1ST: Respond to the initial question. (250 words)
2ND: Respond to two classmate posts. (75 – 150 words)
An example of how the initial post should look is attached in the files.
Grant, H.B. & Terry, K.J. (2012). Law Enforcement in the 21st Century. (3rd ed.), New York: Pearson.
Please read the following article http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail/print (Links to an external site.)
In general, the police cannot carry out a search unless they have the permission from a judge through a ‘warrant’. In addition, police cannot use technology such as a heat-sensing device to see if marijuana is being grown inside a house under high-intensity lamps. How then, can the police use a drug-sniffing dog without violating a person’s right to privacy under the 4th Amendment? What has the Supreme Court decided in regards to drug-sniffing dogs? Do you agree or disagree with the Court’s decision/rationale?
The police can use a drug sniffing dog without violating a person’s right to privacy under the 4th Amendment. Due to the case called Illinois vs. Caballes, no unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause became a rule. However, the court stated that using a drug dog while people are at traffic lights “does not implicate legitimate privacy interests”. I think that a drug dog is necessary when going through the airport security. I say this because the police have to make sure that no one has a weapon or anything dangerous, regardless if they have reasonable suspicion or not. The police are not always the most reliable so they have a canine who is probably more accurate regarding the scent of drugs or explosives. Everyone needs to be safe on the plane or in the airport so there should be no reason why everyone isn’t getting checked. Having security automatically reduces the risks of accidents occurring. I don’t agree with the Court’s decision because people should not be stopped at traffic stops. I believe that that can still be considered interfering with ones privacy without having a probable cause.
Under the 4th Amendment, the police can use a drug sniffing dog without violating a person’s privacy after obtaining a search warrant and proving beyond reasonable doubt to the judge that they are not infringing on the privacy of the individual for a suspected person in possession of contraband. The 4th Amendment should be respected and therefore, the need for police officers to seek a warrant before collecting any evidence proving the possession of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional for the police to use drug sniffing dogs to investigate a home of a suspected individual. I agree with the decision as it prevents the violation of an individual’s privacy as guarded by the constituent. It would be meaningless to have the 4th Amendment yet the police use their powers to infringe on the privacy of suspects in their homes.
What Students Are Saying About Us.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."