Would this be considered by you to be a case of an unconstitutional search according to the Fourth Amendment?

Gut feeling? Violation. Legal reasoning to back it up? None, because I figure constitutional law is a bit more complicated than “I skimmed it a few times on Wikipedia”.

I think it may be worth talking to legal aid or a lawyer about. If the business allowed the search, or there was a search warrant you are probably not going to get very far with it however.

All you have to say is “Come on in.” and the police can do whatever. I doubt the managers give a fuck if someone is dragged off. Finding a warm body to replace someone in a factory is a lot easier then pissing the cops off.

@papayalily What I am getting at is my mother is a law-abiding citizen who was never convicted of a criminal offense. They had the drug dogs going through her person and purse. She was just randomly at work doing her normal job like she has been for the last 5 years.

My county has been using drug dogs in all types of situations, including drug checkpoints and randomly having drug dogs sniffing vehicles for drugs even in Wal-Mart parking lots. I was just asking for a simple opinion on whether using drug sniffing dogs in completely random situations should be considered constitutional or not in your own opinion.

Really interesting question. There are a few fourth amendment issues here…but addressing the drug sniffing dogs, everyone’s pretty much SOL as to the reasonableness of the search. We are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy unless it’s regarding contraband or unlawful behavior. Dogs trained to indicate for drugs only will generally be considered a reasonable search.

However, the more troubling aspect of this is the fact that it seems that there was an illegal seizure at your mother’s workplace. If the police detained everyone in order to find the suspect, and then searched all of them, that doesn’t sound like (1) the warrant was particularized or (2) the warrant covered less than was actually searched. Of course, we’re only talking about the search of the person – any search of desks, lockers, etc. is probably legal (but there’s always a possibility).

Regardless – it just sounds bad, and I think that if I were in the situation, I’d be getting people together for a suit.

@iamthemob This is kind of hard for me to explain. There were several issues here but what I am really getting at (my fault for the way I asked the question) is that drug dogs are usually used where there is not enough probable cause to conduct an actual physical search and without a search warrant being issued. I’m not sure how common this practice is nationwide but I am aware of many situations where drug dogs are used at drug checkpoints (similar to DUI checkpoints) and what I really wanted to know is whether using drug dogs when there is no probable cause (or not enough to warrant an actual physical search like I mentioned above) or a search warrant is to be considered an unreasonable or unconstitutional type of search itself.

You see where I am getting at here is drug dogs are used in several different ways I’ve mentioned above alot so how does the law and these multicounty drug taskforce agents justify using drug dogs in random situations (like the ones I’ve mentioned) without this being considered an actual search? I’ve asked this question because this is a very common practice and it seems very little people give these protocols any thought.

I wasn’t totally clear above – but the dogs are generally acceptable. The Fourth Amendment protects against only unreasonable searches and seizures. So the less invasive, the more situations it’s okay in. Also, again, drug dogs are only trained to find contraband. You don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell of something illegal. They’re often used in random traffic stops, etc., as long as they don’t delay the stop any longer than it would have been had the dog not been involved.

So the basic justification for their use when there is little or no suspicion is mainly two-fold:

(1) no reasonable expectation of privacy in scent when it’s contraband.
(2) the character of the search is non-invasive.

I am not a lawyer, that said.
The dogs are used to find drugs, the subject ( PERP ) could hide the drugs on personal effects of anyone at the business. The fact that everyone was checked by the dog at the business and the premises says that. If this bothers you or your mom and it becomes common at the business, maybe she should change employers.
A search warrant and probable cause ARE NOT required to use dogs at the airport or other public places.
The business may have probable cause to think someone is dealing drugs at the business and asked the drug task force with dogs to come.

This is my own personal opinion here but using drug dogs when there is not enough to warrant a physical search upon probable cause sounds very suspicious to me and I do not agree with this practice. It is still a search. It seems many do not see the dangers here. If the police can use drug dogs whenever they feel like it what is to stop them from using technology that can spy inside your own house? It’s not a physical search but it is still a search and using drug dogs are actually more effective than a real physical search anyway.

One thing to bear in mind here is that the Fourth Amendment no longer fully applies to anybody living within 100 miles of the US border (including coastlines). That means that about ⅔ of American citizens can be searched with impunity in the name of national security.

It is impossible to answer your question. You have not told us: ...
1. Was there warrant?
2. If so, was it an arrest warrant, or a search warrant?
3. If a search warrant, what did the warrant allow?

It was apparently an arrest warrant for a specific person who worked there not an actual search warrant. I’ve learned some additional details about that incident since I’ve asked this question and it seems there are quite a few different stories to it so I now regret asking this question. I think some drama was added in this case by many others.

I think that knowledge regarding the warrant isn’t necessary. A warrant issued in this case would almost certainly not meet the standards necessary to cover all of the individuals in the building for the search. So we have to assume that it was a warrantless search.