Police k9 car search

[7654]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I would like to know what my rights are in this situation.
Had a friend in my car, we were heading to work. I stopped to get a drink, I'd noticed this cop sitting a bit away. When I get back to the car, the cop rolled up beside us. I ain't going to lie, this cop knew me and my friend. So he asks us what we're doing, we tell him we're going to work. Cop tells me he saw me walking and talking with this other guy (yeah, I saw a guy when I went to get my drink) and he wants to know how I know him and what we were talking about. I told him 'the weather'.
I'll be civil to a cop but I know I don't have to tell them my life story.
He said 'you mind if I search you?'. I said 'I mind. You can't'. He said that he had the right to pat search, for his own safety. (so - is that true?) I wasn't really sure but I was like, ok fine. So he did. And my friend too, asked him what a couple of things were (wallet, cigarettes).
My friend had been sitting with the door open. The cop stuck his head in and snooped around. He said to me 'mind if I have a look through the car?' I told him 'no you can't'
He told me, 'either you can let me look or we can wait for a k9 unit'
I asked him 'why do you want to search?'
He said 'I believe there's been a drug transaction'
I laughed and said 'when?'
All he said was 'are you going to let me look?'
I said 'you can't search'
He said 'then you can wait for the k9'
So, we waited. Because I wasn't sure about the situation (and maybe because I'm stubborn - but why should I let a cop in my car when he can't give a solid reason?). I questioned why we HAD to wait?, were we being detained?, for what reason did we have to stay? All he kept saying was that we had to wait for the k9.
He wouldn't let us call our boss - his only response was 'keep your hands out of your pockets'. I asked him 'can I call my mom?' - I wanted a second opinion on being made to wait, and I'm a juvenile. He said 'keep your hands out of your pockets'. (he wasn't very good at answering questions all round)
K9 arrives, they let their dirty dog run through my car and sniff us.
Then we leave and turn up at work late.
That seemed like bad policing. Don't cops have to explain themselves more? Does a cop have the right to remain silent??

My question - did we have the right to have gotten in the car and left while waiting for the k9 since he gave absolutely no reason for making us wait other than some vague drug transaction suggestion?

 

[dave33]

The police hace successfully circumvented citizens privacy rights. The cop said he saw a transaction, that gives him probable cause. Unless a cop is a complete moron a search is legal. They only need to claim they saw something that makes a search permissable.

To have just tried to leave would have ended badly.

Every states laws are different, you may want to do a little research and find out what is legal in your state. goodluck.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

I would like to know what my rights are in this situation.
Had a friend in my car, we were heading to work. I stopped to get a drink, I'd noticed this cop sitting a bit away. When I get back to the car, the cop rolled up beside us. I ain't going to lie, this cop knew me and my friend. So he asks us what we're doing, we tell him we're going to work. Cop tells me he saw me walking and talking with this other guy (yeah, I saw a guy when I went to get my drink) and he wants to know how I know him and what we were talking about. I told him 'the weather'.
I'll be civil to a cop but I know I don't have to tell them my life story.
He said 'you mind if I search you?'. I said 'I mind. You can't'. He said that he had the right to pat search, for his own safety. (so - is that true?)

Did the officer know you from previous arrests? That would be justification for him stopping you. He is also allowed to pat you down for his own safety, but he isn't allowed to reach into your pockets, unless he feels something suspicious.

I wasn't really sure but I was like, ok fine. So he did. And my friend too, asked him what a couple of things were (wallet, cigarettes).
My friend had been sitting with the door open. The cop stuck his head in and snooped around. He said to me 'mind if I have a look through the car?' I told him 'no you can't'

The officer was following standard procedure, this falls under plain sight doctrine.

He told me, 'either you can let me look or we can wait for a k9 unit'
I asked him 'why do you want to search?'
He said 'I believe there's been a drug transaction'
I laughed and said 'when?'
All he said was 'are you going to let me look?'
I said 'you can't search'
He said 'then you can wait for the k9'

Seems like a logical and concise exchange.

