. What would be the point of a warrent if a cop can take a dog to anyones house and sniff around outside for something. I believe that there is a time and a place for drug dogs. Whatever someone does in their home is their business until they are harming other people with it, and the guy wasn't. it was his business.
I believe that drug sniffling dogs are well trained at what they do. Without the dogs I don't believe the human nose would be able to sniff or have a stronger instinct of where drugs are. But something that does stand out to me is having a dog sniff a person's house without a warrant. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy unless there is a belief of wrongdoing.
I believe the use of drug sniffing dogs is an acceptable practice only when they are utilized within the grounds of obtaining the right to a warrant less search of a vehicle. The reasoning behind this is that I believe if somebody is transporting or using drugs within the confines of there car it can compromise the safety of other people whether through DUIs and mass distribution of illicit drugs. As well as that your vehicle can be searched solely from probable suspicion and a dog picking up the trace of drugs can be considered one. The issue of warrant less searches of private residence is a different situation due to the fact that under law no private residence can be searched without a warrant and giving police the right to invade a person's household and privacy out of simple suspicion of drug sniffing dogs I believe is unconstitutional.
I personally believe that the K9 dogs are reliable enough to use in order to find probable cause to get a search warrant. I do think using the dogs outside of a premise is constitutional. I think it would be easier to consider the use of the dogs more constitutional in an apartment building over a private property. I also believe that any person objecting to allowing the dogs to do a quick sniff could have something to hide.
drug sniffing dogs should definitely be used as long as there is a reasonable suspicion. the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. drug sniffing dogs are an excellent way of catching people who are carrying or transporting drugs. so i believe drug dogs should be used as long as the follow the fourth amendment.
i think that police should be able to use drug sniffing dogs. They can be very reliable and helpful in finding hidden drugs or other illegal possesions. The article said dogs make mistakes but thats just in the nature of this world, humans make mistakes too. Most of the time the drug sniffing dogs will find what it is suppose to find.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, I think that police should be allowed to use the drug sniffing dogs. Like they said, the same way a police can use his nose to sniff out marijuana so should drug sniffing dogs be able. The article said they were only right 12% of the time but it could be raise to 70% of the time depending on how you look at it. Drug sniffing dogs should be perfectly legal, the only people who fear it is the people using.
ReplyDeletePolice k-9 dogs cannot just go up to some ones house and sniff at the door for illicit drugs out of suspicion (4th amendment right) it’s unconstitutional. A dog can smell 50-100 times more powerful than a human. The dog could possibly smell the drugs on money that is in the wallet next to the door. 90% of United States currency has traces of cocaine on it. That will give the police another away around the fourth amendment, next to the patriot act. Now if the police officer was called from one of the neighbors that they can smell illegal drugs coming from the house, then the office can go up to the door. If the officer smells or sees any illegal drugs, then there is probable cause and the home owner lost his 4th amendment right. Now there can be a search and seizure on the spot if the drugs are seen, but there needs to be warrant if he only smells it. The K-9 can smell to confirm that it is illegal drugs and the whereabouts of them in the house after the warrant. Apartment buildings can be tricky because all the renters sign a contract stating there is no selling or using illegal drugs on the property. Police only need consent from the property owner to use the dogs, like in public schools.
ReplyDeleteThere was a similar case to this article Illinois v. Caballes, it was sent to the Illinois state Supreme Court. The police were using drug dogs to sniff cars for drugs on a simple traffic violation. The Supreme Court deemed that it was unconstitutional to search a car without probable cause from the police officer on the traffic stop.
I believe using drug sniffing dogs is unconstitutional, but should be used in the police force. It’s not like the dogs are hurting anyone, they only help to discover crime. Maybe Congress could make an amendment that would make drug sniffing dogs constitutional so they can continue to be used in law enforcement. No harm was found from using these dogs and I believe that they are a good thing. They just need to refine the terms and restrictions placed on these dogs.
