airport stops & dog sniffs

This would pertain to WA. My sister took a flight from CA to go to ALaska but had to change flights in WA. She arrived in WA and was stopped about an hour prior to connecting flight was to leave in a common area of the airport. She was approached by 2 plain clothes detectives whom identified themselves and asked her if they could ask her some questions. She agree. They asked her if there would be any reason that a dog would alert to her checked luggage and she said no. They asked her if they could search the bag and she said yes. They asked her if they could search her person and she said no. They did not check the bag that she gave consent to search. They arrested for investigation of dangerous drugs and handcuffed and had a female customs agent do a thorough search of her person at the airport. They did an intrusive search by pressing on her very firmly to try and determine if she was concealing anything internally. The officer that did the search said she could not be sure. They took her to the local police station where she was fingerprinted and booked then placed in a cell until they could obtain a search warrant for the bag that was alerted on and an internal cavity search. The bag that was alerted did not have any narcotics or drug related anything in it, only regular things that you would take traveling. The dog alerted falsly. If they would have searched her bag which the dog alerted at the air port when she gave them consent to do so they would have known that the bag was clean. Is that grounds to suppress any evidence that was obtained after that and was that a false arrest?

itat4u said:

Is that grounds to suppress any evidence that was obtained after that

Click to expand...

That depends on whta the evidence was?

Was she carrying drugs internally?

xylene said:

Was she carrying drugs internally?

Click to expand...

That sure seems to be the only thing left out.

The dog alerted falsly.

Click to expand...

unlikely. Just because there were no drugs found in the bag doesn't mean there was no residue on the bag

If they would have searched her bag which the dog alerted at the air port when she gave them consent to do so they would have known that the bag was clean. Is that grounds to suppress any evidence that was obtained after that

Click to expand...

Not because of that. You have no idea what other evidence they might have or what information was available to them to use to make the decisions they did.

Is that grounds to suppress any evidence that was obtained after that and was that a false arrest?

Click to expand...

The fact that no drugs were found in her bag does not invalidate any other searches. Those searches have to stand on their own. Besides the bag, what was searched and when?

As for the false arrest, you should have a local lawyer review the case and the officer's justification for the arrest.

yes, but she had ingested some of the drugs at the police station prior to the warrant being issued. Once the warrant was issued the officers went into her cell and found evidence that she had ingested some pills. They called for and ambulance to come evaluate her. they took her to the hospital by ambulance, upon arrival they executed the search warrant prior to treating her for the possible drug overdose. After they removed internally stored drugs they pumped her stomach and found that she had ingested a lethal amount of the drugs.

justalayman said:

That sure seems to be the only thing left out.

Click to expand...

...or in, as the case may be.

I suspect there is other information you are not privy to. I do not believe a hit on a piece of baggage is going to support what happened.

Barring no surprises I find it odd after a consent to search a bag which was hit on by a drug dog, they did not?

Arresting on such basis without a search seems like weak probable cause, though probably valid??

The courts have ruled that HITS are generally sufficient to conduct a warrantless search, at least for the automobile exception.

Arrest requires probable cause, not suspicion.

Some Random Guy;2673174]. Besides the bag, what was searched and when?


They spoke with her for less than 5 minutes and arrested her immediatly after she said that she did not want to be searched. They searched her person aggressively and intrusively at the airport to try and determine if she was internally carrying anything. The search by a female customs angent was not conclusive. She said that she could not be sure because my sister was "moving around" to much during the search. The reason she was moving around was because she was being prodded in her groin area quite hard.

How on earth could this be a false arrest if she had drugs???

Hello McFly

Antigone*of*Greece said:

How on earth could this be a false arrest if she had drugs???

Hello McFly

Click to expand...

the ends justify the means is not a legal defense to an illegal search.

justalayman said:

the ends justify the means is not a legal defense to an illegal search.

Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see an illegal search.

Antigone*of*Greece said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see an illegal search.

Click to expand...

ok, what is the justification for the arrest and search?

there is a claim of the dog keying on the baggage. There is no claim of anything found and in fact, the luggage was not searched.

That means, at best, they can claim her bag was in a relatively close proximity to drugs. Maybe it was from the bag next to hers on the luggage rack. Maybe the luggage handler also loads drugs onto planes (not as far fetched as one might think).

So, since they need probable cause to arrest and search, what is their probable cause? They have, at best, reasonable suspicion. Not enough to effect a search.

Personally, I believe there is a lot of facts not known or disclosed here that would give them PC but with what we have, I don't think the have it.

Remember folks, we have a sibling's account of events through the lens of a sister who has apparently been arrested and caught in possession of dope. Her account of events will, most assuredly, differ from the official law enforcement account.

Whether there was probable cause for an arrest will be something for a court to determine. However, if she was booked, most states require an affidavit of probable cause be filed with the court (here it is within 48 hours) asserting good cause for the arrest. Granted, a court could later rule it invalid, but that first affidavit or application would be the first step to show that at least minimal probable cause existed.

Here, about all the defense can hope to do is to beat the probable cause (whatever it might have been) and thus argue for suppression based upon no good cause to make the arrest in the first place.

However, if she was only detained - or voluntarily accompanying the officers - and then consumed the dope out of fear, then that makes it easier for the state to make its case as she will have wigged out while being detained or accompanying them with consent. Once she is wigging out then that would be great probable cause.

Without all the details it is hard to say, but I strongly suspect they had something ... law enforcement typically does not go out and seek a search warrant for a body cavity search without really good cause.

It always seems to be the "sister or brother" I wonder why