In fact, Justice Souter pointed out in dissent the fact that ?the dog does not smell the disclosed contraband; it smells a closed container.? In a similar case 2 years ago, Kyllo v. US, the court rejected the governments argument that by using and infrared scanner on someone's house they were not searching it because they were only measuring the heat eminated from a distance. In the Cabales case the court limited their Kyllo holding stating that the only reason they kicked that case was because it might also reveal when Madame was drawing her evening bath ? non criminal activity. Similarly, if you use a parabolic dish to hear what people are saying in their bedroom, are you not just picking up vibrations in the air where you are standing? This is why the law focuses on the individual's expectation of privacy -- not on the technology used to invade it. Almost anything can be "measured" remotely -- dogs have been trained to sniff out currency, I can follow you inside your home using IR, etc. The fact that the dog is "just sniffing the air" is not the issue - the dog is sniffing the air to find out what I have inside a closed container in a trunk.

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, the high court action, ?clears the way for suspicionless, dog-accompanied drug sweeps of parked cars along sidewalks and in parking lots.? Indeed there would be no ?constitutional grounds for complaint should police with dogs, stationed at long traffic lights, circle cars waiting for the red signal to turn green.? She was being kind. No reason to limit this to cars on the street. Restaurants, shops, apartments and private homes can be ?sniffed? as well ? with the occupants blissfully ignorant until the cops kick in the door, warrant in hand.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/297/30436#30436