-
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.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
H
hexeliebe
Guest
At $5.23 a minute I'm not asking
H
hexeliebe
Guest
Are you kidding? Tennessee has it's own version of "applicable state taxes and fees".
"Gimme all ya got and if it ain't 'nuff gimme more."
"Gimme all ya got and if it ain't 'nuff gimme more."
RobertClark
Junior Member
Hi JETX,
I was attempting some light hearted humor when I asked about cross-examining a dog in the courtroom. Even if it's stipulated that Fido is a qualified expert in the field on canine contraband sniffing!
I remember watching an old Andy Griffith show where Opie "accidently" killed a mother bird with his slingshot and had to take over responsibility for fledging her young. Opie named them Winkin, Blinkin and Nod and was concerned about not being able to understand their needs and expressed this to his father Andy. Well of course Barney Fife had to chime in with his expertise of the natural world and explained that birds in the wild could actually communicate one with another and not to worry. So Andy in a kidding sort of way told Opie that if anything was wrong with the birds that Winkin would tell Blinkin and Blinkin would tell Nod and that Nod would tell Barney and that he would let us all know! Maybe you had to have seen it but I thought it was a hilarious skit. At the end of the episode Opie remarked that the cage looked awfully empty and Andy said "But aren't the trees good and full."
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh .........
But back to the topic at hand. I realize that these contraband sniffing dogs are only a tool like any other being used by law enforcement to uphold our laws. But one that can too easily be abused to circumvent our right against illegal searches. You know the scenario:
A car get stopped for having a tail light out. The officer approaches the carload of young people who appear to be "up" to something or are acting suspiciously and the officer asks them to exit the car and separates them. Perhaps even hooks a couple of them up for his own protection if he feels too outnumbered or threatened. He questions them and perhaps their stories don't jive to his liking. So he wants to search the car for drugs or guns or whatever is on the menu that night. Since he has no probable cause he asks permission to search it. Hey, and as the saying goes "If you're not doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide or fear?" Other than having your civil rights violated that is.
And whenever permission for a search is denied then the threat of bringing in a contraband sniffing dog is proffered to further nudge the car owner into compliance. And we all know that we don't want to get the officer upset by "wasting" his/her time waiting for the contraband sniffing dog and handler to arrive because he may get a bit more riled especially if it's nearing the end of his or her shift. If permission is still denied and the dog and handler are brought on scene there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the officers from saying that the dog indicated drugs or contraband were present whether it did or not and the officers can then proceed with their illegal search. I'm not questioning the ability of dogs to sniff out whatever they're trained to sniff out but am questioning the honesty of law enforcement and the carte blanche this practice affords them. And even if the dashcam is running in the cruiser and the officers fail to find something they just shake their heads in feigned disbelief as they let the carload of youngsters go on their interrupted and violated merry way. Who is going to challenge this abuse of using these dogs willy-nilly to legitimize illegal searches for drugs or contraband? A carload of kids or busy citizens perhaps from out of town going about their everyday business trying to make ends meet without the luxury of an attorney on retainer?
If certain national guidelines for these dogs were implemented it may go down a little easier with me. Like having the dog bark twice, claw at and then sit down staring at the suspect area. Or some very obvious behavior. Not just a headshake or flea scratch that the officers can interpret in their own way. But even these dog behaviors can be controlled by the dog handler using hidden silent commands such as can be proven by those entertaining dogs and horses that can add, subtract and count. I'm sure any good dog trainer can confirm this. Unless of course there's someone here who really believes that dogs and horses can actually count! Even if the dog sniffing search is videotaped and it can be clearly shown that the dog has found drugs or contraband the interpretation of the videotape can still be a very subjective piece of evidence as we've witnessed in the Rodney King case.
A bit off topic but I think all interrogations of suspected criminals should be videotaped in full from the very beginning. This protects both the police and the suspect and if the case goes to trial there is a complete and honest record of the Mirandizing and the initial questioning before and after the arrest of a suspect. It stretches credulity that the police only after many long hours of interrogation turn on a grainy video camera or scratchy cassette recorder and obtain the final work product. Especially when a police officer/detective personally writes out a whole confession and a young, stupid or scared suspect just needs to sign it. In this age of inexpensive quality recording equipment and recordable media there is no excuse for this type of police work when dealing with people's freedom and in some instances their lives. It's the 21st century. But maybe I just watch too much CourtTV!
