Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WoofDog123
"not being sarcastic, but it is hard to argue that this ruling actually increases protection from unreasonable search and seizure."

Actually, it could.

Say the experienced cop has a good reason to be suspicious that "something's" in the trunk (drugs, bank money, kidnapped child, whatever). Say the driver has a criminal history, is acting nervous, keeps glancing at the trunk, has "lost" the trunk keys, etc.

Without the availability of a legal dog search, the cop would then have to seize the car, have it towed, get a court order, and search the trunk. Eerything nice and legal, yes? Oops, they find kiddie porn.

Well, I say the driver would have more privacy and protection if they bring the drug sniffing dog. No reaction, you're on your way.

757 posted on 01/25/2005 1:17:02 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Say the experienced cop has a good reason to be suspicious that "something's" in the trunk (drugs, bank money, kidnapped child, whatever). Say the driver has a criminal history, is acting nervous, keeps glancing at the trunk, has "lost" the trunk keys, etc.

It would be doubtful that a cop could ever obtain a court order under these circumstances as these conditions fall far short of "probable cause".

I am sure that some rubber stamp judges do would approve though, but that would be a perversion of what a reasonable person would consider probable cause

761 posted on 01/25/2005 1:37:54 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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