So, we waited. Because I wasn't sure about the situation (and maybe because I'm stubborn - but why should I let a cop in my car when he can't give a solid reason?).

Were you confused about the reasonvthe officer stated when he answered your question the first time? He suspected you of being part of an illegal drug transaction.

I questioned why we HAD to wait?, were we being detained?, for what reason did we have to stay? All he kept saying was that we had to wait for the k9.
He wouldn't let us call our boss - his only response was 'keep your hands out of your pockets'. I asked him 'can I call my mom?' - I wanted a second opinion on being made to wait, and I'm a juvenile. He said 'keep your hands out of your pockets'. (he wasn't very good at answering questions all round)
K9 arrives, they let their dirty dog run through my car and sniff us.
Then we leave and turn up at work late.
That seemed like bad policing. Don't cops have to explain themselves more? Does a cop have the right to remain silent??

Is your mother an attorney? What would her opinion matter? She has no authority over whether or not the officer is allowed to interview you when you are suspected of making a drug transaction.

My question - did we have the right to have gotten in the car and left while waiting for the k9 since he gave absolutely no reason for making us wait other than some vague drug transaction suggestion?

Again, is there some confusion about what the officer told you the first time you asked him for a reason? You were not free to leave at that point. The offier was under no obligation to satisfy your need for an unreasonable amount of detail in his answer. He is not required to tell you his life story either. See how that works? Perhaps, you might want to try to be a bit more cooperative next time and the result may be different.

The police hace successfully circumvented citizens privacy rights. The cop said he saw a transaction, that gives him probable cause. Unless a cop is a complete moron a search is legal. They only need to claim they saw something that makes a search permissable.

To have just tried to leave would have ended badly.

Every states laws are different, you may want to do a little research and find out what is legal in your state. goodluck.

Wrong again.

The officer had reasonable suspicion to call a K-9 unit, but not probable cause to conduct a search.

 

[7654]

It doesn't seem very fair that a cop can just 'claim' something. Two people talk to each other and shake/slap hands and that means there's been a drug deal?

I was surprized by a couple of things. Like, why wouldn't the cop actually search us properly if he thought there was a 'drug transaction'. And also, why wouldn't the cop search the car himself first if he was so certain that he had the right to?
When the dog showed up, I expected them to just walk it around outside the car but they just threw it in. I thought we were waiting for the dog so it could walk around, 'find something' and then the cop would be allowed to enter?
It was strange. It seemed like it wasn't quite legitmate and the cop knew it.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

It doesn't seem very fair that a cop can just 'claim' something. Two people talk to each other and shake/slap hands and that means there's been a drug deal?

Which is a common way that drug transactions take place. Have you been arrested for drug possession before?

I was surprized by a couple of things. Like, why wouldn't the cop actually search us properly if he thought there was a 'drug transaction'.

The officer asked for your permission because he didn't actually see any drugs exchange hands, just something that he believed resembled a drug transaction. This gave him reasonable suspicion to interview you, but not probable cause to search you. If he had seen drugs exchange hands, your interaction would have gone very differently.

And also, why wouldn't the cop search the car himself first if he was so certain that he had the right to?

He doesn't have the right to just search your car without some probable cause. He does have the right to have a K9 unit investigate your vehicle though. A hit from the K9 would give him probable cause to search your vehicle without your permission.

When the dog showed up, I expected them to just walk it around outside the car but they just threw it in. I thought we were waiting for the dog so it could walk around, 'find something' and then the cop would be allowed to enter?

Was the door already open or unlocked? The condition the vehicle was left in when the officer decided to have the K9 unit come to investigate is very important to your claim.

It was strange. It seemed like it wasn't quite legitmate and the cop knew it.

The officer ctually did an excellent job of following procedure and resecting your rights as a citizen. In the future, just assume that everything you think you know about the law and your rights is the opposite of the truth. That should help you understand why the police are doing their job that way.

 

[7654]

Did the officer know you from previous arrests? That would be justification for him stopping you. He is also allowed to pat you down for his own safety, but he isn't allowed to reach into your pockets, unless he feels something suspicious.

