14. Are Police Dogs Invading Our Privacy?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/the_supreme_court_will_consider_whether_drug_sniffing_police_dogs_are_conducting.html

Emily Bazelon wrote an article on October 24th regarding problem with having police dogs used in insepction. She introduced the article giving her opinion on how she feels about security dogs - that they make her feel safe and more protected. On the next paragraph however, she doubts if these dogs are able to perform their jobs correctly, but if not, people should "think differently about when the police should use dogs to sniff" their properties and privacy. Bazelon explains the issue is to be discussed in the Supreme Court next week, and provides the reader with two similar instances (Florida v. Jardines and Florida v. Harris) where trained dogs Franky and Aldo detected suspects for possessing drugs in their homes (pot and methamphetamine), and the police did not have a seach warrant. Due to have violated the Fourth Amendment, both Joelis Jardines and Clayton Harris challenged the authorities. Next, the author contrasted two different responses for dog sniffing, saying that in 1983, the Supreme Court did not consider it a "search under the Fourth Amendment" since all dogs searched for were drugs. On the other hand, in 2005, Justice David Souter declared that dog sniffing was not always successful. To support his argument, she provided statistics of experiments made in 1979.

Bazelon's purpose for writing this article was to inform and discuss about the dog sniffing issue - whether it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment or not. She wrote the article in an unbiased tone, providing information and viewpoints of both sides. Furthermore, she quoted specific individuals and reports which made the article more supported by various evidence and more credible. Her article was most likely to be directed to the general public, for them to be aware of and informed about this issue.