Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Government

Is the Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs an Unconstitutional Search?

Oct. 31, 2012 8:32pm
SCOTUS Hears Case Regarding Constitutionality of Drug Sniffing Dogs Used Without a Search Warrant

Miami-Dade retired narcotics detector canine Franky looks on during a demonstration in Miami. Franky the drug dog’s super-sensitive nose is at the heart of a question being put to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: AP/Alan Diaz, File)

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Franky and Aldo are two drug-sniffing dogs whose good noses have put them and their cases in the middle of a constitutional battle. The issue was taken all the way to the Supreme Court Wednesday, as it considered curbing police use of drug-sniffing dogs with lawyers arguing that using a dog’s hypersensitive nose outside a home to indicate the possibility of illegal substances inside amounts to an unconstitutional breach of privacy.

Justices seemed concerned about allowing police to bring their narcotic-detecting dogs to sniff around the outside of homes without a warrant and seemed willing to allow defense attorneys to question at trial how well drug dogs have been trained and how well they have been doing their job in the field.

“Dogs make mistakes. Dogs err,” lawyer Glen P. Gifford told the justices. “Dogs get excited and will alert to things like tennis balls in trunks or animals, that sort of thing.”

But Justice Department lawyer Joseph R. Palmore warned justices not to let the questioning of dog skills go too far, because they also are used to detect bombs, protect federal officials and in search and rescue operations. “I think it’s critical … that the courts not constitutionalize dog training methodologies or hold mini-trials with expert witnesses on what makes for a successful dog training program,” he said.

SCOTUS Hears Case Regarding Constitutionality of Drug Sniffing Dogs Used Without a Search Warrant

Does a police K-9′s sniff outside a house give officers the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs, or is the sniff itself an unconstitutional search? (Photo: AP/Alan Diaz, File)

“There are 32 K-9 teams in the field right now in New York and New Jersey looking for survivors of Hurricane Sandy,” Palmore added. “So, in situation after situation, the government has in a sense put its money where its mouth is, and it believes at an institutional level that these dogs are quite reliable.”

The arguments on Wednesday revolved around the work of Franky and Aldo, dogs used by police departments in Florida.

Franky’s case arose from the December 2006 arrest of Joelis Jardines at a Miami-area house where 179 marijuana plants were confiscated. Miami-Dade police officers obtained a search warrant after Franky detected the odor of pot from outside the front door. The trial judge agreed with Jardines’ attorney that the dog’s sniff was an unconstitutional intrusion into the home and threw out the evidence.

A Florida appeals court reversed that ruling, but the state Supreme Court sided with the original judge.

The Florida Supreme Court also threw out work done by Aldo, a drug-sniffing dog used by the Liberty County sheriff. Aldo alerted his officer to the scent of drugs used to make methamphetamine inside a truck during a 2006 traffic stop, and Clayton Harris was arrested. But two months later, Harris was stopped again. Aldo again alerted his officer to the presence of drugs, but none were found.

The Florida Supreme Court justices ruled that saying a drug dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics is not enough to establish the dog’s reliability in court.

The state of Florida appealed both cases to the Supreme Court. Watch this AP report from earlier this year regarding the case:

Harris’ lawyer Gifford asked the court to uphold the ruling against Aldo and require police to provide proof that the dog is able to do its job correctly. “There is no canine exception to the totality of the circumstances test for probable cause to conduct a warrantless search,” Gifford said. “If that is true, as it must be, any fact that bears on a dog’s reliability as a detector of the presence of drugs comes within the purview of the courts.”

Lawyer Gregory Garre, who represented the state of Florida in both cases, said they shouldn’t have to prove what kind of training and classes Aldo had, “the same way that when an officer provides evidence for a search warrant, we don’t demand the training of the officer, what schools he went to or what specific courses he had in probable cause.”

In Franky’s case, Garre argued that since it wouldn’t be illegal for a police officer to sniff for marijuana outside a door, it shouldn’t be illegal for a dog like Franky to do the same thing.

