Is this worth it?

[hydra13]

What is the name of your state? Connecticut

Here's the story of my arrest, its my first offense, and only for a minimal amount of pot, so punishment shouldnt be too harsh, but I think I should be able to get off with nothing, unfortunately I can't really afford an attorney, nor do I know what to expect from a public defender.

I was recently pulled over for having a brake lamp out, the officer asked for my license and registration, then went back to his car. He came back to mine saying the system said I had previously been in a car with someone else who got a narcotics charge, this had never happened. He then double checked, supposedly, came back said the same thing, then eventually brought a dog to my car, which walked around the outside and made no noticable action aside from nose down sniffing around my car until it reached my driver door, when the handler jerked the collar and it picked its head up. Apparently that was enough of a signal for probable cause to bring the dog in the car, then the dog just sniffed everything in the car and the cop would basically rummage through whatever the dog sniffed until it eventually found about 1.2 oz of weed.

The whole search seemed fairly unconstitutional to me, but I'm not expert on the subject. On top of this, my car has a center brake light, as well as 2 on the sides and CT law seems pretty clear cut that 2 are necesary.

Sec. 14-96e. Stop lamps. Turn signals. (a) Each motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer and pole trailer shall be equipped with two or more stop lamps meeting the requirements of subsection (a) of section 14-96r

Section 14-96r just states that the brake lights are required to be red or amber

I had 2 functioning brake lights, so it seems to me like this should easily be thrown out, but I have no experience with the legal system. Should I just see if I can use my AR and take probation, or try to fight it somehow, as it seems to me like the officer had no right to pull me over, on top of whichever other ways my rights were trampled?What is the name of your state?

 

[xylene]

wrong

I had 2 functioning brake lights, so it seems to me like this should easily be thrown out, but I have no experience with the legal system. Should I just see if I can use my AR and take probation, or try to fight it somehow, as it seems to me like the officer had no right to pull me over, on top of whichever other ways my rights were trampled?What is the name of your state?

The law says two or MORE

1.2 oz is more than a small amount.

Be thankful you are in CT

I agree with you about the drug dog.

"Non-verbal subtle cues only I can see.."

Did the officer find the weed or did you fess up once the dog was in the car?

And BTW, the police can lie.

 

[hydra13]

Yea, the law says 2 or more, and I had 2 out of 3 functioning, thats not enough?

And I am fully expecting the police to lie, as I saw it there was 3 or 4 things wrong with what the police did

1. I had 2 brake lights, so I shouldnt have been pulled over
2. The prior narcotics event had never happened
3. The whole dog search the dog did nothing except what dogs do, walk around and sniff things, and no, I didnt fess up (I could tell the dog had no idea so I was hoping I would get lucky), the officer found it as he was rummaging through everything the dog sniffed.
4. I wasnt read my rights until I got to the station, I only know how this is supposed to work through TV, so I'm not sure if thats wrong or not.

There's too much grey area with the last 3 for me to hope for much from any lawyer I could afford, but the first seems so clear cut to me that it seems like itd be worth fighting, but that could just be me being hopeful, so thats why I'm asking here.

 

[The Occultist]

*cough* Your vehicle needs to be equipped with two or more brake lights, which it was. I'm sure a DIFFERENT statute will state that ALL brake lights must be functioning. Just a possibility.

 

[calatty]

It sounds like you might have grounds to challenge the stop. You may also be able to challenge the detention on the grounds that it was excessively long. If both the stop and the length of detention pass muster, then the search and seizure were legal. The police only have to read you your rights if you are in custody and they are going to question you. I don't know about CT, but in CA public defenders are for the most part excellent attorneys.

 

[xylene]

It sounds like you might have grounds to challenge the stop. You may also be able to challenge the detention on the grounds that it was excessively long. If both the stop and the length of detention pass muster, then the search and seizure were legal. The police only have to read you your rights if you are in custody and they are going to question you. I don't know about CT, but in CA public defenders are for the most part excellent attorneys.

Were you reading some other post?

The stop for tail light was legit.

