The writer of the following article takes pride in offering an item that can be viewed as PR for explosive’s detection. About three years ago she tried to be very creative in a story about an attempt to sabotage a biomedical facility. She did not mention anything about explosive’s detection, but she did suggest a way to avoid detection of liquid contraband. Several months later, she learned that airline passengers would not be able to take liquids on planes. Information uncovered by the intelligence community showed that terrorists
wanted to bring a liquid bomb on a plane. They were going to hide the liquid explosive in a manner familiar to the writer of this article.
About twenty five years ago, a few large cities in the U.S. had begun to use police dogs as a way to “sniff-out” bombs and drugs. The law enforcement community rapidly acquired proof that a good police dog can enhance any effort at explosive’s detection. As the police amassed that proof, they also got some added assistance from the Supreme Court.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of United States versus Place. Place had not been the victim of a dog and police team intent on explosive’s detection. He had been arrested for possession of illegal drugs. A dog had smelled something suspicious in Place’s suitcase, and the police had then searched his luggage. That search had uncovered the drugs, and had led to Place’s arrest.
Place’s lawyer contested the legality of the search conducted by the police. In fact, Place’s lawyer insisted that the sniffing dog symbolized an effort by the police to initiate an illegal search. The Court did not feel persuaded by the arguments they heard from Place’s lawyer. The Court issued a ruling that would aid explosive’s detection.
According to the Court’s ruling, the alert from a police dog gives police the “probable cause” that they need in order to conduct a search. The dog’s alert was viewed by the Court as on a level with other items that could satisfy the “warrant requirement exception.” The Court ruling added strength to police investigations that relied on the capabilities of the police dog.
The Supreme Court did not give police a way to secure a new and better explosive’s detection system, but they did expand the enforcement capabilities of a police officer. The Court did not indicate that its ruling pertained only to a search for illegal drugs. The Court thus gave added value to the tools used by police to conduct explosive’s detection.
The Court indicated that if a traveler carrying a bomb should be sniffed out by a police dog, then police have a right to confiscate his or her luggage. Because of the Court’s ruling, more and more criminals have learned just how powerful a dog’s sense of smell is. In fact, it is not only criminals with explosives and drugs who have felt the added pressure introduced by the Court’s ruling.
Police have found that their trained dogs can also sniff-out pirated CD’s. In Los Angeles, the police department is now using dogs to locate pirated CDs in the luggage of airplane passengers. The L.A. police have found a way to help the County’s most important source of income.
wanted to bring a liquid bomb on a plane. They were going to hide the liquid explosive in a manner familiar to the writer of this article.
About twenty five years ago, a few large cities in the U.S. had begun to use police dogs as a way to “sniff-out” bombs and drugs. The law enforcement community rapidly acquired proof that a good police dog can enhance any effort at explosive’s detection. As the police amassed that proof, they also got some added assistance from the Supreme Court.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of United States versus Place. Place had not been the victim of a dog and police team intent on explosive’s detection. He had been arrested for possession of illegal drugs. A dog had smelled something suspicious in Place’s suitcase, and the police had then searched his luggage. That search had uncovered the drugs, and had led to Place’s arrest.
Place’s lawyer contested the legality of the search conducted by the police. In fact, Place’s lawyer insisted that the sniffing dog symbolized an effort by the police to initiate an illegal search. The Court did not feel persuaded by the arguments they heard from Place’s lawyer. The Court issued a ruling that would aid explosive’s detection.
According to the Court’s ruling, the alert from a police dog gives police the “probable cause” that they need in order to conduct a search. The dog’s alert was viewed by the Court as on a level with other items that could satisfy the “warrant requirement exception.” The Court ruling added strength to police investigations that relied on the capabilities of the police dog.
The Supreme Court did not give police a way to secure a new and better explosive’s detection system, but they did expand the enforcement capabilities of a police officer. The Court did not indicate that its ruling pertained only to a search for illegal drugs. The Court thus gave added value to the tools used by police to conduct explosive’s detection.
The Court indicated that if a traveler carrying a bomb should be sniffed out by a police dog, then police have a right to confiscate his or her luggage. Because of the Court’s ruling, more and more criminals have learned just how powerful a dog’s sense of smell is. In fact, it is not only criminals with explosives and drugs who have felt the added pressure introduced by the Court’s ruling.
Police have found that their trained dogs can also sniff-out pirated CD’s. In Los Angeles, the police department is now using dogs to locate pirated CDs in the luggage of airplane passengers. The L.A. police have found a way to help the County’s most important source of income.
No comments:
Post a Comment