I think that to fully protect our 4th Amendment Right that a judge should sign a search warrant first and THEN let the dog find the drugs or contraband if any exists. The milk cart is in front of the rottweiler in my opinion.
Hi hexeliebe,
I'm glad your friend in Africa got a laugh. There's not enough laughing going on especially in Africa. But like I said before the search that I saw on TV was just an anecdotal example as the show was thoroughly edited and couldn't possibly show everything that was going on. But during the search it seemed to me as though the officers weren't really certain if the dog indicated finding anything or not and they kind of talked each other into the belief that it did. I think it should be completely obvious that a dog has found something and not be left up to the subjective interpretation of law enforcement. Then after the unsuccessful search was concluded with nothing being found they just chalked it up to a misunderstanding or whatever and that was that and the violated and inconvenienced travelling vacationers were sent on their way. An honest mistake perhaps? Or another example of the police over-stepping their authority using dogs as their legal scapegoats for their shabby shotgun approach to law enforcement? I'm asking.
I have owned dogs all my 48 years and I have total trust in them and their abilities when they're trained properly. It's human beings that I don't trust.
As the saying goes "The more people that I meet the more I love my dog." Present company excluded of course!
Have a good night.
I was attempting some light hearted humor when I asked about cross-examining a dog in the courtroom. Even if it's stipulated that Fido is a qualified expert in the field on canine contraband sniffing!
I remember watching an old Andy Griffith show where Opie "accidently" killed a mother bird with his slingshot and had to take over responsibility for fledging her young. Opie named them Winkin, Blinkin and Nod and was concerned about not being able to understand their needs and expressed this to his father Andy. Well of course Barney Fife had to chime in with his expertise of the natural world and explained that birds in the wild could actually communicate one with another and not to worry. So Andy in a kidding sort of way told Opie that if anything was wrong with the birds that Winkin would tell Blinkin and Blinkin would tell Nod and that Nod would tell Barney and that he would let us all know! Maybe you had to have seen it but I thought it was a hilarious skit. At the end of the episode Opie remarked that the cage looked awfully empty and Andy said "But aren't the trees good and full."
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh .........
But back to the topic at hand. I realize that these contraband sniffing dogs are only a tool like any other being used by law enforcement to uphold our laws. But one that can too easily be abused to circumvent our right against illegal searches. You know the scenario:
A car get stopped for having a tail light out. The officer approaches the carload of young people who appear to be "up" to something or are acting suspiciously and the officer asks them to exit the car and separates them. Perhaps even hooks a couple of them up for his own protection if he feels too outnumbered or threatened. He questions them and perhaps their stories don't jive to his liking. So he wants to search the car for drugs or guns or whatever is on the menu that night. Since he has no probable cause he asks permission to search it. Hey, and as the saying goes "If you're not doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide or fear?" Other than having your civil rights violated that is.
And whenever permission for a search is denied then the threat of bringing in a contraband sniffing dog is proffered to further nudge the car owner into compliance. And we all know that we don't want to get the officer upset by "wasting" his/her time waiting for the contraband sniffing dog and handler to arrive because he may get a bit more riled especially if it's nearing the end of his or her shift. If permission is still denied and the dog and handler are brought on scene there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the officers from saying that the dog indicated drugs or contraband were present whether it did or not and the officers can then proceed with their illegal search. I'm not questioning the ability of dogs to sniff out whatever they're trained to sniff out but am questioning the honesty of law enforcement and the carte blanche this practice affords them. And even if the dashcam is running in the cruiser and the officers fail to find something they just shake their heads in feigned disbelief as they let the carload of youngsters go on their interrupted and violated merry way. Who is going to challenge this abuse of using these dogs willy-nilly to legitimize illegal searches for drugs or contraband? A carload of kids or busy citizens perhaps from out of town going about their everyday business trying to make ends meet without the luxury of an attorney on retainer?
If certain national guidelines for these dogs were implemented it may go down a little easier with me. Like having the dog bark twice, claw at and then sit down staring at the suspect area. Or some very obvious behavior. Not just a headshake or flea scratch that the officers can interpret in their own way. But even these dog behaviors can be controlled by the dog handler using hidden silent commands such as can be proven by those entertaining dogs and horses that can add, subtract and count. I'm sure any good dog trainer can confirm this. Unless of course there's someone here who really believes that dogs and horses can actually count! Even if the dog sniffing search is videotaped and it can be clearly shown that the dog has found drugs or contraband the interpretation of the videotape can still be a very subjective piece of evidence as we've witnessed in the Rodney King case.
