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

To: GIdget2004

In this case, I would think that they had no probable cause to have a dog sniff the car even if the dog was already present at the scene. Unless the driver gave some clear indication that led the officers to reasonably believe that he had illegal drugs in his car, any search, including sniffing by a police dog would be an unreasonable violation of the 4th amendment.

They called in the dogs on a hunch. They need a lot more than that.


30 posted on 04/21/2015 9:35:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Saying that ISIL is not Islamic is like saying Obama is not an Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe

Read the decision, it is pretty short. He wasn’t waiting for a dog as the headline suggests, he was waiting for a backup officer because there were two men in the car, and he feared a positive alert would be met with an attempt to escape.

He did establish what he, and Thomas/Alito thought was reasonable suspicion after stopping the guys, strong masking odor, excessive nervousness, and a suspect story by both, which is all that is required to detain someone for investigation of criminal activity.

It looks like the reasonable suspicion was tossed by an appeals judge and not argued, so I suppose this could be back to determine if the courts accept the facts supporting reasonable suspicion.


37 posted on 04/21/2015 10:00:06 AM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | 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