Bob, thanks for digging up some case law on this situation. But don't just quote half of the court holdings, then start claiming 4th Amendment Violations.
Bob's part..... "Police may not conduct roadblocks "whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." The part Bob forgot to post..."Such roadblocks must have a specific primary purpose, such as keeping roadways safe from impaired drivers, or enforcing border security." This is cut and pasted directly from the court holding section of the case law. Now the important part is the "specific primary purpose" clause. As far as I understand, and I did not witness the may-lay down at the gate, but there was a DRUG dog walking around peoples stuff. A DRUG dog has a specific primary purpose...wanna take a guess what that might be?? It's safe to deduct that removing DRUGS would help to reduce ordinary criminal wrongdoing, but it's primary purpose is to detect drugs. AND, a dog can walk around your vehicle as long as you're not detained for a period of time as to shock the court. We usually say a couple of minutes. Soooo, if people were stopped, buying passes and a dog is walked around their stuff while in line, there is no 4th Amendment Violation. You don't need a Search Warrant to walk a dog around. Now, did anyone actually tell the cop're NO, you can't come in, after the dog DID NOT hit on their vehicle?? If they entered w/o a S/W after you said no, thats a very clear 4th Amn violation. Did anyone actually just drive around the other's who were stopped buying passes and talking with the cop'rs? I'm just curious if it happened, and if they were chased down for no reason. Or were these contacts all consensual, meaning did the cop'rs just okie-doke their way into peoples castles with consent?
A cut/paste from court holding on CA vs Carney..."A motor home is subject to the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment search warrant requirement because it is readily movable." The key point to this case is the READILY MOVABLE clause. If you're driving your MoHo down Dumont RD, guess what, it's READILY MOVABLE and Leo does not need a warrant to chech the reason as to why the dog hit. If its parked in an RV park, then it does not fall under the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment and a search warrant is DEFINATELY needed, even if a dog hit on it. There is much more to the Carney case as to why the Supreme Court over turned the Ca Court IF you read further, but you appear to be very selective in sharing only SOME of the information, which is not to the benifit of the members of this web-site. I don't think it's intentional though. Heck, even w/a degree in Criminal Justice and almost 13yrs on w/the SO, (nearly 10yrs of it in the driver seat of that kidny busting Sheriff's beam car!!), I sometimes get confused too.
As far at the Sheriff's Dept being on Federal Land....I spelled it out pretty clearly...its on that page-long post I wrote about "nothing"... AND, just because my pal Larry said he didn't know anything about a dog or check point, doesn't mean BLM and the Sheriff's Dept didn't plan it together. I'm not saying Larry would lie, but Chief Ranger Pat Chassie(another pal) doesn't need to clear anything with Larry before deciding something. You're smarter than that Bob. If not, I got some ocean front property in AZ for ya!! You're painting a picture as if the Sheriff's Dept just rolled up like they owned the area, screamed suprised, and started going to town on peeps. Getting a dog and setting up a detail like that takes multi-agency involvment and planning. The BLM and SBCSD have a very good working relationship. I assure you, it was not a suprise or unplanned.
As far as your topic title for this post...hey, to each their own...we're all entitled to our opinions. I just want to clear up some of the mis leading information you're throwing out there, my future friend .....I tried to keep it all above the belt for ya...