In class Austin and I found an editorial from the New York Times called, Sniffing Dogs and the Fourth Amendment, this article is an editorial, about a supreme court case in Florida concerning the the use of drug-sniffing dogs without warrants to perform searches through the walls of someones house. The article was well written, and there was a direct link to another article that had information about the case, Drug-Sniffing Dogs Have Their Day in Court as Justices Hear 2 Arguments. The article used the two cases that police drug dogs had been used to find marijuana growing in a residence, and the other was a man who had methamphetamine on him. The article's thesis was that the police should have had a warrant to use the dogs to find drugs. The article also had information about a prior supreme court case that had banned the use of heat-seeking devices, Supreme Court of the United States. All of the evidence given was linked to the article. Which gave the article a strong foundation and a strong argument.
When we had first read the article, Austin disagreed with me (that the drug dogs should have been used). It was really interesting to see his mind change while we read the article and clicked on the links. Now we both agree that police should have a warrant before using the drug-dogs, because a tip does not seem to be enough of probable cause, to use the dogs.
