Category Archives: Bad Cops
via Washington Times
Almost exactly 24 hours after Mr. Paul began his information-seeking filibuster against John O. Brennan, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to the Senate floor to denounce his demands and say he was doing a “disservice” to the debate on drones.
“The country needs more senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. McCain, Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2008 — who topped Mr. Paul’s father, former Rep. Ron Paul, in that year’s primary.
And where Democrats praised Mr. Paul for using Senate rules properly to launch a filibuster, Mr. McCain said it was an abuse of rules that could hurt the GOP in the long run.
“What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” the Arizona Republican said.
Mr. Paul said he was filibustering to get the administration to affirm it won’t kill non-combatant Americans in the U.S. — and his effort was joined by more than a dozen other senators who said they, too, supported his effort to get answers.
Mr. Graham said asking whether the president has the power to kill Americans here at home is a ludicrous question.
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Mr. Graham said.
Mr. Graham and Mr. McCain led a Republican delegation that held a private dinner with President Obama on Wednesday, as Mr. Paul was holding the floor with help from other GOP colleagues.
Mr. McCain even joked about Mr. Graham’s “behavior” at the dinner.
“He was on his best manners and everyone was impressed,” Mr. McCain said.
- McCain And Graham’s @SenRandPaul Temper Tantrum (thecampofthesaints.org)
- IT’S WAR: John McCain And Lindsey Graham Are Tearing Into Rand Paul Right Now On The Senate Floor (businessinsider.com)
- Rush to Rand: ‘You’re a hero’ (wnd.com)
- McCain, Graham blast Paul filibuster (politico.com)
- Moronic: Sen. McCain blasts Sen. Paul’s filibuster as ‘political stunt,’ ‘ridiculous’ (twitchy.com)
- Rand Paul’s Drone Filibuster Sparks GOP Civil War (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Sierra Adamson interviews Chris Hedges at the hearing for the second court of appeals in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America’s upcoming future.
Citing week-old Supreme Court precedent, the President Barack Obama administration told a federal judge Wednesday that it should quash a federal lawsuit accusing the government of secretly siphoning Americans’ electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.
The San Francisco federal court legal filing was in response to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White’s written question (.pdf) to the government asking what to make of the high court’s Feb. 26 decision halting a legal challenge to a once-secret warrantless surveillance project that gobbles up Americans’ electronic communications — a program that Congress eventually legalized in 2008 and again in 2012.
In that case, known as Clapper, the justices ruled 5-4 that the American Civil Liberties Union, journalists and human-rights groups that sued to nullify the FISA Amendments Act had no legal standing to sue. The justices ruled (.pdf) the plaintiffs submitted no evidence they were being targeted by that law.
The FISA Amendments Act authorizes the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”
- Feds Demand Dismissal of Dragnet-Surveillance Challenge (wired.com)
- It’s Official, the Fourth Amendment is Dead (usahitman.com)
- In ‘Disturbing Decision’ Supreme Court Rejects Challenge of Dragnet Surveillance of Americans (commondreams.org)
- Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to FISA Amendments Act; EFF’s Lawsuit Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Remains (secretsofthefed.com)
Well everybody, wave goodbye to your 4th amendment right . . . buh bye!
The supreme court has decided a dog is the only thing standing between you and the (now defunct) 4th amendment of the (now defunct) constitution that used to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Now if a cop wants to search your car or your person, all s/he needs is a dog and to utter the magic words “My dog alerted.” That’s it. A dog is all the probable cause the law needs to search you and your person.
What’s next? Deciding guilt or innocence using a magic 8 ball?
The supreme court made this decision despite some drug-sniffing dogs being proven wrong more than half the time, no mandate that police be required to video record the dog encounter and any doggy indications of a “hit” or “alert” and the police not being required to track the historic accuracy of their dogs.
The dog that ratted you out may have been wrong 75% of the time in past encounters, but that doesn’t matter because, as (in)justice kagan so brilliantly put it, “the dog may not have made a mistake at all,” instead it “may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate.”
