Posted on 02/22/2008 7:23:44 PM PST by DeLaine
Son got his first ticket. Policeman said he didn't stop at a stop sign. It was dark, not even street lights in this area, but he saw this difficult-to-tell action in the dark, when Nathan says he had come to a stop. He didn't argue though.
But then he wanted to search the car. We've always told son not to agree to that, there is no reason. (actually, his former-cop dad told him don't agree to it) Dad is not in the picture, so I have to ask you all.
This was his first traffic stop and he was nervous. I was out of town, he'd never been pulled over before. He is 17. A conservative homeschooler. (now the LEO didn't know that, I understand that) But is mere nervousness of a 17 yo young man really probable cause? It wasn't late at night, it was after dinner, about 8:30 pm. A friend's mom had cooked him dinner and he was heading home. Son said there was 4 or 5 police cars, and a dog. That's the entire police force of this town, I think! I understand nervousness with other indicators, but what about only nervousness?? thanks
Then why do they ask
+++++++++++++++++
If there is no probable cause, they ask. If denied, a police dog’s alert is enough cause to search without permission. Thousands of narcotics arrests are made annually because of automobile searches made after traffic stops.
I guess my point is that the police can do anything if they want to, and adding a dog to the story just adds to their credibility and excuse for probable cause.
You’re toast with a crooked cop in any event. You’re pulled over for a burned out taillight. You roll down your window to talk to him. He tosses in a baggie of weed, pulls you out and arrests you. He calls for backup and the next officer also the sees the baggie in the car.
Same difference.
I suppose this situation is more subtle since the cop wasn’t planning on an arrest, just if a search actually came up with something. He merely needed to provide an excuse for probable cause.
But you’re absolutely helpless to protect yourself from a cop who wants to violate your constitutional rights short of killing him, which isn’t going to help things for you in the long run, either.
It’s really surprising and sad to see so many posters here who automatically bash the police as the bad guys without having ALL of the facts and circumstances at hand.
Just scroll down and see how many are willing to fault the police here and advise how the driver should not have cooperated.
The inference is that most police are corrupt and a good citizen should never cooperate with police. No wonder our society is breaking apart at the seams and police are less likely than ever to even make a stop anymore for fear of more bashing by the citizens. I’d bide my time until retirement too having to work with citizens like these. Why bother. Police lose either way.
So the dog’s alert is probable cause? And not complying with a voluntary search is probable cause to bring a dog? And whether the dog alerts is a subjective decision by the officer?
Great. Good thing that they just can’t search your vehicle because they feel like it.
Nobody smokes a joint and calls the police to report they've vicitmized themselves.
So to prosecute crimes without victims, you need an intrusive surveilance state. This is why pretenses of possession of drugs can now be used to void 4th Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.
So here we have a case where an innocent person was searched without a warrant on basis of a fake drug dog alert.
What do you think should be the punishment for this deprivation of rights under color of authority.
I know the answer. Nothing. Nada.
Simply because crooked cops using fake drug alerts are now a standard tool for evading the very laws police swear to uphold.
So here we have a case where an innocent person was searched without a warrant on basis of a fake drug dog alert.
What do you think should be the punishment for this deprivation of rights under color of authority.
I know the answer. Nothing. Nada.
Simply because crooked cops using fake drug alerts are now a standard tool for evading the very laws police swear to uphold.
There’s no good solution to this, other than for the police to understand and respect the law.
If we allowed suits for unlawful searches with no damages, the only people who would pay would be other innocent taxpayers. The deterrent to police is that the fruits of an unlawful search are inadmissible as evidence, but using the dog routine gets around that every time.
There’s no way to prove that drug residue was planted on the bumper of a car. You lose the whole chain of custody for that once the arrest is made and the car towed.
The dog can’t testify. You have the officer’s testimony that the dog alerted, and nobody who can possibly contradict him.
Now if the dog “alerted” on drugs and the evidence of the search turned up no drugs but evidence of another crime, you might have a fairly decent fight whether probable cause existed.
Still, you’d probably lose more times than not.
The cop himself has nothing to lose by this. Either he makes a bust which is probably going to stand, or the car is empty and the person searched has no recourse.
Its been this way for decades. In fact, the same tactic applies to your home if the dog sniffs the front door while they are there on a noise complaint.
No warrant required.
Are police required to put the dog's alert "on record" before they conduct a search? Are there any statistics as to what fraction of dog alerts result in finding the type of contraband for which the dog was supposedly alerting? What degree of probability is required for "probable cause"?
I'd check the video tape on that. I suspected the dog indicated on the back bumper out of sight of the driver before it was even posted.
I suggest you do your own research or get help from others offline. Be very careful about taking legal advice from anonymous non-lawyer libertarians trying to make political points rather than provide candid, neutral advice.
The people you’re talking about are usually self-taught (LOL) amateur lawyers bitter about that time the Man took their little green bag.
There should be records of the dog's previous alerts. I'd be more interested in the officer's history of false alerts. I bet he has plenty.
I doubt Madison and Hamilton would ever believe that mute flea bags would one day carry more weight than the Constitution of US. But here we are.
I'm getting sick of the taste of boot leather.
Back bumper, front bumper, side door, it doesn’t matter. Cops are aware of what their camera shows, if they even have one.
That silly little camera, if it exists at all, won’t prevent any of this.
If a cop decides that your car needs a search, he’s sufficiently trained to come up with probable cause regardless of the facts.
Your best defense to this is twofold: Have nothing in the car which is illegal or suspicious.
Be completely sober, polite, and subservient but still compeletely in control of yourself, to the officer when you begin the conversation. He probably doesn’t want to waste the time calling the canine unit if you truly only have a burned out taillight.
Been at police gunpoint half a dozen times. Have had my car diassembled with power tools and my home ransacked(without a warrant).
Never been arrested. Never been charged with any crime. Hold a current CCW which always livens up stops.
Suuuure.
If they've got you detained they've got a Terry frisk if they want it but not PC for a search. The dog trick is the magic trump card for PC and even then they only have a limited time window on the original RAS.
Just lucky, I guess. Actually missing American cops at the moment. Never actually been robbed by American cop.
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.