If that’s true, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then police could just walk down a street with drug-sniffing dogs in “a neighborhood that’s known to be a drug-dealing neighborhood, just go down the street, have the dog sniff in front of every door, or go into an apartment building? I gather that that is your position.”

“Your Honor, they could do that,” Garre said.

But if someone invented a machine called the “smell-o-matic” that could do the same thing as Franky, police would not be able to use it outside of doors without a warrant, Justice Elena Kagan said.

Police aren’t allowed to use technology to see inside a person’s closed-up home without a warrant, argued Howard K. Blumberg, the lawyer for defendant Joelis Jardines. And the use of Franky outside the house “I would submit that would basically be the same thing as a police officer walking up and down the street with a thermal imager that’s turned on,” Blumberg said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote when the court is closely divided in a case, came down hard on both sides in Franky’s case. He told Garre, the attorney for Florida, that he didn’t agree with his argument that people with contraband inside their home don’t have an expectation of privacy. “Don’t ask me to write an opinion and say, Oh, we’re dealing with contraband here, so we don’t need to worry about expectation of privacy,” Kennedy said.

But Kennedy also told defense lawyer Blumberg that he won’t agree with his theory that it should always be considered a search when police try to find out what people are trying to keep secret.

To say “our decisions establish that police action which reveals any detail an individual seeks to keep private is a search: that is just a sweeping proposition that in my view, at least, cannot be accepted in this case. I think it’s just too sweeping and wrong,” Kennedy said.

“I would add a few words to the end of that statement: Anything that an individual seeks to keep private in the home, and that’s the difference,” Blumberg replied.

One Australian study found a dog only correctly identified drugs 12 percent of the time, Sotomayor said. “I’m deeply troubled by a dog that alerts only 12 percent of the time,” she said.

Garre argued that the numbers in that study could be read differently to raise that number as high as 70 percent, counting instances in which – even though drugs weren’t found – the person that the dog alerted to had used or been in proximity of drugs before the dog’s alert.

The justices will rule in the cases sometime next year.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (92)

1 2
  • Mr.buff1959
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:15pm

    @therealconservative. The only thing real about you is your stupidity.

    Report this comment

    Mr.buff1959  
  • grayling646
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:42pm

    Legalize pot. Problem solved. Well, mostly.

    Report this comment

    grayling646  
    • Ilikepeople
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:23pm

      That is the problem. Stop deciding for people that they are not going to use drugs. Problem solved! the issue at hand is that people who are dumb, and not wise believe themselves to be gods.

      Report this comment

      Ilikepeople  
    • Ilikepeople
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:25pm

      Of course the problem isn’t solvable, and the nation will just crumble while they’re obsessed with control, and of course the lord will just laugh as it happens, because you learn from sin. That’s coming by water and blood.

      Report this comment

      Ilikepeople  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:29pm

      I am the Lizard King!….

      I can do anything!

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:39pm

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6EnwYKNAiA

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • scruffycat
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 10:14am

      Well here everybody grows legally. Indoors, outdoors, it doesn’t matter. Right before harvest this fall, right about dusk, there were so many outdoor grows going around here that it smelled like a whole herd of skunks were decending each evening. The evening air would roll down the valley from some of the slightly higher spots around town and bring with it these sweet skunk aromas of uncounted pot plants that had gotten to be nearly 12 feet tall growing in the HOT summer we had here which contained 2 months of 100 degree plus days during its peak. Evening dusk falls, air cools off, comes running down the hills… no cops with thermal videoscopes like the fire department uses to find hot spots, no drug sniffing dogs… just the west coast of the usa…

      Report this comment

      scruffycat  
    • grayling646
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 12:47pm

      @ Scruff
      Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t support those who smoke dope. I think they lack ambition and have no desire to live an accomplished personal life. They mostly sit around glazed eyed with the munchies. My point is that the government will never stop people from doing drugs. I don’t care how much money you throw at it, how many laws you pass or how big of an army you raise against it. Their efforts are about as effective as trying to stop Hurricane Sandy with chicken wire.

