Police k9 car search

[ERAUPIKE]

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.

did you miss this:

Nope, you pulled a Romney and overlooked this,

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.

I covered my bases.

 

[7654]

Do you make it a habit of acting in a way that is indicative of someone completing a drug transaction?

That would have been the slickest of the slick drug deals.

So which bits of this are the reasonable suspicion and which bits are the aggravating factors?

Reasonable suspicion: two people shook hands

Aggravating factor: one of them has previous drug possession charges

COMPELLING STUFF

Is this really the state of policing/justice/law?

 

[justalayman]

Oh no. that case has all sorts of wrong in it but the dog keyed prior to entering the vehicle.


but what really separates that case and the case at hand is this:

The judge found further that the dog's leap into the back of the car did not vitiate the seizure, regardless of whether or not it was a search. The judge found that the defendant voluntarily opened the hatchback to retrieve the citation requested by Officer Jones. Id. at 156. Then the dog came along and "on his own, apparently jumped into the back of this car and immediately found what is sought to be suppressed here." Id. at 156-157. The judge found that in these circumstances the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He therefore denied the motion to suppress the narcotics found in the automobile and statements made at the time of the seizure.

Huge difference.

I reverse my reversal and stand by the illegal search stance.

 

[justalayman]

That would have been the slickest of the slick drug deals.

So which bits of this are the reasonable suspicion and which bits are the aggravating factors?

Reasonable suspicion: two people shook hands

Aggravating factor: one of them has previous drug possession charges

COMPELLING STUFF

Is this really the state of policing/justice/law?

seriously guy, while I am on your side about a lot of this, given a record of drug involvement, shaking hands with what is likely also known as a person with drug involvement is reasonable suspicion. It is a known means of transferring drugs from one party to another.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

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

Wrong, the officer respected your rights and followed the protocol set forth by the constitution. The police still have a job to do, they are going to do their best to keep drug dealers and junkies off the street.

Because I wasn't accusing anybody of anything.

You aren'tin a position to accuse anyone 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?

The dog would have been relegated to the exterior of the vehicle, but your friend left his door open which opened the interior of the vehicle to a search. Next time, close the door when you exit the vehicle.

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.

You can talk about those things all you want, but you don't understand them. The officer is not an expert on the law, but he knows way more than you. It is his job. Next time, close your doors and roll up your windows. You have a right to do that when you exit the vehicle. Let the officer know that you are willing to wait a reasonable amount of time for the K9 unit but you do have somewhere you need to be. That is also your right.

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.

Open door=dog in the car. Do you understand that?

You don't need to be rude.

I don't like repeating myself. I put the answer in terms you could understand.

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?

No, you will never be informed of your "status," no matter what you may read on the internet. General rule of thumb. If an officer puts you in handcuffs, you are under arrest. If you are not in hand cuffs, you are not under arrest yet. When the officer tells you that you can leave, you can leave.

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?

Since I don't have a history of drug arrests, that really doesn't ever happen to me. It would really depend on the situation. I would likely ask why the officer wished to search my vehicle, if he had a good reason I may or may not consent.

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 you wanted to end the interaction, letting the officer look in your vehicle would have expedited that. You chose to exercise your right to refuse, which resulted in the K9 unit being called. Do you understand the causation?

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?

You have made some bad decisions which result in situations like this. You exercised your rights, but the police have the right to keep drug dealers and junkies off the street. I applaud their efforts.

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.

I don't have an Aunt Mable. I would not be opposed to telling an officer that I was just talking to someone about nothing. I have no fear of interacting with law enforcement. In my case, it doesn't happen very often since I am a law abiding productive member of society.

Are you just going to continue to argue about something you know nothing about?

 

[7654]

I'm no legal expert, obviously. But that Stone case, and another I found that referred it. Aren't they talking about dogs acting on instinct? The dog up and jumped in by itself.
This dog was sent into my car.

Justalayman - nah, cops don't know the other kid, he has no drug background.
I could understand even a little more if we were in a known drug deal area. But we weren't.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Oh no. that case has all sorts of wrong in it but the dog keyed prior to entering the vehicle.


but what really separates that case and the case at hand is this:




Huge difference.

I reverse my reversal and stand by the illegal search stance.

United States v Glinton (154 F. 3d 1245 (1998) Eleventh Circuit
A canine sniff of a vehicle is not considered a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.

United States v Dortch (199 F. 3d 193 (1999) Fifth Circuit
A dog sniff does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I'm no legal expert, obviously. But that Stone case, and another I found that referred it. Aren't they talking about dogs acting on instinct? The dog up and jumped in by itself.
This dog was sent into my car.

