|The real point of the ruling seems to be that they trespassed onto the property
to do the search. From my reading of the summary, as long as the dog stays on
public property (or otherwise on property where the dog and trainer have
permission to be), it's perfectly legal.
In other words, if the next-door
neighbour gives permission, they should be able to do it from the neighbour's
lawn. If a housemate of the suspect gives permission to come on the property,
then it's legal anywhere that the housemate is allowed to roam -- and allows the
officers to roam.
It seems to be the trespass which triggers the 4th
amenment, here. It seems like a similar principle with the Plain sight rule In
the plain sight rule, as long as an officer has the right to be where they are,
whatever they see/hear/smell is allowable evidence -- but the moment that they
tresspass (e.g. move things around or touch your body), they're into 4th
If they trespassed onto your property, they'd fail the
'plain sight' rule, so it makes perfect sense to me that trespassing onto your
property with a dog that can sense something that isn't even in plain
view/scent would also fail the test.
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]