      Report this comment

      grayling646  
  • woodyee
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:42pm

    There are MUCH better ways to keep illicit drugs from being smuggled into or produced in our country, than to be granted an automatic search warrant because a law enforcement officers dog got turned on by something he likes inside.

    Gaybama likes the Chinese. I like some of the things they do, too. Like a drug conviction can get you shot. Pretty cool.

    Report this comment

    woodyee  
  • claymoremacm
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:42pm

    shoot the dog,It growled at me,shoot the drone,it looked into my house

    Report this comment

    claymoremacm  
  • mike3481
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:40pm

    Only if the dog, during the search, starts humping the suspect’s leg.

    Report this comment

    mike3481  
  • RandomMan
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:30pm

    The so called drug war is the cover they are using to militarized the police. Using it to seize property can’t possibly be what our founding fathers had in mind.

    Report this comment

    RandomMan  
    • Mr.buff1959
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:06pm

      Amen.

      Report this comment

      Mr.buff1959  
    • G-WHIZ
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 11:37am

      The ORIGINAL “TEA” party was about [self-written] King’s-police-serches, which the police stole anything they wanted…besides looking for the “stamps-tax” stamps!! They took guns,knives, food, money, raped-women and killed husbands and whole-famillies… …. …. ! NOW, WE have the [PATRIOT ACT] which allows Self-Written [SEARCH&SEISURES] to all POLICE and SOLDIERS…INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE U.S.A.!! All they need is a very-small PROBBABLE-CAUSE of being a detrimant to the president!! Just say…”YOU SUCK!” and you can and will be emprizoned for life with no outside-contact and no “rights”…as if you have never existed!!

      Report this comment

      G-WHIZ  
  • Eastinfection
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:25pm

    “Doggie Style” was OK but Snoop was really at his best on “The Chronic”

    Report this comment

    Eastinfection  
  • mtnvortex
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:24pm

    Let’s get one thing straight…I am a conservative Libertarian type. Some of you so-called conservatives really need to check yourselves. You pick and choose things from the Constitution just as bad as the liberals do. You seriously have no problem violating peoples’ 4th amendment rights? If you would be honest with yourselves, you’d see the problem here. Whether you like it or not, it is one of our God given rights.

    Report this comment

    mtnvortex  
    • PALEHORSE
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:11pm

      You have no expectation of privacy when in public places. If the canine can pick up the scent outside the curtiledge of the house. If you are going to let the odor slip out you deserve to be busted.

      Report this comment

      PALEHORSE  
    • BlueStrat
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:15am

      @PaleHorse

      “You have no expectation of privacy when in public places. If the canine can pick up the scent outside the curtiledge of the house. If you are going to let the odor slip out you deserve to be busted.”

      —

      What about the hallway of an apartment building? Can they bring a dog right outside of everyone’s door in the hallway of the building to randomly sweep for possible drugs/explosives/etc without a warrant or probable cause in your opinion? How about if they train some specie of animal that uses ultrasound, like a bat, to look through walls and alert to certain objects/activities inside? Would you consider that to be a legal way for law enforcement to look inside private residences where an infrared/sonar/microwave scanner is not?

      Would going door to door with some sort of high-tech explosive/drug airborne-vapor/particulate detector that hadn’t passed rigorous tests (think lie detectors and radar guns) be legal and admissible in court in your opinion?

      Why is it OK if the detector has fur and a chew-toy, but not OK if it has **blinkenlights?

      **ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen peepers!

      Das machine control is nicht fur gerfinger-poken und
      mittengrabben. Oderwise is easy schnappen der springenwerk,
      blowen fuse, und poppencorken mit spitzensparken.
      Der machine is diggen by experten only. Is nicht fur
      geverken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken sightseenen
      keepen das cotten picken hands in das pockets,
      so relaxen und watc

      Report this comment

      BlueStrat  
  • The-Monk
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:23pm

    I’m sure Obama can solve this issue….

    He likes doing drugs
    He likes eating dogs

    See where I’m going?