A bit off topic but I think all interrogations of suspected criminals should be videotaped in full from the very beginning. This protects both the police and the suspect and if the case goes to trial there is a complete and honest record of the Mirandizing and the initial questioning before and after the arrest of a suspect. It stretches credulity that the police only after many long hours of interrogation turn on a grainy video camera or scratchy cassette recorder and obtain the final work product. Especially when a police officer/detective personally writes out a whole confession and a young, stupid or scared suspect just needs to sign it. In this age of inexpensive quality recording equipment and recordable media there is no excuse for this type of police work when dealing with people's freedom and in some instances their lives. It's the 21st century. But maybe I just watch too much CourtTV!
I think that to fully protect our 4th Amendment Right that a judge should sign a search warrant first and THEN let the dog find the drugs or contraband if any exists. The milk cart is in front of the rottweiler in my opinion.
Hi hexeliebe,
I'm glad your friend in Africa got a laugh. There's not enough laughing going on especially in Africa. But like I said before the search that I saw on TV was just an anecdotal example as the show was thoroughly edited and couldn't possibly show everything that was going on. But during the search it seemed to me as though the officers weren't really certain if the dog indicated finding anything or not and they kind of talked each other into the belief that it did. I think it should be completely obvious that a dog has found something and not be left up to the subjective interpretation of law enforcement. Then after the unsuccessful search was concluded with nothing being found they just chalked it up to a misunderstanding or whatever and that was that and the violated and inconvenienced travelling vacationers were sent on their way. An honest mistake perhaps? Or another example of the police over-stepping their authority using dogs as their legal scapegoats for their shabby shotgun approach to law enforcement? I'm asking.
I have owned dogs all my 48 years and I have total trust in them and their abilities when they're trained properly. It's human beings that I don't trust.
As the saying goes "The more people that I meet the more I love my dog." Present company excluded of course!
Have a good night.
"A car get stopped for having a tail light out. The officer approaches the carload of young people who appear to be "up" to something or are acting suspiciously and the officer asks them to exit the car and separates them. Perhaps even hooks a couple of them up for his own protection if he feels too outnumbered or threatened. He questions them and perhaps their stories don't jive to his liking. So he wants to search the car for drugs or guns or whatever is on the menu that night. Since he has no probable cause he asks permission to search it. Hey, and as the saying goes "If you're not doing anything wrong then what do you have to hide or fear?" Other than having your civil rights violated that is.
And whenever permission for a search is denied then the threat of bringing in a contraband sniffing dog is proffered to further nudge the car owner into compliance. And we all know that we don't want to get the officer upset by "wasting" his/her time waiting for the contraband sniffing dog and handler to arrive because he may get a bit more riled especially if it's nearing the end of his or her shift. If permission is still denied and the dog and handler are brought on scene there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the officers from saying that the dog indicated drugs or contraband were present whether it did or not and the officers can then proceed with their illegal search. I'm not questioning the ability of dogs to sniff out whatever they're trained to sniff out but am questioning the honesty of law enforcement and the carte blanche this practice affords them. And even if the dashcam is running in the cruiser and the officers fail to find something they just shake their heads in feigned disbelief as they let the carload of youngsters go on their interrupted and violated merry way. Who is going to challenge this abuse of using these dogs willy-nilly to legitimize illegal searches for drugs or contraband? A carload of kids or busy citizens perhaps from out of town going about their everyday business trying to make ends meet without the luxury of an attorney on retainer?"
Was your story based on personal knowledge or something from a CSI show?
K9 dogs are trained to give visible signals of a hit - sitting down, barking, pointing, etc. The dog wagging its tail is not a sign of a drug hit. Plus if false hits are being made by the dog, the dog is useless as a investigation tool.
Me thinks your paranoia is at an all time high.
