Can the polics search my car just because i locked my keys in my car?

[JustAPal00]

Originally Posted by acmb05

They would have had to do the search before the tow truck hooked up to the vehicle. Once it is hooked up the right to search it is over. They cannot tow a car to another location to perform a search(without a warrant) or to bring in a dog to sniff the car. Contact the owner of the home who had it towed and see if they will testify that the car was not searched before they towed it.

It's quite possible it was searched at the spot, or at least the dog was used at the spot. Once the dog hit, they could have taken it anywhere and searched it. Regardless this story smells fishy to me. I don't think we're getting the whole story.

[outonbail]

A while back, I had an officer with a state agency come to our tow yard and walk his drug detection dog around an impounded vehicle. The vehicle had already been here a week or so.
There was no warrant as far as I knew. But the dog didn't hit on anything either, so it was obviously not an issue in this particular case.

Over the years though, we have had law enforcement come to our yard to search vehicles after the fact. Usually they have received some new information about what is in a vehicle and where. I imagine in these cases the vehicle's owner has given permission as I've never heard mention of a warrant.

On two occasions where I was present, the police uncovered a large amount of cash concealed somewhere in the vehicles and in one case they removed an electric guitar from a vehicle's trunk which had been hollowed out and had a stash of narcotics tightly packed inside of it.

But the point I'm making is that the police do make further inspections of vehicles that have been brought to our impound yard. In fact, every police agency we tow for and store impounded vehicles for requires that we have a covered inspection area for them to conduct investigations on vehicles in bad weather. They also require an inside storage area for vehicles being held as evidence in a crime.

In the case the OP has posted, I wouldn't be surprised if someone dropped a dime on him and the police pulled him over with the suspicion that he was in possession of drugs.

Even so, they have to follow the law in order to keep the evidence from being thrown out. They may not have wanted the Op to know they received a tip or had an informant at this point either....

[CdwJava]

The problem is not so much running the drug dog around the car at the tow yard (as it is not a search), but making a warrantless entry of the vehicle after it is already secured and stored at the yard. It would be tough to argue that an exigency existed. They should have probably gotten a search warrant prior to making entry. But, the status of state law could be on point with this and make it perfectly okey-dokey.

- Carl

[KSBadboy30]

To clear a point. When i called the tow yard owner he stated that he wasnt able to meet ME at the tow yard for 30 mins. the car was already there at that point. The police had nothing to do with the tow, the home owners called the tow yard to tow the car. The Kingman PD has there own seperate tow yard.

I appreciate everyone comments. Today i talk to several attorneys today about the case and as soon as come up with the money for a good attorney (rather than a court appointed) they all said a Motion To Surpress needs to be filed in this case.

[CJane]

I'm a little curious about something.

You stated you were pulled over and served with an RO...

are you saying you were pulled over ONLY for that reason? Or that you were pulled over for some other reason and THEN served with an RO?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by KSBadboy30

To clear a point. When i called the tow yard owner he stated that he wasnt able to meet ME at the tow yard for 30 mins. the car was already there at that point. The police had nothing to do with the tow, the home owners called the tow yard to tow the car. The Kingman PD has there own seperate tow yard.

I appreciate everyone comments. Today i talk to several attorneys today about the case and as soon as come up with the money for a good attorney (rather than a court appointed) they all said a Motion To Surpress needs to be filed in this case.

The police can STILL run a dog around the car. Unless they had to break into the yard, the issue of the dog is not necessarily going to be a strong one. The entry into the car without a warrant is going to be the sticky point.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that you need to keep your dope at home!

- Carl

[KSBadboy30]

Yes, the reason why i was stopped was just so they could serve me with the protection order.

I hired a civil rights lawyer yesterday who also works for the ACLU too. So hopefully get this matter resolved proplery.

Thank you for everyone one input on this matter it was greatly appreciated.

[dave33]

ksbadboy30, I am curious about the outcome. If you remember could you please post the probable cause indicated in the police report. thanks and goodluck. -dave

[KSBadboy30]

well it won't let me paste it so i'll type it out.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Michael W. Roths, a duly commissioned law enforcement officer of Kingman County, being of leagal age and duly sworn, allege that on April 29, 2008 in Kingman County, Kansas:

On 04/29.2008 I was assisting the city of Kingman on a domestic violence call at 640 W.B. Kingman, Kansas. Dispatch advised that the suspect was a Jeremy Weeks and he was driving a grey 2 door Honda. Deputy David Hillman located the vehicle leaving the scene and stated that they were north bound on Ninnescah Street. We intiated a traffic stop on the 400 block of N. Ninnescah. Hillman made contact with Weeks who became defiant and refusing to exit his vehicle. Weeks finally decided that he would exit his vehicle but when he did he rolled up all the windows and locked the doors and dropped the keys in the sun roof which was cracked. I then served Weeks a copy of the protection from stalking order in regards to the domestic that had occured at 640 W.B.

After the city officer's spoke to Weeks he was released however Weeks was unable to get into his vehicle since he locked his self out. I found this odd, Weeks left the scene and Captain Lux asked if he needed assistance to unlock his vechicle and he stated no. A few minutes later dispatch received a call from the resident at 408 N. Ninnescah in regards to Weeks vechicle blocking her driveway. The vehicle was removed by EAM cars at the request of the land owner. I found all this to be a little odd. I contacted Deputy Hank ****ing with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's department to see if he would assist us with his Patrol Dog.

