Re: People's Republic of Idaho?

[Ron Force <rforce@uidaho.edu>]

Erikus4@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >If I understand the attorney general's argument, the advantage of the
> >dog sniffing is that it doesn't constitute a search.
> 
> That's a very interesting argument that I hadn't heard before, can we get Bill Clinton's opinion on it?  

I did a Lexus-Nexus news search on the topic.  Most of the stories
nationwide were about the use of drug dogs in high school parking lots. 
At least one was called off after consititutional questions were raised
by locals.

> >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?

There was a recent story--sorry, I can't cite exactly-- about police who
were using infra-red sensors to scan neighborhoods detect the heat from
gro-lamps.  A judge ruled that this was an illegal search without a
warrant indicating probable cause.

-- 
Ron Force				rforce@belle.lib.uidaho.edu
Dean of Library Services		University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844			 (208) 885-6534