And whenever permission for a search is denied then the threat of bringing in a contraband sniffing dog is proffered to further nudge the car owner into compliance. And we all know that we don't want to get the officer upset by "wasting" his/her time waiting for the contraband sniffing dog and handler to arrive because he may get a bit more riled especially if it's nearing the end of his or her shift. If permission is still denied and the dog and handler are brought on scene there is absolutely NOTHING stopping the officers from saying that the dog indicated drugs or contraband were present whether it did or not and the officers can then proceed with their illegal search. I'm not questioning the ability of dogs to sniff out whatever they're trained to sniff out but am questioning the honesty of law enforcement and the carte blanche this practice affords them. And even if the dashcam is running in the cruiser and the officers fail to find something they just shake their heads in feigned disbelief as they let the carload of youngsters go on their interrupted and violated merry way. Who is going to challenge this abuse of using these dogs willy-nilly to legitimize illegal searches for drugs or contraband? A carload of kids or busy citizens perhaps from out of town going about their everyday business trying to make ends meet without the luxury of an attorney on retainer?"
Was your story based on personal knowledge or something from a CSI show?
K9 dogs are trained to give visible signals of a hit - sitting down, barking, pointing, etc. The dog wagging its tail is not a sign of a drug hit. Plus if false hits are being made by the dog, the dog is useless as a investigation tool.
Me thinks your paranoia is at an all time high.
Crazyhorse
Member
I wouldn't say he's paranoid... as the 4th Amendment warrant requirement is so riddled with exceptions that even Scalia has conceded that it has all but been gutted.
Just to be clear... dogs can be manipulated to "evil" means just as can any other law enforcement tool. I do not lend a presupposition of truthfulness to anything that goes on in the field... that's for a finder of fact to determine.
Do cops obtain evidence illegally? The answer is a resounding yes. In fact a Rehnquist opinion I just read cited statistics stating that thousands of charges are dropped every year because of dirty evidence. However, he saw this as indicative of the fact that a limited Good-Faith Exception is hindering law enforcement. I see it as an argument for a renewal of strong 4th Amendment protections.
Don't think that I am anti-cop. In fact one of my good friends from HS is a cop in my medium-sized city and I can attest to his good character. However it would be naive to assume that there are not overzealous or even corrupt law enforcement officers out there who will abuse a suspect's rights just to go fishing for evidence.
Just to be clear... dogs can be manipulated to "evil" means just as can any other law enforcement tool. I do not lend a presupposition of truthfulness to anything that goes on in the field... that's for a finder of fact to determine.
Do cops obtain evidence illegally? The answer is a resounding yes. In fact a Rehnquist opinion I just read cited statistics stating that thousands of charges are dropped every year because of dirty evidence. However, he saw this as indicative of the fact that a limited Good-Faith Exception is hindering law enforcement. I see it as an argument for a renewal of strong 4th Amendment protections.
Don't think that I am anti-cop. In fact one of my good friends from HS is a cop in my medium-sized city and I can attest to his good character. However it would be naive to assume that there are not overzealous or even corrupt law enforcement officers out there who will abuse a suspect's rights just to go fishing for evidence.
S
Smantha
Guest
entrapment
the reason i ask if i should "fight" this is because i was told that even though there were no charges filed at that time, i can and probably will be indicted at a later date. i would like to be prepared with my defense if this happens. when i told the master seargant that the officer assured me i would not be charged with anything that wasn't mine if i gave consent to search, he said he didn't believe me because he knew the officer and he couldn't see him saying that. he also informed me that from the minute i was pulled over, there was an audio and video tape recording everything being said. i replied with "well, that is wonderful because that will prove that i am telling the truth." i asked if a copy of that tape would be made available to me or my attorney if we so requested, and he said "well, unfortunately, officer (unknown name) was in a utility vehicle (it was a plain unmarked caprice) which wasn't equiped with a recording device." my immediate response was "well, how convenient." there is no record of this officer lying or manipulating me. which also means that there is no record of him reading me my rights, or anything proving that he didn't act inappropriately towards me or anything for that matter. i find that hard to believe. What I do believe is that the officer knows exactly what he said and did but also knows it was wrong because there wasn't probable cause for a search. in fact, i overheard the master seargant tell the officer to lie on the report and say that there was a box of cold medicine in plain sight when he looked in the car and that was what gave him "probable cause". i even said "that is a lie!" "that is not true at all." i don't think they realized that i could hear what they were saying until then. how can i prove they are lying? is it required that all police vehicles have audio recording devices in them? although i havent been charged with anything as of yet, shouldn't i seek legal help in case i am charged later? how long do they have to decide if they are going to bring charges against me?
