October 31, 2012
"Thoughts on the Oral Arguments in the Dog Sniff Cases"
Orin Kerr has this post at The Volokh Conspiracy. In part:
Based on the arguments, my guess is that the state will win one and lose one. The Court will probably agree that the Fourth Amendment was violated in Jardines, in which the officer brought the dog to the front door and the dog sniffed for drugs. On the other hand, the Court will probably rule that the Fourth Amendment was not violated in Harris because the training the dog received was sufficient.
October 31, 2012 | Permalink