See? Dogs aren’t wrong, us humans just can’t corroborate their unerring accuracy.
So a dog is called, you get searched and/or arrested and you don’t have any way to cross-examine a dog or check the dog’s record of hits and misses or even review a video recording of your encounter with the dog. It’s just your word against a dog and a cop.
Your 4th amendment rights have just gone to the dogs, literally. Good doggy. Shi**y supreme court. We are f**ked.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.” The justices overturned a 2011 decision in which the Florida Supreme Court said police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained. They deemed that court’s evidentiary requirements too “rigid” for the “totality of the circumstances” test used to determine when a search is constitutional. In particular, the Court said it was not appropriate to demand evidence of a dog’s performance in the field, as opposed to its performance on tests by police. While the Court’s decision in Florida v. Harris leaves open the possibility that defense attorneys can contest the adequacy of a dog’s training or testing and present evidence that the animal is prone to false alerts, this ruling will encourage judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine’s capabilities, reinforcing the use of dogs to transform hunches into probable cause.
Myth #1: Field performance is a misleading indicator of a dog’s reliability. When a dog alerts and no drugs are found (as happened twice in this case), “the dog may not have made a mistake at all,” Kagan says. Instead it “may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate,” she suggests. “Or the dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the vehicle or on the driver’s person.” This is a very convenient, completely unfalsifiable excuse for police and prosecutors. But probable cause is supposed to hinge on whether there is a “fair probability” that a search will discover evidence of a crime, and the possibility that dogs will react to traces of drugs that are no longer present makes them less reliable for that purpose.
Myth #2: Police department testing is the gold standard by which a dog’s reliability should be judged. Kagan says the uncertainties of the real world “do not taint records of a dog’s performance in standard training and certification settings,” because “the designers of an assessment know where drugs are hidden and where they are not.” That is precisely the problem when the designers are the dog trainers, as is usually the case, because they may deliberately or subconsciously indicate the locations of the drugs. Lawrence Myers, a veterinarian and neurophysiologist at Auburn University who is an expert on dogs’ olfactory capabilities, observes: “Typically if a cop says, ‘I train the dog every week,’ he’s hiding things and then going around and finding the things he’s hidden. Putting something out, you as the handler, then taking the dog through, you are going to seriously skew the training; you’re going to cue. You can’t help it; you know exactly where the damned thing is.”
- SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs (reason.com)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (sacbee.com)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (miamiherald.com)
- Supreme Court Rules On Police Dog Sniffs (huffingtonpost.com)
- Opinion recap: Trust the police dog (scotusblog.com)
- Supreme Court Says Drug-Dog Alerts are ‘Up to Snuff’ (wired.com)
- Every drug dog has his day – in court; even Supreme Court (sacbee.com)
- Supreme Court Won’t Raise Standards For Drug-Sniffing Dogs (thinkprogress.org)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (seattletimes.com)
Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said.
The women, shot in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue, were taken to area hospitals, Torrance police Lt. Devin Chase said. They were not identified. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back, according to Jesse Escochea, who captured video of the victims being treated.
It was not immediately known what newspapers the women were delivering. After the shooting, the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.
Local, state and federal authorities are involved in a massive search for Christoper Jordan Dorner, 33, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who is believed to have threatened “unconventional and asymmetrical warfare” against police in an online manifesto, and was suspected of shooting three police officers, one of whom died, early Thursday in Riverside County.
Dorner also is suspected of killing a couple in Orange County earlier this week.
Sources said the Los Angeles police detectives involved in the Torrance shooting were on protective detail for a police official named in the suspect’s supposed manifesto, which was posted on what authorities believe is his Facebook page.
MORE . . .
Bridgeport Police Department: Connecticut cops on leave after they were caught ‘kicking and stomping on man’ | Mail Online
Three Connecticut police officers have been put on administrative leave after they were caught on video brutally beating a suspect in a local park.