the reason i ask if i should "fight" this is because i was told that even though there were no charges filed at that time, i can and probably will be indicted at a later date. i would like to be prepared with my defense if this happens. when i told the master seargant that the officer assured me i would not be charged with anything that wasn't mine if i gave consent to search, he said he didn't believe me because he knew the officer and he couldn't see him saying that. he also informed me that from the minute i was pulled over, there was an audio and video tape recording everything being said. i replied with "well, that is wonderful because that will prove that i am telling the truth." i asked if a copy of that tape would be made available to me or my attorney if we so requested, and he said "well, unfortunately, officer (unknown name) was in a utility vehicle (it was a plain unmarked caprice) which wasn't equiped with a recording device." my immediate response was "well, how convenient." there is no record of this officer lying or manipulating me. which also means that there is no record of him reading me my rights, or anything proving that he didn't act inappropriately towards me or anything for that matter. i find that hard to believe. What I do believe is that the officer knows exactly what he said and did but also knows it was wrong because there wasn't probable cause for a search. in fact, i overheard the master seargant tell the officer to lie on the report and say that there was a box of cold medicine in plain sight when he looked in the car and that was what gave him "probable cause". i even said "that is a lie!" "that is not true at all." i don't think they realized that i could hear what they were saying until then. how can i prove they are lying? is it required that all police vehicles have audio recording devices in them? although i havent been charged with anything as of yet, shouldn't i seek legal help in case i am charged later? how long do they have to decide if they are going to bring charges against me?
RobertClark
Junior Member
Hi Smantha,
Sorry to hear of your ordeal as it appears to have you rather shaken up.
Now I could be wrong here and if so hopefully someone will set me straight but I don't think that it's a requirement for law enforcement to tell you the truth about what your legal options are or what their intentions are. As a matter of fact I think it's their job to tell you practically anything as long the police officer believes it will get him to the facts of his investigation. It sometimes sounds bad to a jury knowing that the police lied to a suspect to obtain evidence but I don't think that it's illegal.
I don't think he has to Mirandize you (read you your rights) until you're formally placed under arrest but you said that he did. I imagine he was just covering his arse or was trying to put a litle scare into you.
Just how much cold medicine and batteries were found in your car? I think it takes a whole lot of that stuff to produce a batch of methadrine. If it was just a box or two of the cold pills and a few batteries what kind of evidence is that? Unless of course they were found along with meth cooking paraphernalia. And even if the officer saw a box or two of the cold medicine in plain sight, it's still a legal and some people believe a useful product. Personally I never use the stuff. But hell, with all the news about the flu that we were subjected to in the past few months it must be a fairly common occurence for police to see or find cold remedy products in people's cars. And lots of people carry extra batteries (flashlight or otherwise) around with them in their car especially during the winter months.
There is no legal requirement that I know of that dashcams be installed on any police vehicle. It's usually just the policy of the individual local or municipal police forces whether they install them or not. I believe most State Police forces are using them now.
You've said quite a lot to those police officers and usually that's not what a good defense lawyer would recommend that you do. But it's understandable that you did so considering that you were under duress and was hoping to clear up what appears to be at least on the surface a simple misunderstanding. But we don't know what your passenger's intent was for those pills and batteries or what he said to the police.
Since you seem very worried about it I would definitely recommend that you seek legal advice if just for your own peace of mind. And especially before you give any written or recorded statement to the police or the district or state attorney. Make sure you get an attorney who specializes in drug cases and has at least some courtroom experience just in case the police pursue this matter. Check out the Illinois State Bar Association if you need any help in finding one. Or if you're poor you may be able to get a public defender. Look in the Blue pages of your local phonebook for their office number and give them a call. And try to stay away from your passenger unless your attorney says otherwise.
I hope you get this taken care of to your satisfaction.
Hi stephenk,
You wrote:
"K9 dogs are trained to give visible signals of a hit - sitting down, barking, pointing, etc. The dog wagging its tail is not a sign of a drug hit. Plus if false hits are being made by the dog, the dog is useless as a investigation tool."
And I wrote that there should be some national uniform indicators used by all of these law enforcement dog trainers/handlers so it's obvious to all when a hit is made. Some of these dogs are even trained using the German Schutzhund commands. We can't even get the trainers and handlers to use a uniform command language! And it's true that if a dog starts to give false hits it's practically useless as a legitimate investigation tool. But not useless to corrupt law enforcement agents who want to use these dogs to circumvent the search and seizure laws to further their arrest bean counts.
