• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Entrapment?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

S

Smantha

Guest
What is the name of your state? illinois
i was recently pulled over for a tinted license plate cover (questionable) after asking mine and my passenger's names, the officer called me off to the side and asked if I had anything illegal on me or in the car. i stated that i did not. he asked if my passenger did, and i said i had no idea what he had that i was just giving him a ride home because he was a friend of my sons and it was cold. i then asked if there was a problem. he said no, well, first let me read you your rights, and he did so. he then said that if i didn't have anything illegal in the car then i didnt have anything to worry about. i said well, that may be true, but if he has put something in there out of his pockets while we have been out here talking, then that becomes my problem because it is in my car. he said no, if we find anything and it is his, then he will be charged with it. i said no, thats not how it works. he said i'm telling you if we find anything and it is his, you will not be arrested for it. we can either do this the easy way, or i can call in the dogs which will be a big pain and if that is the case, i will charge you both with whatever is found so what is it going to be? i asked again - you are sure that if something is found and it is his i will not be charged? he said yes. well, they found cold pills and batteries and receipts on this kid and he even stated that the stuff was his and not mine and they still charged me with possesion of meth producing products, manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance, and criminal drug conspiracy. how can i be charged with all of that? especially when the cop specifically stated that i wouldnt be charged with anything that wasn't mine? He lied to me to get permission to look in the car.
 


first of all... the idea that the cop would arrest you for no apparent reason seems pretty far-fetched.

as for consent, the courts look at the totality of the circumstances... freedom from duress, etc. you're alleging that the police used false pretenses to obtain your permission to conduct an automobile search. if true... you may be able to get this thrown out at a suppression hearing. if untrue... you're on the hook. keep in mind also that the cop does not determine the charges, the city/district/us attorney does.

good luck.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"how can i be charged with all of that?"
*** Apparently, very easily. The officer simply makes a decision on whether he feels the charge is appropriate, and if so, places you under arrest. He then reports his findings to the local prosecutor who, after reviewing them, has determined that charges are reasonable based on the evidence. Pretty simple, huh??

"especially when the cop specifically stated that i wouldnt be charged with anything that wasn't mine? He lied to me to get permission to look in the car."
*** Not really. He told you the truth.... for some reason (which you chose NOT to include), the officer suspected that YOUR car contained some type of illegal drug (as evidenced by the officers statement of the drug dog). He gave you a choice of allowing him to search, or detaining you until the dog could arrive. You allowed the search and drugs or paraphenalia was found. Those are the ONLY relevant issues.

If you don't like the officers conduct, tell your defense attorney and he will determine if your rights were violated.
 
moral of the story: never consent to a search.

if you've got dope... your chances of getting busted are going to be 99.99998% if you consent to a search of your auto. if you don't consent... the cop is going to have to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of your car... [which may or may not include a locked glove compartment or locked containers in the trunk.]

this gives you a better chance at any suppression hearing to get some of the evidence thrown out. however if the cops decide to tow your car... they are allowed to conduct an inventory of your auto and would find most contraband in the course of such a search.

personally I have a hard time believing that your passenger was driving around with LARGE amounts of ephedrine-based decongestants and lithium camera batteries and that you had absolutely no idea what such items are used for.

also, please keep in mind that the "it wasn't mine" doesn't tend to fly if a finder of fact can reasonably conclude that you were aware of the presence of the contraband. BTW did you buy the stuff at Wal-Mart?

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/columnists/colmoroney01222004.htm
 

JETX

Senior Member
"the cop is going to have to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of your car... "
*** Actually, not that hard at all. If the officer suspects that there are drugs in the car, all he/she has to do is call for a K-9 unit. If the dog 'hits' on the car, that is sufficient cause to do a complete and thorough search.
 
excellent point.

however in this case the contraband were legal items that a dog would not have detected. additionally, my understanding of the law is that the Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff is not a search in that it does not interefere with the possessory interest of the suspect. but of course for all practical purposes... I guess a dog sniff is a search.

but then would the officer be able to obtain lawful access to the vehicle for the dog to sniff? or would the dog have to sit outside? hmm... time for me to break out the casebooks!
 
Last edited:

JETX

Senior Member
'however in this case the contraband were legal items that a dog would not have detected."
*** Of course that would be true if what we have been told was the WHOLE truth. However, since the charges were "meth producing products, manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance" and that the officer clearly had SOME reason to suspect the subjects, I have to presume that there was likely SOMETHING the dog would have hit on.
 
S

Smantha

Guest
Entrapment

there were absolutely no illegal drugs in the car, or on myself or my passenger. they searched me (without a female officer present) and my purse and all they found were 2 10mg valium which I was never charged with. the only illegal item in the car that i took responsibilty for was a half pint of crown royal. i was ticketed for illegal transportation of alcohol. they gave us both receipts for items that were removed from the car. my passenger got several receipts all of which were for the drug making materials. the only receipts i got were for the 2 valium in my purse and the half pint under the seat. then, when i went and got my car (it was towed) the half pint of crown royal was laying in the back floorboard behind the drivers seat!! i dont understand how they can give my passenger all of the receipts for the drug making materials and not one receipt of the sort to me yet still charge me for it. also, after spending the night in jail, just before my court time, i was released and told that there were no charges filed and so was my passenger. this is the truth and i have not left anything out, i have no reason to hide anything, i am just wondering if it would be worth the time to try and fight this.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"i am just wondering if it would be worth the time to try and fight this."
*** Try and fight what?? Based on your own post, you were released without charge. If you mean to fight the general situation (stopped, arrested, etc.), your own post admits that there was sufficient cause for them... (valium, liquor).
Personally, I doubt that any 'fight' would be successful.
 