Elson Morales, Joseph Lawlor and Clive Higgins, all 10-year veterans of the Bridgeport Police Department, are shown on the tape kicking and stomping on a man they had already subdued with a stun gun.
They will remain on paid administrative leave while the May 2011 encounter is investigated.
The sobering footage was uploaded on YouTube on January 18 by an anonymous user. It is unclear who filmed it.
In the video, which goes in and out of focus, the pop and sizzle of the electric stun gun can be heard before a man shouts ‘nice shot’ from off camera as the suspect falls to the ground.
Within seconds, two officers stand over the motionless man and begin kicking and stomping on him as he writhes around on the grass. A third officer drives up in a police cruiser with the sirens blaring and attacks him.
At one point a witness yells at the officers, ‘You got him, cut the (expletive).’
Carolyn Vermont, president of the Greater Bridgeport branch of the NAACP, slammed the police response, describing it to the Connecticut Post as ‘horrible, totally unacceptable.’
‘No person should be treated as an animal, no matter what they are charged with,’ she said.
Police Chief Joseph Gaudett Jr. said he learned about the video last week and promptly ordered the city’s Office of Internal Affairs to investigate the beating. He also notified the Bridgeport State’s Attorney.
- NAACP reportedly wants cops in beating video arrested (foxnews.com)
- Connecticut cops kicked and stomped on man downed by stun gun: video (rawstory.com)
- Three Connecticut police officers caught on camera ‘kicking and stomping on man they’d subdued with a stun gun’ (dailymail.co.uk)
- Three Connecticut police officers caught on camera ‘kicking and stomping on man they’d subdued with a stun gun’ (informationliberation.com)
- Three Connecticut police officers caught on camera ‘kicking and stomping on man they’d subdued with a stun gun’ (sgtreport.com)
- Cops accused of brutality, alleged incident caught on video (myfox8.com)
- 3 Bridgeport, CT. Cops Caught on Video Beating Stun-Gunned Man (leaksource.wordpress.com)
- Officers on Desk Duty After Alleged Beating Video (fox8.com)
- Video shows police Tasering, stomping suspect (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
No narcotics, contraband found during searches, lawsuit says
The female Texas trooper who performed a roadside cavity search on two Irving women will be terminated according to the Department of Public Safety.
The two women from Irving are suing Trooper David Farrell, Trooper Kelley Helleson and the director of the Department of Public Safety for what they call an unconstitutional search without probable cause.
Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger says agency director Steve McCraw has made a preliminary determination to terminate Trooper Kelly Helleson. Vinger, in a statement Wednesday, said Helleson will have the opportunity to meet with McCraw before her firing is final.
Helleson and Trooper David Ferrell in December were put on paid suspension as the case awaits review by a Dallas County grand jury.
On July 13, while driving along State Highway 161, Angel Dobbs and her niece Ashley Dobbs were stopped for littering by Farrell. In the dashcam video released by the women and their attorney, Farrell can be heard telling the women they would both be cited for littering for throwing cigarette butts out of the car.
Farrell then returned to his cruiser and, in the video, can be heard calling female Trooper Helleson to the scene to search both women whom he said were acting weird.
While waiting for Helleson to arrive, Farrell asked Angel Dobbs to step out of the vehicle and began questioning her about marijuana use. In the video, the trooper is heard telling Dobbs he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle while asking her several times how much pot was in the car.
After Helleson arrived, she can be seen in the dashcam video putting on blue latex gloves to conduct a search of both women. According to the lawsuit, when Angel Dobbs asked about the gloves, Helleson “told her not to worry about that.”
In the lawsuit, Dobbs said the trooper conducted the cavity search on the roadside, illuminated by the police car’s headlights, in full view of any passing motorists.
“This has been an eye-opening experience for me. I’ve never been pulled over, never searched like this. I was totally violated over there a few minutes ago… this is so embarrassing to me,” Angel Dobbs said on the video.
“I’ve never been so humiliated or so violated or felt so molested in my entire life,” Angel Dobbs told NBC 5.