I've never seen an episode of CSI or any other fictional police show since ummmm..... "Police Woman" starring Angie Dickinson and that was a longggg time ago! But I do watch Cops once in awhile and have seen many other law enforcement and military oriented shows on The Learning Channel, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The CourtTV Channel, PBS, etcetera and even a few on the major networks when they dare stray from their line-up of silly "Reality" shows and transparent half-hour comedy shows and produce television magazine shows like 20/20 or 60 Minutes that I may find interesting. And as you may know many of these shows deal with different aspects of law enforcement and our legal system and hopefully portray their workings fairly accurately. Lately it seems like it's become a trend to produce shows of this nature. But I don't have any personal experience or knowledge about law enforcement other than that several of my uncles and cousins were and are cops in the Philadelphia area. And as far as I know are proud, honest and hardworking officers and detectives.
Did you find anything inaccurate in the scenario that I posed to JETX? You don't believe that this is a fairly common practice used by some law enforcement agents? Do you actually believe that there is no abuse going on in law enforcement as it relates to misusing these contraband sniffing dogs and violating citizen's civil rights which were written into the Constitution to protect us against these illegal and whimsical searches?
Hey, if you think that it's okay for law enforcement to use these "corner cutting" tactics then simply get a Constitutional Convention together and repeal the 4th Amendment.
Or take the easy route like Reagan and his Attorney General Meese did back in the 80's and just nickle and dime it to death. Remember good old Ed Meese who once said:
"It really is time to stop coddling suspects, if they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects." That sounds like something Saddam may have once said.
Starting with Meese who practically decimated the "Exclusionary Rule" which the Supreme Court found constitutional and that kept law enforcement from trampling our rights with their shotgun approach to searches and "whatjagot in here?" seizures. And then another chunk of it was bitten off by the Republican controlled '95 Congress. And now with Ashcroft's convenient little "Patriot Act" I guess the locks on our doors and windows will be outlawed next. <sarcasm
I don't have anything to be paranoid about. I gave up drugs back in the 70's and live a productive, honest and law abiding life. I just don't like to see the government taking away our rights that have been fought for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of our military over the past two and a third centuries since we kicked the British out and declared democratic self-rule. Okay, republican self-rule. And especially when it's done for political reasons to get some cowardly chickenhawk politician elected or re-elected to office on a plank of being tough on crime and criminals. We all want to be tough on crime and criminals, especially the violent ones but we also want to live in a free society. Having just watched some of the New Hampshire Primary it brings to mind their State motto. "Live Free or Die".
Enough said.
Have a good morning.
Sorry to hear of your ordeal as it appears to have you rather shaken up.
Now I could be wrong here and if so hopefully someone will set me straight but I don't think that it's a requirement for law enforcement to tell you the truth about what your legal options are or what their intentions are. As a matter of fact I think it's their job to tell you practically anything as long the police officer believes it will get him to the facts of his investigation. It sometimes sounds bad to a jury knowing that the police lied to a suspect to obtain evidence but I don't think that it's illegal.
I don't think he has to Mirandize you (read you your rights) until you're formally placed under arrest but you said that he did. I imagine he was just covering his arse or was trying to put a litle scare into you.
Just how much cold medicine and batteries were found in your car? I think it takes a whole lot of that stuff to produce a batch of methadrine. If it was just a box or two of the cold pills and a few batteries what kind of evidence is that? Unless of course they were found along with meth cooking paraphernalia. And even if the officer saw a box or two of the cold medicine in plain sight, it's still a legal and some people believe a useful product. Personally I never use the stuff. But hell, with all the news about the flu that we were subjected to in the past few months it must be a fairly common occurence for police to see or find cold remedy products in people's cars. And lots of people carry extra batteries (flashlight or otherwise) around with them in their car especially during the winter months.
There is no legal requirement that I know of that dashcams be installed on any police vehicle. It's usually just the policy of the individual local or municipal police forces whether they install them or not. I believe most State Police forces are using them now.
You've said quite a lot to those police officers and usually that's not what a good defense lawyer would recommend that you do. But it's understandable that you did so considering that you were under duress and was hoping to clear up what appears to be at least on the surface a simple misunderstanding. But we don't know what your passenger's intent was for those pills and batteries or what he said to the police.
