Monday, January 24, 2005
The supreme court decided 4 cases today, granted no certs, remanded 450 cases for
booker/fanfan reasons. Of the four, the one I was interested in was the dog sniff case.
The court said that a dog sniff, at an otherwise valid stop, is not a search. (I think I have correctly characterized the holding; they at least said it was not unconstitutional.) I have not read, at least recently enough to recall, the Illinois case this was based on. But the Illinois Supreme Court had said the search was unconstitutional. If that opinion had relied in part of state constitutional grounds, it would stand. Did the defendant assert state grounds? If not, did his lawyer commit malpractice?
The case distinguishes Edmonds v Indianapolis, in which my tentant/client/friend Joell was unconstitutionally stopped and subjected to a dog search, assaulted, etc.
The only three minutes of the oral argument that I heard had to do with the dog sniff. We didn't get there early enough to get seats to hear the whole thing.
Speaking of unreasonable searches, I spent some time this morning getting the forms to fill out to apply for a card to not have to get unconstitutionally searched every time I go to the city county building. It wants $10 plus demands a ssn without compliance with the 1974 privacy act, but would be an improvement over the current searches, which are unreasonably intrusive.
booker/fanfan reasons. Of the four, the one I was interested in was the dog sniff case.
The court said that a dog sniff, at an otherwise valid stop, is not a search. (I think I have correctly characterized the holding; they at least said it was not unconstitutional.) I have not read, at least recently enough to recall, the Illinois case this was based on. But the Illinois Supreme Court had said the search was unconstitutional. If that opinion had relied in part of state constitutional grounds, it would stand. Did the defendant assert state grounds? If not, did his lawyer commit malpractice?
The case distinguishes Edmonds v Indianapolis, in which my tentant/client/friend Joell was unconstitutionally stopped and subjected to a dog search, assaulted, etc.
The only three minutes of the oral argument that I heard had to do with the dog sniff. We didn't get there early enough to get seats to hear the whole thing.
Speaking of unreasonable searches, I spent some time this morning getting the forms to fill out to apply for a card to not have to get unconstitutionally searched every time I go to the city county building. It wants $10 plus demands a ssn without compliance with the 1974 privacy act, but would be an improvement over the current searches, which are unreasonably intrusive.
Comments:
Post a Comment