MORE . . .
- Trooper to Be Terminated Over Roadside Cavity Search [W/ VIDEO] (secretsofthefed.com)
- Female Texas trooper in body search faces firing (star-telegram.com)
- Possible Termination For Trooper In Body Cavity Search (dfw.cbslocal.com)
- Texas set to ‘terminate’ trooper following roadside cavity searches (usnews.nbcnews.com)
- The State Trooper Who Performed a Roadside Cavity Search on Irving Women Has Been Fired (blogs.dallasobserver.com)
- Second trooper suspended for roadside cavity search in Texas (sott.net)
The Transportation Security Administration is pulling the plug on its nude body scanner program, a decision announced Friday that closes the door to a tumultuous privacy battle with the public scoring a rare victory.
Travelers will continue to go through one of two types of scanners already deployed, but images of naked bodies will no longer be produced. Instead, software will instead show a generic outline of a person.
First tested in 2007, the advanced imaging technology scanners became the object of intense media and public scrutiny around Thanksgiving in 2010. In addition to privacy concerns, some experts maintained the scanners’ safety was unproven, and that the technology was ineffective in detecting smuggled weapons and explosives. Travelers are permitted to opt-out of the scan, but are then subjected to an aggressive pat-down procedure.
The government said Friday it is abandoning its deployment of so-called backscatter technology machines produced by Rapiscan because the company could not meet deadlines to switch to generic imaging with so-called Automated Target Recognition software, the TSA said. Instead, the TSA will continue to use and deploy more millimeter wave technology scanners produced by L-3 Communications, which has adopted the generic-outline standard.
“Due to its inability to deploy non-imaging Automated Target Recognition (ATR) software by the Congressionally-mandated June 2013 deadline, TSA has terminated part of its contract with Rapiscan,” the TSA said in a statement to Wired. “By June 2013 travelers will only see machines which have ATR that allow for faster throughput.”
The announcement comes three months after Rapiscan came under suspicion for possibly manipulating tests on the privacy software designed to prevent the machines from producing graphic body images. The TSA sent a letter in November to the parent company of Rapiscan, the maker of the so-called backscatter machines, requesting information about the testing of the software to determine if there was malfeasance.
MORE . . .
- TSA pulls the plug on ‘naked’ x-ray scanners after maker fails to guarantee privacy (theverge.com)
- TSA to remove controversial X-ray scanners (miamiherald.com)
- TSA to Remove Naked-Image Scanners From US Airports (gizmodo.com)
- Naked-Image Scanners to Be Removed From U.S. Airports (bloomberg.com)
- The TSA Has Ended Its Contract With Airport Scanner Maker Rapiscan (theatlantic.com)
A St. Paul, Minnesota family claims in a lawsuit that police officers who conducted a wrong-door raid on their home shot their dog, and then forced their three handcuffed children to sit near the dead pet while officers ransacked the home. The lawsuit, which names Ramsey County, the Dakota County Drug Task Force, and the DEA, and asks for $30 million in civil rights violations and punitive damages after a wrong-door raid, also claims that the officers kicked the children and deprived one of them of her diabetes medication.
The suit also alleges that one of the lead officers with the task force “provided false information” in order to get a warrant to raid the Franco family’s home. (That information being the Franco family’s address, and not that of their supposedly criminal neighbor Rafael Ybarra.)
MORE . . .
- No Felony Charges Against 2 St. Paul Cops (minnesota.cbslocal.com)
- Moreno Valley police fatally shoot handcuffed teen (utsandiego.com)
- Caught On Tape: Cops Tase Man In Case of Mistaken Identity, Joke About Planting Drugs On Him (informationliberation.com)
- Baltimore City Officer Fatally Shoots Family Pit Bull In The Head (baltimore.cbslocal.com)
A secret audio recording of a stop-and-frisk in action sheds unprecedented light on a practice that has put the city’s young people of color in the NYPD’s crosshairs.
