detention/k-9 search

[tdwade]

What is the name of your state? texas

HOW LONG AFTER SIGNING A WARNING SPEEDING TICKET CAN A HIGHWAY PATROL HOLD YOU IN DETENTION WITHOUT CONSENTING TO A SEARCH AND WAITING FOR THE K-9 TO ARRIVE AND SEARCH WITHOUT CONSENT?

[tranquility]

They have a reasonable time to investigate after a stop. They must let you go when the business for the stop is done. Usually, the signing of a citation concludes the business. There have been a couple of cases lately where, if the warrant check has not yet gotten back, the police can detain until a response is had. Also, they will argue you were free to leave after the citation and they merely asked you to wait. In other words, you gave consent--not for the search, but to stay.

I assume they found something. Bringing a K-9 is a real issue in the law right now. You need an attorney to have a chance, but, depending on how the facts play out, you may be able to suppress what they found.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by tdwade

HOW LONG AFTER SIGNING A WARNING SPEEDING TICKET CAN A HIGHWAY PATROL HOLD YOU IN DETENTION WITHOUT CONSENTING TO A SEARCH AND WAITING FOR THE K-9 TO ARRIVE AND SEARCH WITHOUT CONSENT?

1) There is not a set specific amount of time, so it would be up to the court to determine if the time it took was reasonable.
2) Why the hell are you SHOUTING??

[gawm]

The good ole K-9 search. I remember the sheriff deputies kept me almost 3 hours because I wouldn't consent. They did not have me sign the tickets until afterwards however. When I seen how upset they got when they didn't find anything, it almost made it worth it. Did they say the reason for walking the k9 around your car? There may be an argument for probable cause for them doing that.

[tranquility]

The good ole K-9 search. I remember the sheriff deputies kept me almost 3 hours because I wouldn't consent. They did not have me sign the tickets until afterwards however.

If they didn't have probable cause to search, it seems your rights were violated.

Did they say the reason for walking the k9 around your car? There may be an argument for probable cause for them doing that.

If they had probable cause, they could do a search. The reason why they try to get a dog there fast is that walking a k-9 around the car is not a "search". Dogs can walk, dogs can breath and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air around your car. (At least from the nose of a trained dog. High-tech "sniffers" may be different.)

[gawm]

Originally Posted by tranquility

If they didn't have probable cause to search, it seems your rights were violated.



If they had probable cause, they could do a search. The reason why they try to get a dog there fast is that walking a k-9 around the car is not a "search". Dogs can walk, dogs can breath and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air around your car. (At least from the nose of a trained dog. High-tech "sniffers" may be different.)

Couldn't an argument be made if they walk a dog around just your car and only your car, that would constitute a search? The dog is sniffing the car! I didn't get a chance to find out in court because they did not find anything, even though the dog indicated there was and they ripped my car apart. Then when I started giving them grief about it they said it could have been my dog in the car that made the dog react, which brings up question #2 that might help the OP. If there are other factors that would make the dog give a false positive shouldn't they need other probable cause than just the dogs reaction?

[tranquility]

Couldn't an argument be made if they walk a dog around just your car and only your car, that would constitute a search?

No. That's why law enforcement *love* this. They don't need probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion to do the walk. They can't detain the suspect longer than necessary for the purpose of the stop to wait for the dog (Generally, what this means is where all the current court action is.), but they don't need a reason at all to bring in a dog.

If there are other factors that would make the dog give a false positive shouldn't they need other probable cause than just the dogs reaction?

The courts *love* dogs. All that is needed is an "alert", or whatever it is called by the handler, and probable cause for search is had. The probable cause does not need to be right. A mistake of fact does not invalidate PC.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by tranquility

The courts *love* dogs. All that is needed is an "alert", or whatever it is called by the handler, and probable cause for search is had. The probable cause does not need to be right. A mistake of fact does not invalidate PC.

When the handler was walking the dog around my car I saw him yank up on the leash, after he did that the dog barked. That's when they said the dog indicated drugs in the car. I told them the dog was lying because I knew there were no drugs in my car. Now I wonder, Is that just a trick the handler does just to get Probable Cause? Are there no checks and balances for that?

[CdwJava]

I would consider a detention complete after the warning is signed unless there were still reasonable duties that the police were in the process of performing. The business of the stop would seem to have been concluded once the warning had been signed. Detaining you solely to wait for the dog would seem to be an unlawful detention in this situation.

Gawm, holding you for three hours to wait for a dog (if it indeed really was three hours) seems unreasonable to me.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by gawm

Now I wonder, Is that just a trick the handler does just to get Probable Cause?

I have neither heard of that method nor have I seen it done. It might have been a command after the dog alerted, but I couldn't say for sure. Plus, if we trained dogs to bark every time their chain was yanked, yee-gads would we have a lot of barking at scenes in the field!

Are there no checks and balances for that?

It's called "due process".

- Carl

[gawm]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Gawm, holding you for three hours to wait for a dog (if it indeed really was three hours) seems unreasonable to me.

- Carl

I got pulled over five minutes from my house at midnight and got home at 2:45AM
The whole stop was about two hours forty minutes now that I think about it. The dog probably came about a little over an hour in to the stop. Most of the time was spent searching my car and trying to get me to consent to a drug test. When I just walk away with a ticket for not having my license on me and expired tags I'm not going to make an issue of it.

[LSCAP]

Some links about the 4th amendment.

[url]http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=screen_door_still_provides_reasonable_ex&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1[/url]

[url]http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/amazing.htm[/url]

[url]http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Champion-Data-Privacy.pdf[/url]

Oh well

[CdwJava]

If the Fourth is disappearing, why is it that law enforcement still feels the stringent restrictions of the law regarding searches?

Oh well.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by LSCAP

[url]http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=screen_door_still_provides_reasonable_ex&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1[/url]

Nice site ...

[url]http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/amazing.htm[/url]

Concerns the 2nd Amendment ...

[url]http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Champion-Data-Privacy.pdf[/url]

Nothing new ...

All in all we need to strike the happy medium between privacy and safety or we will be free but dead.

- Carl

[ceara19]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

All in all we need to strike the happy medium between privacy and safety or we will be free but dead.

- Carl

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

While I agree that giving up a small amount of our privacy and civil liberties could possibly make our country a safer place to live, moderation is NOT a concept that our government subscribes to. If we start overlooking the government's invasion into our parts of our lives that we have the right keep private just because they sell us on the idea that it will make our lives safer, it will only be a matter of time before our government is no better then those they claim to be protecting us from.