ReplyDeleteThese drug sniffing dogs are well trained in what they do. Some people claim that they are inaccurate and will alert to things because they are just excited, like a tennis ball for example. This however is not actually the case most of the time in a well trained and experienced working dog. Then people also complain about when the dogs will alert and nothing is found, but just because they don't find something on the person right then doesn't mean that person wasn't in contact with a substance recently. The dogs are trained to alert to the smallest traces of these substances, and they are aided in doing this because their sense of smell is much greater than ours. With this in mind I feel the dogs are very useful, but I think that using the dogs by sniffing under doors is wrong because they don't have a reason to be searching there. Now if they have probable cause to search there then by all means let them search. I feel using the dogs is a search, so they should have proper legal reason to search with the dogs; whether that is a warrant or probable cause would depend on the situation.
ReplyDeleteI think using dogs that can sniff out drugs is great because the dog depend on their noses for so many things so they are always right when it comes to sniffing stuff. I also think that if a dog sniffs for drugs without a warrant then I think that’s illegal like if a dog comes up to a door that is closed and smells underneath the door crack and smells the drugs then I think that is wrong because the police officer doesn’t have a warrant to do that. Besides that one dislike about the blog I still think that using drug sniffing K-9s is a great and safer way to crack down on drugs.
ReplyDeleteI think that drug sniffing dogs should be used in helping the police because they're main objective is to find illegal narcotics and make a more sober and safer country. If a dog picks up a scent from outside a house, a police officer should be able to go get a warrant and search for the dog's scent. It may sound like it butts into peoples' rights but they know what they are doing is illegal and will get caught eventually.
ReplyDeleteEven though the k-9 unit is very helpful in stopping crime, I believe that it should not be legal for k-9 dog units to go around and sniff for narcotics under peoples doors. The reason being is because that it’s an invasion of someone’s privacy. It may be legal what that person is doing behind those closed doors, but what they do in their own home is their privacy.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely question the constitutionality of using drug sniffing dogs outside of someone’s door without a search warrant. In my opinion, to just go fishing around someone’s private property with the hopes of finding them with illegal drugs is a violation of privacy. I can see using drug sniffing dogs in certain situations; such as the case with Clayton Harris in the traffic stop; because he was not in the privacy of his home and it was executed during a routine traffic stop. I also feel that drug dogs would be constitutional in cases where another incident had lead the police there. For example, the police have received a tip/tips that a location is illegally manufacturing drugs. I do not however find it constitutional to go walking around in people’s yards with drug dogs to try to ‘catch them’. With all of this being said, I personally feel that the war on drug is a HUGE waste of our criminal justice system's time, money, and resources.
ReplyDeleteI think that using a dog to sniff out drugs is a great idea, but I also believe that sniffing outside someones house without a warrent is unconstitutional. What would be the point of a warrent if a cop can take a dog to anyones house and sniff around outside for something. I believe that there is a time and a place for drug dogs. Whatever someone does in their home is their business until they are harming other people with it, and the guy wasn't. it was his business.
ReplyDeleteI believe that drug sniffling dogs are well trained at what they do. Without the dogs I don't believe the human nose would be able to sniff or have a stronger instinct of where drugs are. But something that does stand out to me is having a dog sniff a person's house without a warrant. Everyone is entitled to their own privacy unless there is a belief of wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteI believe the use of drug sniffing dogs is an acceptable practice only when they are utilized within the grounds of obtaining the right to a warrant less search of a vehicle. The reasoning behind this is that I believe if somebody is transporting or using drugs within the confines of there car it can compromise the safety of other people whether through DUIs and mass distribution of illicit drugs. As well as that your vehicle can be searched solely from probable suspicion and a dog picking up the trace of drugs can be considered one. The issue of warrant less searches of private residence is a different situation due to the fact that under law no private residence can be searched without a warrant and giving police the right to invade a person's household and privacy out of simple suspicion of drug sniffing dogs I believe is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the K9 dogs are reliable enough to use in order to find probable cause to get a search warrant. I do think using the dogs outside of a premise is constitutional. I think it would be easier to consider the use of the dogs more constitutional in an apartment building over a private property. I also believe that any person objecting to allowing the dogs to do a quick sniff could have something to hide.
ReplyDeletedrug sniffing dogs should definitely be used as long as there is a reasonable suspicion. the fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. drug sniffing dogs are an excellent way of catching people who are carrying or transporting drugs. so i believe drug dogs should be used as long as the follow the fourth amendment.
ReplyDelete