Uploaded on Nov 16, 2010
NYPD officer Adrian Schoolcraft secretly records NYPD top brass giving orders that tickets must be written and arrest must be made or there will be hell to pay. He goes on to say that orders were given to harass people so vigorously that they will not even want to step foot outside in fear of being arrested or ticketed.
The police are nothing more than an organized crime syndicate which has fooled us into believing they are here to protect us. When was the last time you seen a cop save somebody or help you for that matter? You can’t even look at a cop without him giving you a dirty look and finding you suspicious of a crime, that’s if your not a young pretty girl or boy for that matter.
- Queens District Attorney: ‘No Crime to Throw Whistle-Blower Cop in Psych Ward’
- NYPD Cops Caught Hunting Citizens During Thanksgiving Holiday (informationliberation.com)
- Ex-NYPD Cop Reveals How Not to Get a Ticket – Yahoo! (coralvillecourier.typepad.com)
Via Truth Squad TV
- Kind NY Cop, Larry DePrimo, Helps Homeless Man And Goes Viral On The Net | THE JEENYUS CORNER (jeenyuscorner.com)
- NYPD Officer on the Rights of the Public to Film Cops (sgtreport.com)
- Queens District Attorney: ‘No Crime to Throw Whistle-Blower Cop in Psych Ward’ (aftermathnews.wordpress.com)
- There ARE Good Cops Out There: This Police Detective Wants More Cop Watch (sgtreport.com)
Carlos Miller was arrested for filming the police. Resisting the pressure to accept a “deal,” he risked more prison time simply by insisting on his right to a jury trial. According to Miller, the prosecutor told the jury that Miller did not behave like a “real journalist” because a “real journalist” would have obeyed all police requests and orders. Miller’s attorney responded to that argument with the following:
“In this country, when you’re a journalist, your job is to investigate.
Not to be led by your hand where the police want you to see, so they can hide what they don’t want you to see.
No, when you’re a journalist, a real journalist, it’s your job to go find the truth. As long as you are acting within the law as Mr. Miller was, you have the right to demand and say, ‘no, I’m not moving, I have the right to be here. This is a public sidewalk, I have the right to be here.’
He did his job. He has the right to do his job the way he sees fit. It’s not up to these prosecutors to tell anybody, much less an independent journalist, how to do their job. It’s not up to the police officers, it’s not up to a judge or the president.
In this country, journalists do their job the way they see fit.
What’s he describing is Cuba. What he’s describing is a communist country. The government says you can’t be here because I say you can’t be here.
And it’s infuriating to me that a prosecutor would try to get up here and try to convince you that just because a police officer says something, that he has to bow his head and walk away.
That is a disgrace to the Constitution of this country.”
Congratulations to Miller and his attorneys. More info, including video from the trial, click here.
- Jury Says Journalist Arrested While Videotaping Police Is Not Guilty (libertycrier.com)
- *** Not Guilty *** (photographyisnotacrime.com)
- Texas woman charged with felony for posting police officer’s photo on Facebook (rt.com)
How the FISA Amendments Act Allows for Warrantless Wiretapping, As Described By Supreme Court Justices
On [October 29, 2012] … the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Clapper v. Amnesty, an important case that will decide if the ACLU’s challenge to the FISA Amendments Act—the law passed in the wake of the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal—can go forward. The Court will essentially determine whether any court, short of a government admission, can rule on whether the NSA’s targeted warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications violates the Constitution.1
In Clapper, the plaintiffs — journalists, human rights workers, and lawyers — filed the lawsuit because the statute prevents them from doing their job without taking substantial measures when communicating to overseas witnesses, sources and clients. EFF has previously explained how the FISA Amendments Act gives the government an unconstitutional license to read any emails or other electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. So let’s hear the Supreme Court Justices, in their own words, explain how invasive the law really is.
