WILX Home ·  Station Info
     
News  ·   Sports  ·   Weather  ·   Downloads  ·   Apartment Guide  ·   Job Search  ·   Breakroom  ·   Blogs  ·   Contests  ·   Car Soup
What's Going Around · Medical Breakthroughs · Recalls · Polls · Schools · Seen on Ten · Money · News Tips · Money Talks · Going Green · Crime
Court Rules in Favor of Drug-Sniffing Dogs Save Email Print
Posted: 7:50 AM May 22, 2008
Last Updated: 12:12 PM May 22, 2008
Reporter: Associated Press

A | A | A

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Police don't need to obtain a search warrant before using dogs to sniff outside a house for drugs, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
The 2-1 decision released Wednesday was a setback for Jeffrey Jones of Detroit, who was charged after a police dog detected drugs inside his home by sniffing outside the front door. Police used that information to obtain a search warrant to enter the residence, where they found marijuana and a gun.
A Wayne County judge suppressed the evidence and threw out the case, ruling that the dog sniffing was an illegal search similar to using a thermal-imaging device.
The appeals court disagreed.
Judges E. Thomas Fitzgerald and William Murphy, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases, said a canine sniff is not a search as defined under Fourth Amendment law. They also said there is no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public, including the front porch of a home.
A dissenting judge said the ruling erodes the privacy protections and the sanctity of the home guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
"A person's home is not some abstract place or location for which it is unclear whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy," Judge Stephen L. Borrello wrote.
The case was sent back to the trial judge for further action.

More Stories
Some Say a GM Bankruptcy Is Not an Option

Graduation Requirements May Change

Big 3 Lay out Viability Plans & Bailout Requests

Expanding Graduation Requirements

Dental Student Gets Millions

Locally Made Cars Not Among Top Sellers

Local UAW Union Leaders Head to Detroit

Schools Trim, Worry About Economy

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Denny Location: Lansing on May 23, 2008 at 09:00 AM
What they are trying to get at is that since your porch (most of the time) is in plain view of public, that officers have the right to use dogs to sniff for drugs. It doesn't say they have the right to do anything else. But, it's kinda like, if you were doing some illegal, such as doing drugs or walking around without clothes on, on your porch or front yard, a police officer can and will take action even though it might be on private property. And they can still prosecute a peeping-tom and stalking because they are not drug sniffing dogs or police officers. Another example is alcohol. When an officer is at a front door of a hour and sees liquor when they door is open, and expects underage drinking, they can take action...even though the liquor is on private property. But why does it matter. They won't use them unless they think you have drugs!

Posted by: Rob & JoJo Location: Charlotte on May 23, 2008 at 03:21 AM
I Think this is trespassing. Who are these judges that think that your front porch is public property? Does that mean that your front yard is public? We can go and do what ever we want on the judges front porch? Come on, this is a bunch of bull. Just another way to try to get the budget balanced. Gas prices are up, jobs are gone, the state is trying to take more money from people that have no money. Quit looking into the constitution so deep and use common sense when interpreting it.

Posted by: Rob Location: Eagle on May 22, 2008 at 08:57 PM
This is unwarranted search! Outside your door is not public property. My door is 100 feet from the road. How is that public? The 4th Ammendment needs to be defined more clearly.

Posted by: Lisa Location: lansing on May 22, 2008 at 04:59 PM
If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the front porch, then how could you ever prosecute a peeping-tom? or stalking? Your front porch is not open to the public. What happened to trespassing? That must now be thrown out too.

Posted by: Lance Location: Lansing on May 22, 2008 at 03:24 PM
I feel, if you have nothing to hide, then why be afrain of drug sniffing dogs on your lawn? They will obviously have a reason to be using the dogs in the first place, and if they are not bothering you, who cares? As long as their not in my house I am cool with it.

Posted by: dave Location: east lansing on May 22, 2008 at 03:16 PM
This is very troubling indeed. The entrance to your property is not, as the judge says, your front porch. It is where the sidewalk ends. Once on your driveway, someone is on private property.

wilxTV Tweets...
Here's the latest update from WILX!
    WILX Poll
    Should Lawmakers Cut Education Spending To Balance The Budget?

    Yes
    No


    AP Videos
    Stay Connected With News Ten

       10 to Go
       News Weather & Video

       Breaking News & Weather
       Download Free to Your Computer

       My 10
       Submit Your Pictures and Videos Here

       Blogs
       News Sports Weather Life

       Espanol
       Clic Aqui Para Leer En Espanol

       Tell Us More
       Tell Us More

       RSS
       Get Your RSS Feeds Here RSS Readers    and Codes

       Weather Source
       24 Hour Local  Weather Channel

       Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce
       Latest Developments in Mid-Michigan