Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warrant stirring debate
by Bryn Mickle and Shannon Murphy | The Flint Journal
Monday June 02, 2008, 9:55 AM
Ryan Garza | The Flint Journal
Grand Blanc Township Police Department Sgt. Matt Simpson walks partner Kase to his vehicle after doing a demonstration for home-schooled kids on a tour of the Grand Blanc Township Police Department.
GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan -- Police -- or at least K-9 units -- now can go sniffing around outside your house even without a warrant.
A recent court ruling said police don't need a search warrant to take drug-sniffing dogs to the front door of homes, as long as they have a tip there are illegal drugs there.
Opponents say the decision whittles away the rights of citizens.
"The Fourth Amendment (protecting privacy at home) is just being eroded case by case," said Flint attorney Jeffrey Clothier.
But Genesee County Sheriff Robert J. Pickell said it gives police another weapon in the war on drugs.
"This will cause some sleepless nights for those people growing marijuana at home," said Pickell.
Don't expect, however, to see the half-dozen drug dogs working in Genesee County randomly trotting through neighborhoods.
The ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals says police can't unleash the dogs unless they have a tip that suggests drugs are inside a house.
If police get that tip, the appeals court has given officers the go ahead to have drug dog sniff around outside the house. They still need to get a search warrant to search inside the home if the dog indicates there are drugs.
The 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling came after a Wayne County judge suppressed evidence and dismissed marijuana possession charges against a Detroit man because he argued the sniffing was an illegal search.
Before the ruling, drug-sniffing dogs could search common areas, such as hotels or apartments, but were prohibited from sniffing for drugs outside of a home without first obtaining a warrant.
Flint resident Gary Metevier, 56, said he has no problem with the court ruling.
"With crime and everything else going on, police need all the leverage they can get," Metevier said. "If they have a reasonable suspicion, I would agree with it."
Clothier worries that police may use the recent ruling to search homes that were never under suspicion of drugs.
"They could basically take the dog up to any house on the block and if the dog hits, they could go in," Clothier said. "This gives police free rein to search."
But Grand Blanc Township police canine handler Sgt. Matt Simpson doesn't believe police will begin randomly walking through neighborhoods with dogs.
"We're not there to see what people are making for dinner," said Simpson. We want something that will guide us in a direction and the dog sniff is just another tool of that."
Flint attorney Erwin F. Meiers III, however, said police still have to prove the case despite what the dog smells.
Meiers said dog tracking alone cannot support a criminal conviction.
"They still have to prove that there was probable cause and that they had reason to believe drugs were there," he said.
The victory for police dogs, however, could be challenged. Muawad Elias, the attorney for the man whose case prompted the appellate ruling, has promised to appeal the Michigan Supreme Court.
"Your home is your castle," Elias told the Associated Press. "The precedent set here is ... dangerous in terms of conduct by law enforcement officials."
Hmmm anyone smell something burning? Nevermind its nothing important, just the forth amendment...
Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra
Congress is running out of toilet paper,they might be interested.
Quote:
The victory for police dogs, however, could be challenged. Muawad Elias, the attorney for the man whose case prompted the appellate ruling, has promised to appeal the Michigan Supreme Court.
Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra
Yes everyone knows not to poke the 3rd rail with a metal spoon but don't they have to follow some sort of rules when making laws?
For example what process has to happen for this to be reversed?
What are the faults in this/what could be contested for being unconstitutional/unlawful?
Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra
Got a typewriter/pen/pencil/crayon? Draft a letter to your state legislators posing these questions. As well as your opposition. If you write a letter, you generally get a response. It shows you're serious enough to take the time to write. A phone call/email is iffy at best. Though I once got a personal letter back from Ted Kennedy - which he typed himself on an old wripetyter(typewriter) - when I called his office about trying to stop the post-office from delivering hate-mail (some of it about Ted Kennedy) from an ultra-right wing group run by Attorney General Ed Meese (under Reagan).
The post-office laughed in my face when I said I wanted it stopped. The supervisor said I couldn't stop it. It was lawful political mail. Then he kept offering me a Gummi-Bear from the bowl of same on his desk. I told him I'd go over his head and take the issue to Kennedy's office. He laughed again.
He was gone within a week. Probably got a new postal assignment: Delivering mail by dog-team in Point Barrow, Alaska.
03-06-2008, 21:46
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