At approximately 1610 hours ****ing arrived with his K-9 and conducted an open air sniff on the vehicle. ****ing advised that his K-9 alerted twice to the vehicle for having some type of contraband inside. Hillman then opened the vehicle and we conducted a search. Inside the vehicle i could smell the odor of raw marijuana. I located a sandwich baggie inside the center console that contained a green leafy substance which i believed to be marijuana. I seized the baggy and tested it with a NIC kit which tested positive for marijuana. We the secured the vehicle and located Weeks at the Casey's General store where he was placed in custody for possession of marijuana. I then transported Weeks to the Kingman County Jail. Weeks was then released to the detention deputies custody for processing.


Deputy Michael W. Roths
Affiant

[JETX]

Originally Posted by KSBadboy30

AFFIDAVIT

I, Michael W. Roths, a duly commissioned law enforcement officer of Kingman County, being of leagal age and duly sworn, allege that on April 29, 2008 in Kingman County, Kansas:

On 04/29.2008 I was assisting the city of Kingman on a domestic violence call at 640 W.B. Kingman, Kansas. Dispatch advised that the suspect was a Jeremy Weeks and he was driving a grey 2 door Honda. Deputy David Hillman located the vehicle leaving the scene and stated that they were north bound on Ninnescah Street. We intiated a traffic stop on the 400 block of N. Ninnescah. Hillman made contact with Weeks who became defiant and refusing to exit his vehicle. Weeks finally decided that he would exit his vehicle but when he did he rolled up all the windows and locked the doors and dropped the keys in the sun roof which was cracked. I then served Weeks a copy of the protection from stalking order in regards to the domestic that had occured at 640 W.B.

After the city officer's spoke to Weeks he was released however Weeks was unable to get into his vehicle since he locked his self out. I found this odd, Weeks left the scene and Captain Lux asked if he needed assistance to unlock his vechicle and he stated no. A few minutes later dispatch received a call from the resident at 408 N. Ninnescah in regards to Weeks vechicle blocking her driveway. The vehicle was removed by EAM cars at the request of the land owner. I found all this to be a little odd. I contacted Deputy Hank ****ing with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's department to see if he would assist us with his Patrol Dog.

At approximately 1610 hours ****ing arrived with his K-9 and conducted an open air sniff on the vehicle. ****ing advised that his K-9 alerted twice to the vehicle for having some type of contraband inside. Hillman then opened the vehicle and we conducted a search. Inside the vehicle i could smell the odor of raw marijuana. I located a sandwich baggie inside the center console that contained a green leafy substance which i believed to be marijuana. I seized the baggy and tested it with a NIC kit which tested positive for marijuana. We the secured the vehicle and located Weeks at the Casey's General store where he was placed in custody for possession of marijuana. I then transported Weeks to the Kingman County Jail. Weeks was then released to the detention deputies custody for processing.


Deputy Michael W. Roths
Affiant

Sounds like they did an excellent job and are to be commended. You did thank them, didn't you??

[Joshuaace2]

Originally Posted by JETX

Sounds like they did an excellent job and are to be commended. You did thank them, didn't you??

I doubt he thanked them.

I have been at numerous tow yards, guess what they all have in common. They are all posted "NO TRESPASSING".

I don't see in the affidavit where the police asked permission to bring Snoopy on private property. I don't see any pc PRIOR to Snoopy's tail being stepped on. Why is Snoopy on private property without permission, and without PC?

OP locking his keys in his car is, as the officer said "odd". Is it by itself pc? No. Using that logic: If the Police knocked on my front door, and rather than opening that door, I went out the back door and came around the house to meet them; that would be "odd", suspicious in fact. Would it be probable cause to knock my door down? HELL NO.

[CdwJava]

But the police do not need probable cause to run a dog around the car. They can do it for grins and giggles if they wanted to. The only slim chance against the dog sniff is that the defense can show that the police had no lawful reason to be where they were. But, I seriously doubt the owner or manager of the tow company is going to strenuously object to the presence of the police on the grounds unless he is ready to be dropped from a contract for police impounds. I suspect the tow company owner might say he did not give the police explicit permission, nor did he object to their presence in the yard. And we do not know if the police told the tow company they'd be by later with a dog.

I still believe the greatest defense argument is the lack of a warrant even after the alert by the dog. Since the car was already IN the impound lot and the exigency justifying immediate entry was apparently gone, I would contend that a search warrant was needed to make entry into the vehicle. All the alert would do would be to justify the probable cause necessary to obtain a warrant, not justify an exigency to support immediate entry. That is the standard used out here, anyway.

- Carl

[justalayman]

carl

would not your argument be discounted due to the fact that there was proper cause for a warrant (dog sniff) and that would have allowed the eventual discovery of the drugs? I understand the exigency but does the fact that a warrant would have been issued if sought belay the requirement of actually acquiring one?

The police could effectively sit on the car and if the owner attempted to drive it away while they warrant was being sought then could search due to the fact the exigency was then present again, yes?

don't beat me up on this. It is a serious question.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Joshuaace2

I have been at numerous tow yards, guess what they all have in common. They are all posted "NO TRESPASSING".

You're in the wrong business. With your ability to KNOW what sign exists somewhere you have never been or seen.... and your ability to KNOW that the tow yard didn't authorize police access..... you really should be in a carnival or maybe picking lottery numbers.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by JETX

You're in the wrong business. With your ability to KNOW what sign exists somewhere you have never been or seen.... and your ability to KNOW that the tow yard didn't authorize police access..... you really should be in a carnival or maybe picking lottery numbers.

and yet, I still have never read:

psychic wins lottery!!!