The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that could strike a blow to law enforcement agencies that rely heavily on drug-sniffing dogs for evidence in cases of drug charges. The court held 5-4 that an officer could not use a drug dog to sniff around the outside of a house where they suspect illegal activity.
Last week we talked about a group of search warrants that were executed at Missouri State University on suspicion of drug charges. In one of those cases a suspect's roommates allowed law enforcement officials to search their bedrooms that were attached to a common area.
On this St. Louis DWI blog we've written several times about the Fourth Amendment and how it protects people against the unlawful search and seizure of their person or property by law enforcement officials. However, it is important to understand that this does not bar every search in every situation. A series of recent investigations at Missouri State University highlights some issues surrounding warranted searches and how police conduct drug investigations.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling last month that has serious implications for due process and policy rights. And civil liberties advocates are up in arms about the ruling, which they believe could unfairly violate the privacy rights of criminal suspects.
As we discussed last week, the Fourth Amendment protects all Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officials. Under the Amendment, the definition of a "search' includes the search of a home, a vehicle during a traffic stop, a person's pockets or one of the most invasive tools available to law enforcement: a strip search.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a search occurs when a police investigation extends to a person or property over which the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This can be difficult to determine but courts usually try to decide of members of society at large would think it is reasonable to expect a certain amount of privacy.
In past years, judges, attorneys, constitutional law experts and telecommunications companies have argued over the privacy rights and implications of information stored on cell phones and how, or if, that information can be used in criminal proceedings. The Fourth Amendment protects all Americans against unreasonable, warrantless search and seizure. But is your cell phone entitled to that same protection?
Last week we introduced two cases recently heard by the United States Supreme Court. The court has taken up several issues surrounding the use of drug-sniffing dogs in arrests and criminal investigations that could have lasting effects on Americans' due process rights and criminal defense.
The Supreme Court recently heard two cases involving drug charges that were facilitated by drug-sniffing dogs. Their ruling in these matters could have broad implications for criminal defense and redefine the rights of the accused, particularly in drug cases.