Posted on 12/06/2016 11:56:55 AM PST by MeganC
>>Now just rule that bringing in a “drug dog” to sniff around your car to pretend to give you probable cause is itself a search, and we’ll be getting somewhere.
Whether it is a search or not, I don’t think this rises to the level of an unreasonable search IF it is conducted on property that is controlled by the state OR the property owner has given the police permission to do this. If a dog gets a whiff at a locker at a school, that’s fine.
Whipping out a dog anywhere you want to do this is a completely different matter.
Big time. CA needs a complete makeover.
This has been the law for a long time. Sucks in this case, but, without it the police could go on a fishing expedition until they find something totally unrelated to the initial offense. This is a good law.
Rolling a stop sign on a bicycle? Is that the same as doing it with a car? Hell, that’s over $500 in CA.
BTW, never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant.
What about "reasonable suspicion"?
it was not the bike, it was the search of his smartphone.
how do folks feel though in cases like this when it is revealed he had child porn on his phone,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where does it say he had child porn on his phone?
I have “pictures of underage girls” in my wallet, nothing porn about them, they are my grandes/.
Reasonable suspicion often isn’t.
Neverrr mind - My baad.
Nothing was said of child porn but of under age girls. I’ve got LOTS of pictures of underage girls on my phone! They’re my daughters!
If YOU had these same pictures n your phone it would be fine by me but I would not be surprised if someone with a badge were to try to frame them as ‘suspicious’ just so they could justify abusing you.
look, im not arguing the following of law/procedure....im just saying, all of us who read this story, the guy has child porn on him....but, at least the law was abided by.....
Either you want to live in a police state, where they can catch most of the criminals (along with lots of innocent people too), or you want to have liberty, in which case some criminals are going to get away with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a cop pulls me over and searches my phone, at the very least, I’d resent the hell out of it and I don’t even know how to take pictures with it.
I have a couple of very nice cameras for that.
“I know you’re doing your job but I do not consent to searches officer”
flexyourrights.com
Reporting is dead in this country.
“IF it is conducted on property that is controlled by the state”
Well, that basically includes every roadway.
The real problem is that the dogs can be easily trained to “alert” to the presence of drugs based on a signal from the handler, when no actual drugs are present. Thus, using this inherently unreliable method allows a dishonest police officer to manufacture “probable cause” whenever they want, which negates the whole purpose of requiring probable cause in the first place.
>
Far as I know, this is the correct Constitutional call. The police can’t just go on a fishing expedition. They can’t subject a person to a search if that person is not under arrest, if there is no search warrant, and if there is no probable cause.
>
A fishing expedition is exactly what this WAS. The phone pertained to the traffic infraction....how, exactly?? Was this person under arrest for the roll-through? How ‘bout probable cause?
What other of the PLETHORA of ‘laws’ on the books we all (un)knowingly violate every minute of everyday can be used to rail-road an ‘innocent’.
Sorry, CA gets it wrong as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.