Yes, that's how he knows me. He didn't get in my pockets - I didn't think he could, I thought he could just pat down. It does make sense.

The officer was following standard procedure, this falls under plain sight doctrine.

He saw nothing in plain sight in the car to make him want to search. I get that he's probably allowed to snoop, but if he can't SEE anything, he can still move to the next step?

Were you confused about the reasonvthe officer stated when he answered your question the first time? He suspected you of being part of an illegal drug transaction.

well yeah, I was confused! I wasn't really sure what my car had to do with anything. I hadn't been back to the car since 'he saw a drug transaction', I was still outside. I don't know if he thought I was buying or selling. And he was just so vague, he never explained WHY he thought it happened.

Is your mother an attorney? What would her opinion matter? She has no authority over whether or not the officer is allowed to interview you when you are suspected of making a drug transaction.

I felt that as a juvenile I might be allowed to discuss a demand from a cop with a parent or guardian. So, you're saying 'no'?

Again, is there some confusion about what the officer told you the first time you asked him for a reason? You were not free to leave at that point. The offier was under no obligation to satisfy your need for an unreasonable amount of detail in his answer. He is not required to tell you his life story either. See how that works? Perhaps, you might want to try to be a bit more cooperative next time and the result may be different.

It scares me about how far a cop can take NO details. 'I believe there's been a drug transaction' - seriously? That's it? I don't even know if he meant with the guy outside the store! I'm assuming that's what he meant. But I dunno. Maybe he meant some other time. Maybe he followed us through the drive through and saw 'it' then.
He didn't tell us we were being detained or under arrest or anything.

Why should I have been more cooperative? I don't think I should have been under any obligation in this situation to willingly let a cop get in my car. But that's why I'm asking about rights and their rights.

The officer had reasonable suspicion to call a K-9 unit, but not probable cause to conduct a search.

Ok. I posted my last post before I saw yours. I see the difference you're saying with reasonable and probable. But, why was the dog allowed to get in the car and not just walk around if the cop wasn't allowed to get in the car?

 

[ERAUPIKE]

why was the dog allowed to get in the car and not just walk around if the cop wasn't allowed to get in the car?

The dog is used as a tool to find any hidden narcotics. The dog can detect items that are not in plain sight without violating your right to privacy and opening closed containers in your vehicle. The officer can look into your car, but if there was a bag that he suspected of holding drugs he would need probable cause (or your permission) to open it.

Probable cause, absent of a strong odor of the drug, can be established by a trained narcotics dog. The officer does not need to explain anything to you. You do not have the right to know what the officers reasons are for suspecting you of committing a crime beyond what he told you. Why do you feel that you have the right to be vague but the officer does not?

 

[7654]

Which is a common way that drug transactions take place.

To explain the whole thing. I walked up to the store. Kid was outside smoking a cigarette, he finished and put it out as I got to the door. We went inside together, buy stuff. Came back outside, slapped hands and went in different directions.
I explained it bad first, I see how half of the story can sound like a drug sale. But I didn't just walk up to him, slap hands and leave.

Have you been arrested for drug possession before?

Yes.

The officer asked for your permission because he didn't actually see any drugs exchange hands, just something that he believed resembled a drug transaction. This gave him reasonable suspicion to interview you, but not probable cause to search you. If he had seen drugs exchange hands, your interaction would have gone very differently.

Ok, reasonable and probable. I'm understanding.

Was the door already open or unlocked? The condition the vehicle was left in when the officer decided to have the K9 unit come to investigate is very important to your claim.

The door was open, my friend had been sitting with the door open. But isn't a k9 just a cop with a better nose? It seemed like the cop's boundary was putting his head in to snoop. So, why wasn't it the same for the dog?

In the future, just assume that everything you think you know about the law and your rights is the opposite of the truth. That should help you understand why the police are doing their job that way.

yeah, good advice. I came here to ask questions so that I don't have to 'assume' next time.

