Supreme Court: Argument in Two Dog-Sniffing Cases

Update: Transcript of argument in Florida v. Jardines is here, and Florida v. Harris here. Washington Post recap here.

Will the Supreme Court keep the 4th Amendment from going to the dogs?

The Supreme Court held two hours of oral argument today on the constitutionality of using drug-sniffing dogs at private homes, and the reliability of the dogs. Background here and at Scotus Blog here. Wired reports here, and the LA Times here.


The issues before the court are here. NACDL's Amicus Brief is here. As of now, there's very little reporting on the arguments themselves. Maybe Sandy kept journalists away?

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Casey Anthony Lawyer Writes George Zimmerman Judge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is nice to see the magic drug sniffing dog (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    Being put to the test in studies and discovered to only be correct 44% of the time.  Those would be the dog that were actually trained too I'm sure.  At least some trainers are on the record now telling the truth, that most drug dogs don't train.  They have no frontal lobe that allows learning as humans understand it, they learn mostly through repetition, and they don't even train.  I loved the Chicago Tribune article where the trainer reveals this but then goes on to say that if you don't train you can't have confidence in your dog.  That one is crazy.  Having confidence in your dog and your dog in you is for the park, and the showring, in drug sniffing this supposed to be science not confidence....sheesh.

    I also love the part about how there is almost no certifications needed for a drug sniffing dog but there are private agencies out there that will give you a piece of paper for a fee.

    Let us talk about some of the piece of paper for a fee incidents that I know of.  The show day before a show that I chaired a dog that I suspect had been attack trained tried to EAT an AKC obedience judge.  It wasn't even my show day but I was so embarassed.  I started out with my dog love in the obedience ring.  There is a lot of pride and work in that dog area, you feel it even standing near the dogs and their owners.  To have a dog walk into the ring and attempt to attack a judge is like peeing on a courtroom judge.

    The AKC suspended the dog from being able to show.  I breathed a sigh of relief until the next day when the AKC rep told me that they had decided to allow the dog to take the CGC test (Canine Good Citizen) on my show day and if he passed he would be reinstated.  I couldn't believe it.  I argued that at least the dog and handler had to go home and train to be a good citizen for like six months, but no.  The dog took the test and passed and was back in the game for the next judge to survive.  As I remained ticked it was whispered to me that to appear so strict would discourage participation and fee collection which the clubs rely on to survive.  When fee collection is involved the goal is to collect the fees.  We will have voter suppression but not doggy certificate suppression :)