    The-Monk  
  • IWILLBEFREE
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:17pm

    A police dog is not an officer, it’s a tool for an officer to use. Like his/her firearm. It’s kinda like you shooting a guy and then attempting to find out why you shot him.

    Report this comment

    IWILLBEFREE  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:27pm

      I like your analogy but it’s a bit severe…

      I’d liken it more to pulling someone over on a “hunch”…

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • tj1961
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 12:26am

      In the US military the dog is a higher rank than his handler……If the dog is mistreated the handler may be court-marshaled for harming a superior.

      Report this comment

      tj1961  
    • roseblood
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 11:21am

      In many cities and states, the canine is a certified police officer with their own badge.

      Report this comment

      roseblood  
  • TJexcite
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:17pm

    Get a warrant signed by a judge in good standing. It is not that hard with probable cause.

    But the air that leaves the house that the dogs smell could be seen as the same the garbage that leaves the house. There could be a police force that if they could/would tap the sewer line and search what they flush to get a warrant but most of the time there is other evidence that is in plain sight that will get the charges.

    Report this comment

    TJexcite  
  • Individualism
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:09pm

    search warrant, should be required for every search including this and if they don’t obtain one and go on private property they can be turn into dog steak wrapped with bacon.

    Report this comment

    Individualism  
  • StargazerInSavannah
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:03pm

    Add your comments

    Report this comment

    StargazerInSavannah  
  • GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:03pm

    They should be careful handling those dogs…I mean, not getting the dogs too near of an Occupy rally or a Democrat convention, the dogs could die of a heart attack!!!!

    Report this comment

    GBTVFan_Non_American_Overseas  
  • Gregb
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:03pm

    so, I guess that metal detectors would be unconstitutional too?

    Report this comment

    Gregb  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:10pm

      If they were placed outside your front door they would be….

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • mtnvortex
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:17pm

      They’re not randomly checking your house, or car, with a metal detector. They use them to prevent people from bringing weapons into a PUBLIC place, where other people are at risk.

      Report this comment

      mtnvortex  
    • mtnvortex
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:28pm

      @EastInfection This is true…And if some people have their way, that’s probably a possibility in the near future. Kind of like that South Park episode with the TSA in everyone’s bathrooms. :-)

      Report this comment

      mtnvortex  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:37pm

      MTN… love me some South Park.. Happy Halloween!…..:

      http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149928/cheap-bastards

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:47pm

      Hi East,

      Are you still here? Have some info for you….

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:56pm

      Hey Monk…

      OK… Shoot…

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:09pm

      Hi East,

      FYI….. Wango’s new account is http://www.theblaze.com/users/pantloadian/

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:16pm

      That’s too bad Monk..

      The old WANGO was so entertaining..

      Why throw away all the “street cred” he earned?….. ;)

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:27pm

      Hi East,

      Don’t think he had any choice… let me make a quick call to the Terminator.

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:43pm

      No answer…. he must be out Trick-or-Treating in his P51 costume. LOL

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:45pm

      lol.. BTW Monk…

      In RE: (Q) posed on wacky after-life thread….. (“What do you suppose would happen to someone who actually figured “it” all out?)

      (A) “You’d need some duct tape around you head first and I like your posts too much to make your head explode”…. to quote a friend ;p

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • Crazy-Horse
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:47pm

      @Eastinfection and The Monk,
      He didn’t throw it away. He was shot down. You won’t see EtchASketch tomorrow either.
      I’ve got plenty ammo left in my arsenal. And lay off that Trick-or-Treat nonsense Monk.

      Report this comment

      Crazy-Horse  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:59pm

      Hi East,

      But I have figured t all out. Seriously… : )

      Report this comment

      The-Monk  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 11:11pm

      Monk….

      me, too.
      not ALL of it..

      sometimes the ten feet right in front of me are rather challenging …..but i’m confidant that i have a grasp on human existential nature and how it relates to quantum/ temporal theory.