Since you seem very worried about it I would definitely recommend that you seek legal advice if just for your own peace of mind. And especially before you give any written or recorded statement to the police or the district or state attorney. Make sure you get an attorney who specializes in drug cases and has at least some courtroom experience just in case the police pursue this matter. Check out the Illinois State Bar Association if you need any help in finding one. Or if you're poor you may be able to get a public defender. Look in the Blue pages of your local phonebook for their office number and give them a call. And try to stay away from your passenger unless your attorney says otherwise.
I hope you get this taken care of to your satisfaction.
Hi stephenk,
You wrote:
"K9 dogs are trained to give visible signals of a hit - sitting down, barking, pointing, etc. The dog wagging its tail is not a sign of a drug hit. Plus if false hits are being made by the dog, the dog is useless as a investigation tool."
And I wrote that there should be some national uniform indicators used by all of these law enforcement dog trainers/handlers so it's obvious to all when a hit is made. Some of these dogs are even trained using the German Schutzhund commands. We can't even get the trainers and handlers to use a uniform command language! And it's true that if a dog starts to give false hits it's practically useless as a legitimate investigation tool. But not useless to corrupt law enforcement agents who want to use these dogs to circumvent the search and seizure laws to further their arrest bean counts.
I've never seen an episode of CSI or any other fictional police show since ummmm..... "Police Woman" starring Angie Dickinson and that was a longggg time ago! But I do watch Cops once in awhile and have seen many other law enforcement and military oriented shows on The Learning Channel, The Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The CourtTV Channel, PBS, etcetera and even a few on the major networks when they dare stray from their line-up of silly "Reality" shows and transparent half-hour comedy shows and produce television magazine shows like 20/20 or 60 Minutes that I may find interesting. And as you may know many of these shows deal with different aspects of law enforcement and our legal system and hopefully portray their workings fairly accurately. Lately it seems like it's become a trend to produce shows of this nature. But I don't have any personal experience or knowledge about law enforcement other than that several of my uncles and cousins were and are cops in the Philadelphia area. And as far as I know are proud, honest and hardworking officers and detectives.
Did you find anything inaccurate in the scenario that I posed to JETX? You don't believe that this is a fairly common practice used by some law enforcement agents? Do you actually believe that there is no abuse going on in law enforcement as it relates to misusing these contraband sniffing dogs and violating citizen's civil rights which were written into the Constitution to protect us against these illegal and whimsical searches?
Hey, if you think that it's okay for law enforcement to use these "corner cutting" tactics then simply get a Constitutional Convention together and repeal the 4th Amendment.
Or take the easy route like Reagan and his Attorney General Meese did back in the 80's and just nickle and dime it to death. Remember good old Ed Meese who once said:
"It really is time to stop coddling suspects, if they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be suspects." That sounds like something Saddam may have once said.
Starting with Meese who practically decimated the "Exclusionary Rule" which the Supreme Court found constitutional and that kept law enforcement from trampling our rights with their shotgun approach to searches and "whatjagot in here?" seizures. And then another chunk of it was bitten off by the Republican controlled '95 Congress. And now with Ashcroft's convenient little "Patriot Act" I guess the locks on our doors and windows will be outlawed next. <sarcasm
I don't have anything to be paranoid about. I gave up drugs back in the 70's and live a productive, honest and law abiding life. I just don't like to see the government taking away our rights that have been fought for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of our military over the past two and a third centuries since we kicked the British out and declared democratic self-rule. Okay, republican self-rule. And especially when it's done for political reasons to get some cowardly chickenhawk politician elected or re-elected to office on a plank of being tough on crime and criminals. We all want to be tough on crime and criminals, especially the violent ones but we also want to live in a free society. Having just watched some of the New Hampshire Primary it brings to mind their State motto. "Live Free or Die".
Enough said.
Have a good morning.
Geezzzee.....
RobertClark, do you get paid by the word???
Your posts are entirely TOO long and simply turn people off after reading the first few sentences. Especially since they are simply rambling opinions and NOT based on any legal facts!!
Save your long diatribe until you have a captive audience. The rest of us are walking away before you finish 'talking'.
RobertClark, do you get paid by the word???
Your posts are entirely TOO long and simply turn people off after reading the first few sentences. Especially since they are simply rambling opinions and NOT based on any legal facts!!
Save your long diatribe until you have a captive audience. The rest of us are walking away before you finish 'talking'.
RobertClark
Junior Member
OK
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">