Post by Shuftin on Sept 8, 2006 16:32:36 GMT -5
Feb. 16, 2006
In a decision cheered by civil libertarians, an appeals court on Wednesday upheld a controversial court ruling that keeps drug dogs from sniffing on private property without a search warrant.
In April 2002, a tipster ratted out James Rabb of Hollywood, telling authorities he was growing marijuana plants in his home. Police detectives took their drug-detection dog named "Chevy" to the front door of Rabb's home on Polk Street, where the dog sniffed at the door and signaled to his bosses that marijuana abounded.
Chevy's work helped convince a judge to issue a search warrant.
Inside Rabb's home, detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office found marijuana plants, plus Ecstasy and Xanax tablets. Rabb was charged with possession of 64 cannabis plants and other drugs.
But at trial, Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes threw out the evidence, ruling the search had violated Rabb's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. "It would have opened the door to terrible civil liberties violations," said Charles Wender, Rabb's attorney.
On Wednesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal once again affirmed Holmes' decision. In its most recent appeal, the state asked the court to consider a 1998 drug-dog case out of Illinois. In this case, a police dog discovered that a speeding driver had a trunk full of marijuana, and the driver, Roy Caballes, received a 12-year sentence for marijuana trafficking.
But Judge Bobby W. Gunther, joined by Judge Gary M. Farmer, said a car is completely different from a home, the latter a most sacred place.
In his 22-page decision, Gunther wrote: "a firm line remains at its entrance blocking the noses of dogs from sniffing government's way into the intimate details of an individual's life. If that line should crumble, one can only fear where future lines will be drawn and where sniffing dogs, or even more intrusive and disturbing sensory-enhancing methods, will be seen next."
"The court has quite clearly said there is a very high expectation of privacy in one's home," said Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Assistant State Attorney Claudine M. LaFrance, who appealed the decision, did not return a call from The Miami Herald for comment on Wednesday's ruling. A spokesman for BSO said the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.
In a decision cheered by civil libertarians, an appeals court on Wednesday upheld a controversial court ruling that keeps drug dogs from sniffing on private property without a search warrant.
In April 2002, a tipster ratted out James Rabb of Hollywood, telling authorities he was growing marijuana plants in his home. Police detectives took their drug-detection dog named "Chevy" to the front door of Rabb's home on Polk Street, where the dog sniffed at the door and signaled to his bosses that marijuana abounded.
Chevy's work helped convince a judge to issue a search warrant.
Inside Rabb's home, detectives from the Broward Sheriff's Office found marijuana plants, plus Ecstasy and Xanax tablets. Rabb was charged with possession of 64 cannabis plants and other drugs.
But at trial, Broward Circuit Judge Ilona Holmes threw out the evidence, ruling the search had violated Rabb's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. "It would have opened the door to terrible civil liberties violations," said Charles Wender, Rabb's attorney.
On Wednesday, the Fourth District Court of Appeal once again affirmed Holmes' decision. In its most recent appeal, the state asked the court to consider a 1998 drug-dog case out of Illinois. In this case, a police dog discovered that a speeding driver had a trunk full of marijuana, and the driver, Roy Caballes, received a 12-year sentence for marijuana trafficking.
But Judge Bobby W. Gunther, joined by Judge Gary M. Farmer, said a car is completely different from a home, the latter a most sacred place.
In his 22-page decision, Gunther wrote: "a firm line remains at its entrance blocking the noses of dogs from sniffing government's way into the intimate details of an individual's life. If that line should crumble, one can only fear where future lines will be drawn and where sniffing dogs, or even more intrusive and disturbing sensory-enhancing methods, will be seen next."
"The court has quite clearly said there is a very high expectation of privacy in one's home," said Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Assistant State Attorney Claudine M. LaFrance, who appealed the decision, did not return a call from The Miami Herald for comment on Wednesday's ruling. A spokesman for BSO said the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.