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
  • TRILO
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:01pm

    The War on Drugs is and will always be a failure. This country is turning into a police state. Yes it should be unconstitutional for a police officer to bring a dog on to a persons property without a warrant for the sole purpose of sniffing for drugs. Just as it should be unconstitutional for a police officer to come and search your property without a warrant. Lets be clear, a drug sniffing dog’s sole purpose is to “search” for drugs.

    In case you were wondering: Amendment IV:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    A law enforcement officer should have probable cause and a warrant before they enter your property; not determine probable cause after they search your property.

    Report this comment

    TRILO  
    • taxpro4u03
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 11:24pm

      Reiterating for those who aren’t ‘with the program’ quite yet — BE SURE * which * constitution (and statutes which arise from it – down to the township level) is being ‘enforced.’ — Know who ‘you’ are, and accept that corporations can (and do) do what they want. How you ACT (or do not act) is the single most relevant factor in leashing defacto institutions… — Arguing from a FALSE premise is self-defeating. :-)

      Report this comment

      taxpro4u03  
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:00pm

    I’m sure that John “Puppet Boy” Roberts is waiting for “guidance” from obama on this one – TOO.

    Report this comment

    Tri-ox  
  • StargazerInSavannah
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:00pm

    Cibolo, you must have completed the school of stupidity.
    Which clause does the congressional act violate? Maybe the famous ‘good and plenty’ clause that is so popular with Michigan Democrats.

    Report this comment

    StargazerInSavannah  
  • Advection
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:00pm

    Prohibition has been one of the worst “policies” ever devised, and most people are unaware that it never ended. It simply shifted from alcohol to marijuana. And since Nixon created the DEA to prohibit even the medical research of many substances, over $1 Trillion has been wasted, tens of millions have been arrested, hundreds of thousands killed, and drug gangs have been handed the profits from every sale.

    I have yet to find anyone who thinks alcohol Prohibition was positive and should be brought back, and its almost as rare to meet anyone who sees the parallel with marijuana Prohibition and understands it must be ended.

    Report this comment

    Advection  
  • Smokey_Bojangles
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:57pm

    For a dog treat,my dog would swear Benghazi was not Obama’s fault. I would not trust my 4th amendment rights with a cop,much less a dog.

    Report this comment

    Smokey_Bojangles  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:06pm

      Yet if you come home and see that someone broke into your house, who is the first people you call to come to your aid? Could it be those same ‘dirty rotten’ cops, that are out to violate your rights?

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
  • Eastinfection
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:52pm

    Wow…. So The Supreme Court DOES have a copy of the Constitution laying around afterall…?

    Where was it earlier this year when they ruled on ObamaDon’tCare?……

    Maybe if the cops could somehow classify the dogs as a “tax”…?

    Report this comment

    Eastinfection  
  • Rowgue
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:50pm

    There have been several dateline type investigations into the reliability of these dogs and every one of them found it to be a crapshoot at best and a complete farce at worst. Dogs alerting to sandwiches in backpacks and strolling right by intentionally planted drugs without so much as a hesitation.

    And that’s just the dogs themselves being relatively unreliable at detecting drugs. That doesn’t even account for the handlers that train their dogs to alert on cue to manufacture probable cause to search anything and anyone they want to search where no probable cause actually exists.

    Report this comment

    Rowgue  
  • Mr.Fitnah
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:50pm

    The Drug Laws are unconstitutional.

    Report this comment

    Mr.Fitnah  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:00pm

      Where in the Constitution does it say you’re entitled to drugs?

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • Smokey_Bojangles
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:18pm

      Where in the constitution does it say the police can stop you at random?
      Read the 4th amendment sometime.You may like it.

      Report this comment

      Smokey_Bojangles  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:27pm

      @smokey

      I said “Where in the Constitution does it say you’re entitled to drugs?” Still waiting for an answer, and no its not in the 4th Amendment.

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:44pm

      10th amendment…

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved TO THE STATES respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE.”

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:53pm

      @east

      Did you know that all the states have made drugs illegal, to one degree or another. This case has to do with the States trying to enforce state law.
      Also the 10th Amendment does not forbid the federal from making federal law.