 

[justalayman]

the dog is an officer of the law. It is not allowed to enter your vehicle unless there is probable cause to search your vehicle. It appears you were subject to an illegal search but in all honestly, there isn't squat you can do about it unless you have a lot of money to spend that you will not get back, even if you win.

That is the sorry state of our rights as a US citizen at the moment.

In fact, the officer poking his head inside the car was an illegal search but again, not much you can really do about it since none of it resulted in an arrest where you could contest the results of an illegal search as being inadmissible.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Yes, that's how he knows me. He didn't get in my pockets - I didn't think he could, I thought he could just pat down. It does make sense.

Put yourself in the other sides shoes for a second. You see someone, that you have arrested for possessing or selling drugs before, acting in a way that is indicative of someone making a drug transaction. What do you do?

He saw nothing in plain sight in the car to make him want to search.

Except for your interaction with the man at the gas station.

I get that he's probably allowed to snoop, but if he can't SEE anything, he can still move to the next step?

That isn't the next step, he was on the same step. That is what your aren't understanding.

well yeah, I was confused! I wasn't really sure what my car had to do with anything. I hadn't been back to the car since 'he saw a drug transaction', I was still outside. I don't know if he thought I was buying or selling. And he was just so vague, he never explained WHY he thought it happened.

He doesn't need to explain the details of his investigation to you. You don't have a right to know what the officer is thinking. He was in the process of investigating what he perceived as being criminal activity, you were duly notified of that.

I felt that as a juvenile I might be allowed to discuss a demand from a cop with a parent or guardian. So, you're saying 'no'?

Yes, I said that you do not have the right to call mommy and ask for legal advice. Is there any part of that answer that you don't understand.

It scares me about how far a cop can take NO details. 'I believe there's been a drug transaction' - seriously? That's it? I don't even know if he meant with the guy outside the store! I'm assuming that's what he meant. But I dunno. Maybe he meant some other time. Maybe he followed us through the drive through and saw 'it' then.
He didn't tell us we were being detained or under arrest or anything.

You were detained but not under arrest. You were in the officers custody but not to the point that the officer felt it was necessary to detain you physically. The officer, likely following protocol, is under no obligation to answer your questions. Given your track record of not understanding the simple answers you have been provided to your questions, I doubt the officers answer would have helped in this situation anyway.

Why should I have been more cooperative? I don't think I should have been under any obligation in this situation to willingly let a cop get in my car. But that's why I'm asking about rights and their rights.

If you had been more cooperative, the dog wouldn't have been called. The officer would have likely conversed with you more to find out what your interactions were with a man at the gas station. Generally, cooperative people are not committing crimes, people that are hesitant to cooperate have something to hide. The officer can not use your refusal to converse or your right to refuse his search as his cause to investigate you further, but it may cause him to pursue his reasonable suspicion further than if you had simply spoke with him in the first place.

 

[justalayman]

If you had been more cooperative, the dog wouldn't have been called. The officer would have likely conversed with you more to find out what your interactions were with a man at the gas station. Generally, cooperative people are not committing crimes, people that are hesitant to cooperate have something to hide. The officer can not use your refusal to converse or your right to refuse his search as his cause to investigate you further, but it may cause him to pursue his reasonable suspicion further than if you had simply spoke with him in the first place.

I guess I must be in the minority then. I'm about as clean as you can get but I would do exactly as the OP did. I have a right to not tell the cop anything and I have used that right when confronted. Sorry but I'm not giving up my rights so the cop won't be upset. He can be upset all he wants. If he has reasonable suspicion to stop me, fine. If he doesn't have PC to arrest or search, it's; thanks for caring officer. I'll be on my way now. Have a great day.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

the dog is an officer of the law. It is not allowed to enter your vehicle unless there is probable cause to search your vehicle. It appears you were subject to an illegal search but in all honestly, there isn't squat you can do about it unless you have a lot of money to spend that you will not get back, even if you win.

That is the sorry state of our rights as a US citizen at the moment.

