Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: RFEngineer

“No, the dog has to find the drugs a bad cop planted in your car first.”

Yep. The cop planted 8,000 matches in the guy’s car.

“When they have to establish probable cause through legitimate means, there is no danger of any of these things happening.”

Of course there is. Consider the case of the ex-marine killed by the Pima County SWAT team. They had a search warrant...based on near nothing, although they had kept family members under surveillance for over 6 months. The SWAT team went to his home when he was asleep - which they knew, since they knew his work schedule - and in seconds went from first knock to busting down the door. And when they saw him with a gun (safety on), they opened fire, shooting over 70 times, with bullets passing thru the house and into other houses nearby. They actually hit him 22 times, IIRC, then kept all medical help away for 90 minutes while he died. The DA here found no cause for action against the SWAT team.

If the system is corrupt, it is corrupt. But a trained dog alerting on a smell isn’t corrupt, and there is no reason to believe the cop planted the 8,000 matches or forced a confession or faked the Miranda rights prior to the confession. The defendant in the case doesn’t claim ANY of that - just that a trained drug dog alerting on a smell isn’t a reason to suspect drugs.

Remember, this is NOT a ‘warrantless search’ case. And they had the right to argue before the trial and during it that the evidence was obtained improperly, and let the jury decide how to weight the evidence. They didn’t do that. Instead, they argued on appeal that a drug dog alerting on a smell doesn’t provide probable cause.


37 posted on 02/28/2013 6:42:41 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

“They didn’t do that. Instead, they argued on appeal that a drug dog alerting on a smell doesn’t provide probable cause.”

The point is not whether the guy was guilty, the point is the law was expanded to give “probable cause” based on the presence or absence of a dog.

You may or may not have stuff you’d rather cops not find in your car. Now you have no presumption of innocence - they will search your car. Depending on the cop, they may or may not find something in your car when they search.

there will be more spending on police dogs now, because the police dogs give police more “flexibility” when dealing with citizens who may simply not wish to be searched.

There is all manner of mischief possible here - all because of a dog being there.


62 posted on 02/28/2013 1:43:32 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson