Wilbur
New Member
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider whether using a police dog to sniff for marijuana from the front door of a residence constitutes an illegal search.
The state of Florida asked the justices to hear the case of a Florida man charged with possession of drugs including marijuana. Lawyers for James Rabb of Hollywood, Fla., succeeded in suppressing the drugs seized from his house, because a search warrant had been issued based on the dog sniff at the front door.
It was one of two cases in which the court turned aside requests from states to get involved in constitutional issues stemming from drug investigations.
The state of Illinois was seeking to challenge a state appeals court decision that a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion when asking a driver's permission to search his car during a routine traffic stop. The search of the car driven by John Sloup turned up a pipe used to smoke another drug.
In the Florida case, the state attorney general said drug-dog sniffs disclose only the presence of narcotics and do not intrude on a legitimate expectation of privacy.
The case has already been before the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices directed a Florida appeals court to take a 2005 Supreme Court decision into consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court said a dog sniff that detected marijuana in a car during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Early this year, the Florida appeals court affirmed its earlier decision to suppress the evidence, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the use of a thermal imager to detect a marijuana growing operation inside a garage constituted an illegal search.
The cases are Florida v. James Rabb, 06-309, and Illinois v. John Sloup, 05-1367.
Newshawk: User - 420 Magazine
Source: Herald Today.com
Pubdate: 27 November 2006
Copyright: 2006 Associated Press
Contact: Contact Us -- HeraldToday.com
Website: HeraldToday.com : Bradenton Manatee Sarasota news jobs cars homes
The state of Florida asked the justices to hear the case of a Florida man charged with possession of drugs including marijuana. Lawyers for James Rabb of Hollywood, Fla., succeeded in suppressing the drugs seized from his house, because a search warrant had been issued based on the dog sniff at the front door.
It was one of two cases in which the court turned aside requests from states to get involved in constitutional issues stemming from drug investigations.
The state of Illinois was seeking to challenge a state appeals court decision that a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion when asking a driver's permission to search his car during a routine traffic stop. The search of the car driven by John Sloup turned up a pipe used to smoke another drug.
In the Florida case, the state attorney general said drug-dog sniffs disclose only the presence of narcotics and do not intrude on a legitimate expectation of privacy.
The case has already been before the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices directed a Florida appeals court to take a 2005 Supreme Court decision into consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court said a dog sniff that detected marijuana in a car during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Early this year, the Florida appeals court affirmed its earlier decision to suppress the evidence, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the use of a thermal imager to detect a marijuana growing operation inside a garage constituted an illegal search.
The cases are Florida v. James Rabb, 06-309, and Illinois v. John Sloup, 05-1367.
Newshawk: User - 420 Magazine
Source: Herald Today.com
Pubdate: 27 November 2006
Copyright: 2006 Associated Press
Contact: Contact Us -- HeraldToday.com
Website: HeraldToday.com : Bradenton Manatee Sarasota news jobs cars homes
