► The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its second ruling on drug dogs for the current term. The Court ruled that using a police dog to sniff around a house for illegal drugs is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and requires a warrant. The ruling upheld a Florida Supreme Court decision, which found that police overstepped their authority when they used a drug dog to sniff around a suspect’s house. The dog alerted on the presence of marijuana, allowing the police to obtain a warrant to search the house. Under the new Supreme Court ruling, police would have to get the warrant before deploying drug dogs.
► A new bill (S. 600) introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is designed to eliminate fraud in the H-1B Visa program. The H-1B program allows U.S. companies to hire workers from outside the United States for jobs if the companies are unable to find qualified U.S. workers. Designed to allow companies to find employees in highly specialized fields, the program is now widely used for routine positions such as jobs in the IT sector. S. 600 would take several steps to strengthen oversight of the program, such as requiring random audits and sharing information with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The bill would also increase fines for violating the rules of the program.
► The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that the CIA must turn over documentation regarding the CIA drone program, including how drone strikes are authorized and how the U.S. ensures compliance with international law. The CIA initially denied the Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claiming that it could not acknowledge the existence of the drone program without jeopardizing national security. The appellate court ruled that the CIA could not deny the existence of the program while, simultaneously, making public comments about it to the press. “And more to the point, as it is now clear that the [CIA] does have an interest in drone strikes, it beggars belief that it does not have documents relating to the subject,” wrote the court.