The dog walk around was legit. (op was hung up on some line cop used to try and rattle him)

The internal dog search after alert was legit.

No grounds I can see, unless the "eventually brought the dog" was a long time.

 

[calatty]

If the law requires two functioning brake lights and the poster had two functioning brake lights, why would the stop be "legit"? I never said the dog search was improper. I said the stop may have been improper, and the detention may have been excessively long. You have added nothing except an unsupported pronouncement that the stop was "legit."

 

[runderwo]

IT is possible to subpoena records of the dog's false positive history and training records as part of a motion to suppress. If the sniff looked like a dog and pony show, you could take it to trial and try this route. There also must be reasonable suspicion to bring the dog in, which from what you described is extremely weak (unless YOU owned the car when it was previously pulled over and drugs found in it) and the wait for the dog must not have been excessively long (i.e., not longer than it takes to write the traffic ticket).

Was the sniff done from outside the window or was the dog led into the car to sniff? That can make a big difference. Also, where was the pot, was it in plain sight or inside something such as a locked suitcase where a reasonable expectation of privacy may exist? Also, in many areas, the trunk must have separate probable cause from the rest of the vehicle, i.e., a sniff at the window does not establish probable cause for the trunk too.

For such a small amount, check the laws in the jurisdiction where you were charged. If it's a misdemeanor, try to get SIS. That way your record is untouched as long as you stay clear of the law for a few years. If the search was really bad, your lawyer may be able to get the charge amended so you can pay off the system and go on your way.

 

[dangz]

There also must be reasonable suspicion to bring the dog in, which from what you described is extremely weak (unless YOU owned the car when it was previously pulled over and drugs found in it) and the wait for the dog must not have been excessively long (i.e., not longer than it takes to write the traffic ticket).

I've got to correct you here. Check out Supreme Court ruling Illinois vs. Caballes. It was a 6-2 ruling, determining that it is not a violation of 4th ammendment rights for police to perform a suspicionless search with a drug dog during a routine traffic stop. In other words, if you get pulled over, the police have every right to allow a drug dog to sniff the outside of your car without any probable cause. No questions.

Disturbing but true.

 

[acmb05]

If the law requires two functioning brake lights and the poster had two functioning brake lights, why would the stop be "legit"? I never said the dog search was improper. I said the stop may have been improper, and the detention may have been excessively long. You have added nothing except an unsupported pronouncement that the stop was "legit."

Because the law states two or more functioning brake lights. If a car has 10 lights then legally ALL of them must be working. If even one of them is not working they can get pulled over.

 

[runderwo]

I've got to correct you here. Check out Supreme Court ruling Illinois vs. Caballes. It was a 6-2 ruling, determining that it is not a violation of 4th ammendment rights for police to perform a suspicionless search with a drug dog during a routine traffic stop. In other words, if you get pulled over, the police have every right to allow a drug dog to sniff the outside of your car without any probable cause. No questions.

Disturbing but true.

If a K9 unit stopped you, yes they can sniff you on the spot. The point is that it is still considered unreasonable to make you wait for a K9 unit for a longer amount of time than it takes to write a ticket. It helps if you ask the officer if you are free to leave several times. If they do not answer or appear to be stalling, after you get busted have your lawyer look at the arrest report and the total time of the stop. I.e. 45 minutes for a traffic ticket is probably not kosher and the Prosecutor will know that as your lawyer negotiates with him.

If you think the cops are stalling on finishing writing up your ticket (or warning) in order to wait for a K9 unit, try telling the officer that you have to use the restroom badly and could you please be on your way. If they ask why you are not consenting to a search, tell them it is because the last time you did, they tore your car to pieces and left you to clean up the mess. If they then say they promise not to do that, tell them that is what the last guys said too. Basically make it appear that you see this as a serious inconvenience without appearing that you have something to hide.

 

[acmb05]

I have yet to see a K-9 unit called to the scene who DID NOT detect something in the car. They always get a hit which gives the police every right to search your car. Good luck defending against it since apparently you DID have drugs in the car. It will be kind of hard to say the cops faked a hit on the car by the dog.