1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warrant s

By fnord, Jun 3, 2008 | | |
  1. fnord
    http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/index.ssf/2008/06/court_ruling_allowing_police_d.html
    Hmmm anyone smell something burning? Nevermind its nothing important, just the forth amendment...

Comments

  1. UberDouche
    Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra

    Anyone need a Constitution? We're not using ours anymore, and it's just in the way. For sale: CHEAP!
  2. fnord
    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.


    Ok law buffs,how do you think this will pan out?
  3. Panthers007
    Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra

    It's a "War" on drugs. It'll sail through without a blink. Save the children! Exigent circumstances!

    Third-Rail issue. Dead if you touch it. Maybe...
  4. fnord
    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?
  5. Panthers007
    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.

    Mush! Mush! <woof! woof! woof!> (CRACK!! splash!)
  6. curious1
    Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra

    would the police be allowed to jump over fences?
  7. Lobsang
    Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra

    It is just another breakdown of rights. In a war all things are fair. The threshold of rights is changed to save the country from "evil".
  8. TylerDurden
    Re: Court ruling allowing police dogs to sniff outside a house without a search warra



    Iwas just saying i thought I would never see the complete dismantling of the 4th amendment to the constitution, i fought to protect. And this is by two and say a half US Supreme courts with different appointing Presidents working in concert over this for around twenty years and finally throwing it out completely around 5 years ago in a de facto manner. Sad days. we have become the frogs comfortable in the pot of initial warm water realizing too late we have been boiled. because scores of judicial descions are making the de facto part just morph in to a tyranicl reality which will be COMPLETE policy in our lifetimes, never to see the life of day again.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!