Justalayman - nah, cops don't know the other kid, he has no drug background.
I could understand even a little more if we were in a known drug deal area. But we weren't.

If the officer had opened your door, he would have been wrong sending the dog into the vehicle. You left the door open, he had the right to enter. You do have the right to close your doors and windows when you exit your vehicle. I would suggest you do that next time if you don't want the dog in your vehicle.

 

[justalayman]

United States v Glinton (154 F. 3d 1245 (1998) Eleventh Circuit
A canine sniff of a vehicle is not considered a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.

United States v Dortch (199 F. 3d 193 (1999) Fifth Circuit
A dog sniff does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

and?

I know that. The problem: sending a dog into a vehicle is a search, even if the door is open apparently (the stone case does not address an open door and a directed search) is an illegal search.

 

[justalayman]

If the officer had opened your door, he would have been wrong sending the dog into the vehicle. You left the door open, he had the right to enter. You do have the right to close your doors and windows when you exit your vehicle. I would suggest you do that next time if you don't want the dog in your vehicle.

If you can find case law to support your claim, fine. The Stone case does not support your claim.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

If you can find case law to support your claim, fine. The Stone case does not support your claim.

United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit

Dog sniff is not a search. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior vehicle sniff. Initial alert by dog during dog sniff, when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment. When dog alerted to a box in the trunk, probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and all containers therein.

United States v Patterson (65 F. 3d 68 (1995) Seventh Circuit

Following defendant’s arrest for a misdemeanor traffic violation, exposing his vehicle to a narcotics detection dog, including the vehicle’s interior, was a permissible search incident to arrest. Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe the car contains contraband. (Assuming the officer believed he could articulate probable cause.)

I think that is enough case law to rebut your opinion.

 

[HighwayMan]

He is also allowed to pat you down for his own safety...

With a reason. It doesn't sound like he had any legal reason to frisk anyone.

A frisk is not automatically allowed during an otherwise lawful stop.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

and?

I know that. The problem: sending a dog into a vehicle is a search, even if the door is open apparently (the stone case does not address an open door and a directed search) is an illegal search.

Why don't you provide some case law to support that?

 

[ERAUPIKE]

With a reason. It doesn't sound like he had any legal reason to frisk anyone.

A frisk is not automatically allowed during an otherwise lawful stop.

Stopping someone with a history of violating the law would hold up as a reason for a Terry Stop in any court in Georgia.

 

[7654]

Are you just going to continue to argue about something you know nothing about?

What is wrong with you? I don't think you understand the point of this website. I don't understand some legal issues so therefore I am asking questions. People who know the answers come here and supply the information and knowledge for the first person to increase their understanding of a situation.
You're acting like this is all a big hassle to you.
Where am I 'arguing'? I'm seeking clarification and detailed legal information, and yes, questioning actions.

The dog would have been relegated to the exterior of the vehicle, but your friend left his door open which opened the interior of the vehicle to a search. Next time, close the door when you exit the vehicle.

Where's the case law for that?
That Stone case seems to indicate that the dog was able to enter the car because it was open AND it was acting on instinct. Not that it was ALLOWED to be in the car because it was open.
You get the difference?

You have a right to do that when you exit the vehicle. Let the officer know that you are willing to wait a reasonable amount of time for the K9 unit but you do have somewhere you need to be. That is also your right.

Ok, thanks, I'll close the car up if there's a next time. But. Who decides what the reasonable amount of time is? And what do you do when the reasonable time is up? We told him what time we started work and when we had to be there. He didn't care.

I would likely ask why the officer wished to search my vehicle, if he had a good reason I may or may not consent.

So how do you define a 'good reason'? What if it's a vague reason? What if you know the officer is mistaken? What if the officer's reason is just stupid? You'd say no, right?

If you wanted to end the interaction, letting the officer look in your vehicle would have expedited that. You chose to exercise your right to refuse, which resulted in the K9 unit being called. Do you understand the causation?

Yeah, if would have expedited things. But I was under no obligation to. But to be delayed so long and then have a dog thrown in the car......you wouldn't question it later?

I don't have an Aunt Mable. I would not be opposed to telling an officer that I was just talking to someone about nothing.

And I told him we were talking about the weather. Not my fault he didn't believe me. So what then?, I answered his question. I wasn't smart or anything. Just casual. It was hot.

And I'm not a drug dealer or a junkie.