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • ANTISOCIAL-IST
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:20pm

      @theunrealconservative: where in the constitution does it say the govt has the authority to lock someone in a cage like an animal for being in possession of a plant, a God-given plant, that has many proven, scientifically and otherwise, valuable uses?
      you sound like an LEO bootlicker control freak.
      calling LEO after a breakin is not for protection. it’s for a police report to give to your insurance company, at best.
      go on youtube and see all of your precious LEO brothers and sisters violating the constitutionally-protected rights of the citizens of this nation. now, i’m sure you will justify every injustice by LEO that you come across, and that just enforces my opinion that you’re an LEO bootlicker and would do/say anything to maintain the thin blue line of your GANG. 95 % of LEO give the others a bad name.

      Report this comment

      ANTISOCIAL-IST  
    • Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 7:43am

      Where in the constitution does it say drugs are illegal?

      Report this comment

      Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass  
  • punchaliberal
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:41pm

    Let’s get the liberals in the way so people can sneak drugs around a lot easier, psh. So what if a dog finds tennis balls if it finds drugs too! http://itun.es/us/enqLH.i

    Report this comment

    punchaliberal  
  • Cibolo
    Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:38pm

    The fact that drugs are illegal is unconstitutional!

    Report this comment

    Cibolo  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:49pm

      Where in the Constitution does it say you’re entitled to drugs?

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • Advection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:12pm

      Correct. They made alcohol illegal with a constitutional amendment, then they repealed that with another amendment because PROHIBITION MAKES THINGS WORSE.

      Then Nixon made dozens of substances illegal thru a trick. He created the DEA and handed them the authority to “control” those substances. The DEA was also given the authority to decide whether doctors can even research new drugs, which would move the drugs from illegal to legal status.

      Did you know why synthetic marijuana was invented? Because the DEA, which would go bankrupt without the money they get to enforce marijuana Prohibition, doesn’t allow research into any beneficial effects of the plant. Does anyone else spot the conflict of interest?

      Did you know that synthetic THC is legal, but the natural substance is not? Did you know the federal government holds medical marijuana patents?

      Bottom line: This is a state’s rights issue, and the federal government has no authority in the Constituiton not specifically spelled out.

      Report this comment

      Advection  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:18pm

      10th amendment…

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved TO THE STATES respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.”

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:39pm

      @east

      Did you know that all the states have made drugs illegal, to one degree or another. This case has to do with the States trying to enforce state law.
      Also the 10th Amendment does not forbid the federal from making federal law.

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 9:53pm

      REAL…
      “Did you know that all the states have made drugs illegal, to one degree or another.”
      -You know very well that many states have tried to de-criminalize or reclassify “drugs” but have been steamrolled by the Feds…

      “This case has to do with the States trying to enforce state law.”
      -Which is fine if they do it Constitutionally…..

      “the 10th Amendment does not forbid the federal from making federal law”
      - yes, but they are not allowed to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws…

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:19pm

      -You know very well that many states have tried to de-criminalize or reclassify “drugs” but have been steamrolled by the Feds…

      Name the state.

      “This case has to do with the States trying to enforce state law.”
      -Which is fine if they do it Constitutionally…..

      So now your 10th Amendment comment is questionable?

      “the 10th Amendment does not forbid the federal from making federal law”
      - yes, but they are not allowed to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws…

      Again show me where the CONSTITUTION forbids making drugs illegal.

      Report this comment

      therealconservative  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 10:34pm

      REAL CONSERVATIVE….

      Do you think it’s within the Fed’s power to make “Pizza” illegal?

      ….It doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution that the Feds CAN’T make Pizza illegal?…

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • Eastinfection
      Posted on October 31, 2012 at 11:27pm

      REAL……

      Name the state….

      Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Deleware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico , Vermont, Washington, Oregon, Rhode Island

      http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

      Report this comment

      Eastinfection  
    • resme
      Posted on November 1, 2012 at 12:45am

      @east, Don’t bother, He’s what Ann Coulter calls a “******”.

      Report this comment

      resme  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love