Here is how Justice Ginsburg, with an assist from ACLU deputy director Jameel Jaffer, explained how the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) gutted the traditional warrant requirements in FISA, along with the Fourth Amendment:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Jaffer, could you be clear on the expanded authority under the FAA? As I understood it, it’s not like in [FISA], where a target was identified and…the court decided whether there was probable cause. Under this new statute, the Government doesn’t say who is the particular person or the particular location. So, there isn’t that check. There isn’t that check.
MR. JAFFER: That’s absolutely right, Justice Ginsburg…The whole point of the statute was to remove those tests, to remove the probable cause requirement, and to remove the facilities requirement, the requirement that the Government identify to the court the facilities to be monitored. So those are gone.
That’s why we use the phrase “dragnet surveillance.” I know the Government doesn’t accept that label, but it concedes that the statute allows what it calls categorical surveillance, which…is essentially the surveillance that the plaintiffs here are concerned about.
As Justice Kagan stated succinctly, “this statute greatly expands the government’s surveillance power. Nobody denies that.”
MORE . . .
- How the FISA Amendments Act Allows for Warrantless Wiretapping, As Described By Supreme Court Justices (activistpost.com)
- Fight over FISA Amendments Act Moves to the Senate, as the House Passes the Broad, Warrantless Spying Bill (rubinoworld.com)
- How the FISA Amendments Act Allows for Warrantless Wiretapping, As Described By Supreme Court Justices (eff.org)
- Fact Checking Obama’s Misleading Answer About Warrantless Wiretapping on The Daily Show (eff.org)
- House approves another five years of warrantless wiretapping (rubinoworld.com)
by Garret Ean via FreeConcord.org
An article in the Washington Post that has been widely syndicated discusses how the collection of evidence by the use of drug detector dogs will be considered by the united states supreme court. Two cases are pending on the docket, both from Florida, which question the effectiveness as well as the constitutionality of canines for drug detection use. The article cites studies from the University of California at Davis in which 18 police canine teams were sent through a facility and tasked with finding hidden drugs. Though there were no drugs in the facility, 17 of the teams reported alerts. Barry Cooper, former police officer and producer of the Never Get Busted educational film series has discussed his own manipulation of police canines while he was working as one of the most successful narcotics interdiction detectives. Anyone who has owned a dog knows that their life revolves around serving their pack leader. There are no objective standards or testing done of the animals to demonstrate their effectiveness. In a 2005 case, former supreme court judge David Souter stated that the infallible dog “is a creation of legal fiction”.
Last year, the Florida supreme court had thrown out a case from 2006 which featured questionable probable cause for a search after a police dog sniffed and acted playfully. Judge Barbara Pariente wrote:
Courts often accept the mythic dog with an almost superstitious faith…The myth so completely has dominated the judicial psyche in those cases that the courts either assume the reliability of the sniff or address the question cursorily; the dog is the clear and consistent winner.
The reliability of drug detector dogs will always be tainted by the bias of the canine’s handler. Drug interdiction officers often become personally interested in finding larger quantities of drugs. Though the dog is a simple animal, its social awareness is in some ways more attuned than that of a human. It detects the subtle body language of its handler, and its desire to please them is the likely cause of most false alerts. Bearing this in mind, it would make more sense to have the drug detector dogs handled by individuals who are not personally invested in the drug war and who seek recognition among their peers for how much contraband they can confiscate. Previous supreme court cases have held that officers do not even need reasonable suspicion of illegal drug possession to initiate a drug dog sniffing of a vehicle during a traffic stop. Thus, the dogs are used without any accountability metric aside from that officers wanted to use them.
Grants and requests for canine unit funding by police continue to be popular despite their expense and unproven track record. There should be no surprise there, as many people would jump at the chance to be employed to play with a cute animal and occasionally give it cars and purses to sniff.
- Will Supreme Court turn up its nose at dog sniffs? (news.yahoo.com)
- Supreme Court Considers Two Drug Dog Cases (huffingtonpost.com)
- Canine as a search warrant? SCOTUS to debate dogs vs Fourth Amendment (rt.com)