In fact, the officer poking his head inside the car was an illegal search but again, not much you can really do about it since none of it resulted in an arrest where you could contest the results of an illegal search as being inadmissible.

A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. (United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit, United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit)

It would appear that the officer believed he had probable cause.

The case law:
United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit, clearly states that a door left open by the suspect allows the dog to enter the vehicle without having first alerted on the exterior of the car.

Further, United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit, states that; If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I guess I must be in the minority then. I'm about as clean as you can get but I would do exactly as the OP did. I have a right to not tell the cop anything and I have used that right when confronted. Sorry but I'm not giving up my rights so the cop won't be upset. He can be upset all he wants. If he has reasonable suspicion to stop me, fine. If he doesn't have PC to arrest or search, it's; thanks for caring officer. I'll be on my way now. Have a great day.

I will also assume that there are not many officers that have a history of arresting you for drug possession. Do you make it a habit of acting in a way that is indicative of someone completing a drug transaction? There a few aggravating factors that make you simply can not ignore. (Plus, the case law clearly side with the officer in this case)

 

[justalayman]

I will also assume that there are not many officers that have a history of arresting you for drug possession. Do you make it a habit of acting in a way that is indicative of someone completing a drug transaction? There a few aggravating factors that make you simply can not ignore. (Plus, the case law clearly side with the officer in this case)

I'm not disagreeing with the cop stopping the OP based on reasonable suspicion. I do have a problem with the prolonged detention AND the illegal search without probable cause.

A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. (United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit, United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit)

did you miss this:

K9 arrives, they let their dirty dog run through my car and sniff us.

Ok, I missed your post about the open door. I'll have to read it and figure out how such a stupid decision can be made. An open door is not an invitation to enter. There is a magic line where on one side, you are in the car. On the other, you aren't. Just because a door is open the line doesn't dissappear.

 

[7654]

Eraupike, according to you, it seems like the cops have all the rights and power and a citizen has nothing?

Why do you feel that you have the right to be vague but the officer does not?

Because I wasn't accusing anybody of anything.

Why couldn't the dog have sat at the door and indicated anything from there? (I'm sure a dog can figure it out from there or at least show interest) Wouldn't that be the 'reasonable suspicion' action?

Justalayman - what would you do? What if this happens again? Start talking about reasonable suspicion and probable cause? Just to show you know some things?
I feel like he took advantage of me being young and not quite understanding where I stood in the situation.

Put yourself in the other sides shoes for a second. You see someone, that you have arrested for possessing or selling drugs before, acting in a way that is indicative of someone making a drug transaction. What do you do?

I do get the approach, the attempt to ask questions, and the pat search. Yeah, I kind of understand. But not the dog in the car.

Is there any part of that answer that you don't understand.

You don't need to be rude.

You weren't detained or under arrest, you were being interviewed. You were in the officers custody but not to the point that the officer felt it was necessary to detain you physically.

If you're being interviewed - do you not have the right to leave?
We were never informed of any status. At what point do you become 'in the officers custody' but you're still not detained?

If you had been more cooperative, the dog wouldn't have been called. The officer would have likely conversed with you more to find out what your interactions were with a man at the gas station. Generally, cooperative people are not committing crimes, people that are hesitant to cooperate have something to hide. The officer can not use your refusal to converse or your right to refuse his search as his cause to investigate you further, but it may cause him to pursue his reasonable suspicion further than if you had simply spoke with him in the first place.

So you would be perfectly willing to allow a cop who walked up to you, accused you of something, you'd just let them search your car?
Why should you let them when you have the right to refuse? And obviously I had the right to refuse as he didn't search me or my car physically himself.
If he was going to go ahead and call the k9, the only other why this could have turned out was for me to give him permission to search through my car. - WHY should I? Why submit to that? What about your rights?
And there was no requirement for me to discuss my conversation with him. Would you just tell a cop all about your conversation with Aunt Mable or would you think he could mind his own business? I'll be polite and civil but I shouldn't be expected or put under pressure to allow searches.