Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a trained police dog to sniff a person's luggage or property in a public place.
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United ...
Dog trainer and expert Steve Del Savio shared a video on Tuesday, November 19th and revealed one big mistake that most people make when teaching their dogs the 'place' command as well as how to ...
Commercial crimes, mostly focusing on white-collar crime. Defined as financially motivated, nonviolent crime committed by businesses and government professionals. [1
Family Guy took a bite out of the past on Sunday, with its own updated spin on a classic McGruff the Crime Dog commercial, first made popular in the early '80s.. In the episode, titled ...
A Commercial Appeal reporter and photojournalist walked to the second-floor training room at the Memphis Police Department's North Main headquarters to meet a new member of MPD's internet crimes ...
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.