RobertClark

Junior Member
Hi,

I think dog searches are used more as a ruse or as an excuse for police officers to perform their own warrantless searches than for the dog's actual ability to detect drugs by scent. I'm not saying that these dogs can't smell the contraband that they're trained to find but that whatever the outcome of the dog's sniffing search, a physical search by the police officer is "always" done anyway. I've seen a few of these dog sniffing "searches" done on TV with actual car stops and although this is just anecdotal I wasn't impressed. I didn't "see" the dog clearly indicate the prescence or smell of drugs or other contraband. It seems to me as though there aren't any guidelines that these dog trainers of the various States need to follow as it relates to what indication the dog gives to its handler. Some are trained to sit, others to bark, others to claw at the supposed area of concern etcetera. And what is to stop the police dog handler/trainer from training the dog to indicate the prescence of contraband of whatever type by just using an obscure hand or facial gesture? If nothing is found then the dog handler merely says that the dog indicated the scent of contraband and that's that and hopefully you're allowed to go on your way and without any follow-up being done on the dog's accuracy of performance or lack thereof. Isn't that how those dog and pony shows of the past were able to have their animals add, subtract and count etcetera by barking or pounding the ground with a hoof?

Let the police get a warrant from a judge if they have probable cause and want to search your car and not rely on a dog who has been trained by the State's accusing party (conflict of interest) and that can't testify in a court of law to what it actually smelled. Or didn't smell. *ruff-ruff*

My $.02.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"whatever the outcome of the dog's sniffing search, a physical search by the police officer is "always" done anyway."
*** Since I KNOW to the contrary, I was going to ask under what 'experience' you might have had, then I read further in your post and got the answer.... "I've seen a few of these dog sniffing "searches" done on TV"!!!

Sorry, but last I checked, the television wasn't well known as being legally accurate!!

I can tell you from personal experience (as a former LEO), that dog 'hits' are accurate... so much so that the courts accept them.

"I didn't "see" the dog clearly indicate the prescence or smell of drugs or other contraband."
*** Gee, could that be because you are not a dog 'handler'?? I have seen them, in numerous occasions and under adverse conditions, get ACCURATE 'hits' when a normal person would have thought it impossible.
 

RobertClark

Junior Member
Hi JETX,

I don't need personal experience on a subject in order to express an opinion about it. I put the word "always" in quotation marks because I can't attest to what ALL drug sniffing dog handlers do. That would be awfully presumptuous of a mere mortal like myself and perhaps even of a former LEO such as yourself. My point is that there are just too many opportunities for the State to trample our Constitutional Rights against illegal search and seizure (albeit in a car on a public thoroughfare) when you bring an animal like a dog into the mix. Especially one which has been trained solely BY law enforcement FOR law enforcement and as far as I know without any set guidelines approved by the Courts.

Please don't insult my intelligence and claim that all law enforcement personel are always honest and without personal or professional bias' and perhaps even agendas of their own. We wouldn't need a Bill of Rights and the Courts if anyone believed this was the reality.

I told you upfront that my experience with this subject was anecdotal. And I never said that the dog's ability to detect whatever they are trained to detect is in dispute but that a dog sniffing search can too easily be used by its human handler as a ruse for an illegal search by law enforcement. The sensitivity of a dog's olfactory capabilities is phenomenal and trustworthy. My old 14 year old greyhound's (which is a sighthound to boot) ability to sniff out a doggie treat is nothing short of amazing!

But that there are just too many variables with these canine scent searches and ALL of them are on the side of law enforcement. That being true, in my opinion it allows for the dwindling of the U.S. Constitutional Rights of a supposed free people to be protected against illegal and/or whimsical searches. The broad net or shotgun approach to law enforcement instead of fair and good ol' police work which when implemented justly serves us all and leaves our right to be "let alone" intact.

Let a sitting judge decide probable cause and not a dog which has been trained by law enforcement for law enforcement.

In a Court of Law it's my Constitutional Right to confront and question my accuser. Please tell me how I can do that when I can't speak or understand Caninese?

Have a good day.
 

JETX

Senior Member
"Please tell me how I can do that when I can't speak or understand Caninese?"
*** You don't have to. Simply, a k-9 is just like any other law enforcement TOOL. The dog has specialized training and is certified as trained and qualified before he/she is put 'in the field'. This certification is accepted by the courts, just as any other 'expert' is. If you were drunk, would you demand to 'speak' to the breathalyzer?? Of course not, but you can certainly expect to see its certification of calibration. And if you are in a situation where a k-9 gets a hit, your attorney can just as easily query the dogs 'calibration' and accuracy.

Contrary to your assumption, a 'drug dog' that does NOT find drugs, or 'hits' on a false signal, is NOT considered reliable and will not last in the field or court.... just like a broken breathalyzer would be disputed.
 
H

hexeliebe

Guest
I didn't "see" the dog clearly indicate the prescence or smell of drugs or other contraband."
This is funny. So much so I had to call a buddy of mine in Africa. He about split a gut.

Just an FYI, the same dogs that are trained for drugs are also trained to 'sniff' landmines and explosives. NATO uses german sheperds to clear roads and ditches throughout Africa and the Middle East.

So, when I told my buddy about this post his reaction was...

"Tell this idiot to come back with me to the Congo and I'll put him to work with Jingo. Let's see how fast he starts trusting his 'eyes' and how fast he starts trusting the dog"....

Gotta love a pragmatist. :D
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top