vision2020
RE: How much is that doggie sniffing my car...
E. O'Daniel,
> the fact that many people use drugs absolutely
> should not subject everyone to unreasonable
> searches like this.
I think whether the search is "unreasonable" is the very point in
question. Without some legal or moral framework all we can do is
exchange opinions about what seems reasonable to us. It's not clear
that there can be progress in the discussion unless we're furnished
with some basis against which our opinions can be tested. I don't
know the law well enough to posit a legal basis and I'd be surprised
if you thought your opinion rested on some absolute moral basis.
Nonetheless, the exchange of opinions unfettered by facts is
entertaining so ... :)
> unless you want to argue that simply going out in
> public is your consent to such a search
If I understand the attorney general's argument, the advantage of the
dog sniffing is that it doesn't constitute a search. Indeed, it would
seem an odd thing to suggest that the smells surrounding my property
somehow belong to me and cannot be used against me (this is exactly
how meth labs are being discovered in Boise). If incriminating smells
can't be used against me then why shouldn't we also exclude
incriminating sights or sounds that extend beyond the bounds of my
property? What if there were dogs that roamed around listening for
gunshots or the screams of people in distress? Would that be
"unreasonable"? Why exclude smells?
Maybe I can try another comparison. How about the government putting
up video cameras in large public parking lots (wherever you think
these dogs would be)? Would that be offensive? Almost anywhere I go
in the office building where I work I know I'm on video. And I know
the county (Ada) is intending to put cameras at all major
intersections. Is this unreasonable? I guess I'm just having trouble
finding a clear distinction between the forms of surveillance we
already accept and the sniffing dogs.
> Do you think the action of walking through a parking lot,
> in a completely lawful manner, etc, should give the police
> the ability to search your person?
No, and if that's what they were suggesting then I would oppose it.
However, if they want to use remote sensing devices (dogs, metal
detectors, whatever) in public areas, that don't require any sort of
participation on my part, then I couldn't care less. If a dog sniffs
at my car while I'm in a store I'm not going to feel too bothered by
it. Judging by the marks on my tires, I know it already happens from
time to time.
When I think about it, I probably feel more violated by metal
detectors, which pretty much reveal the complete contents of
everything I'm carrying, weapon or not. At least a dog would only be
smelling for illegal drugs and, if none were found, then the contents
of my car would remain private, unlike the briefcase in the airport.
> Government DOES NOT exist to oppress its citizens.
I agree, but again, as I understand it a dog sniffing at your car
doesn't constitute a search, and I don't know about you, but I don't
feel very oppressed by it. I'm starting to feel oppressed by this cat
that's leaving messes in my yard right where I usually walk but so
long as the dogs can avoid leaving similar messes I probably won't
count myself among the poor oppressed Americans.
Jason Abbott - Boise, Idaho, USA
jabbott@uidaho.edu - http://www.uidaho.edu/~jabbott
Home: 208/336-3678 - Work: 208/364-4051 - FAX: 208/364-4035
Back to TOC