Police k9 car search

[7654]

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.

The dog did not alert on anything before entering my vehicle.

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.

I was not under arrest so it can't have been incident to arrest.


These are the things I understand so far:
He was well within his right to approach me and question me.
He had the right to request a K9 unit come to the car and to have me wait until they sorted it out. And I couldn't have just left because he was investigating (?).

These are things I might know:
The dog would have had the right to search the exterior and IF it alerted it could have entered.
He likely had the right to pat search.

These are things I still have no clue on:
The dog was not allowed in the car straight up?
What the he!! do you do next time? I felt powerless and I was getting no response from the cops. Do you just say no and state your understanding of the law?

 

[justalayman]

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.

No. it's not. Seals deals with the EXTERIOR of the vehicle where the dog keyed and then the interior was searched. Patterson was a search incident to arrest. Neither address a directed search without probable cause of the interior of a vehicle.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

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.

I understand the point of the website perfectly, I think you might be confused as to its purpose. I am not here to simply agree with your point of view and coddle you. I have provided you with the honest answers based on the laws of the United States.

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?

Look you learned a new phrase. Don't think yourself an expert because you googled a case that I posted. My point on that case was that the occupant opened the vehicle before the dog entered, that is the precedent that is set. Why don't you fire up your internet machine and look for some case law that suggest the dog is not allowed in your vehicle instead of just being pretentious and arguing with me.

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.

There is case law for that, look it up.

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?

I define a good reason in my own way. If I don't like the officers reason I have the right to refuse. Like I said, that sort of thing really never happens to me.

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?

Sure, but you didn't say how long you were detained. If you feel like things are going poorly, ask for a supervisor, you have that right.

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.

Now you are changing your story, you wove a different web in the beginning. You have to realize that your background played a huge part in this as well.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

No. it's not. Seals deals with the EXTERIOR of the vehicle where the dog keyed and then the interior was searched. Patterson was a search incident to arrest. Neither address a directed search without probable cause of the interior of a vehicle.

The Auto Exception gives the officer the right to a warrantless search with probable cause.

 

[justalayman]

A K9 sniff is not a search. That is the part you are not understanding.

what is your problem?

I know and have expressed that fact many times.

Oh, I see your problem.

You seem to think that a sniff is referring to either being in the vehicle or outside of it. You need to do a bunch more reading. The sniff of the exterior of a vehicle has been ruled to not be a search. That does not apply to the sniff, or in reality, the entry of a police officer into the interior of a vehicle. The entry into a vehicle is verboten without probable cause or permission. That is well established law.

 

[justalayman]

The Auto Exception gives the officer the right to a warrantless search with probable cause.

yep, WITH probable cause. Please tell me what the probable cause was in this situation.

 

[justalayman]

I understand the point of the website perfectly, I think you might be confused as to its purpose. I am not here to simply agree with your point of view and coddle you. I have provided you with the honest answers based on the laws of the United States.

.

you need to change that "honest" to "incorrect"

 

[ERAUPIKE]

what is your problem?

I know and have expressed that fact many times.

Oh, I see your problem.

You seem to think that a sniff is referring to either being in the vehicle or outside of it. You need to do a bunch more reading. The sniff of the exterior of a vehicle has been ruled to not be a search. That does not apply to the sniff, or in reality, the entry of a police officer into the interior of a vehicle. The entry into a vehicle is verboten without probable cause or permission. That is well established law.

I see your problem, you want to play Devil's Advocate. We have danced this dance before, it is pointless. I provided case law, as usual you provided none. We can close this argument on the merits of our references.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

you need to change that "honest" to "incorrect"

Prove it, or stop trolling.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

yep, WITH probable cause. Please tell me what the probable cause was in this situation.

You would need to ask the officer.

If the OP is on probation the standard for him to be searched is lowered to reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)

 

[justalayman]

I see your problem, you want to play Devil's Advocate. We have danced this dance before, it is pointless. I provided case law, as usual you provided none. We can close this argument on the merits of our references.

Devil's advocate? Like Hell. You have failed to provide anything to support your claim. Your case law does NOT support your argument. Not even close. I am not going to bother hunting case law as it is well established law that the police cannot search the interior of a vehicle without probable cause. You seem to think a dog search is exempt from that requirement and have posted irrelevant (and not applicable) case law to try to support it.

 

[justalayman]

You would need to ask the officer.

If the OP is on probation the standard for him to be searched is lowered to reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001)

Oh, so now you want to argue the OP is on probation. Did I miss something in this thread or are you simply making things up to attempt to keep your leaky boat afloat?

 

[7654]

I understand the point of the website perfectly, I think you might be confused as to its purpose. I am not here to simply agree with your point of view and coddle you. I have provided you with the honest answers based on the laws of the United States.

I'm not looking for you to agree or coddle. Ok. Can we understand that. My purpose here is to understand. I'm trying to do this by asking questions and seeking clarification on things I don't understand, which may mean that I ask something in a different way to make sure I get it.
Ok. That is the objective here.

My point on that case was that the occupant opened the vehicle before the dog entered, that is the precedent that is set. Why don't you fire up your internet machine and look for some case law that suggest the dog is not allowed in your vehicle instead of just being pretentious and arguing with me.

Yeah, I will look into it more. And I'm also going to keep questioning whether the case laws you state really do relate to me. I appreciate what you have pointed out to me but so far my understanding is that they are not the same (which is why I'm asking questions). And why shouldn't I ask questions in life? - I have no idea who you are!

Sure, but you didn't say how long you were detained. If you feel like things are going poorly, ask for a supervisor, you have that right.

40 mins. Thanks for the supervisor advice.

Now you are changing your story, you wove a different web in the beginning. You have to realize that your background played a huge part in this as well.

What are you talking about? What part of the story did I change?
I said in my first post that I told him 'the weather'.
And I'm not a drug dealer or junkie. And I didn't claim I was at the beginning. So that didn't change.
What part of my story changed?

 

[7654]

And I'd like to point out - I'm not on probation. Eraupike is trying to change my story.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Devil's advocate? Like Hell. You have failed to provide anything to support your claim. Your case law does NOT support your argument. Not even close. I am not going to bother hunting case law as it is well established law that the police cannot search the interior of a vehicle without probable cause. You seem to think a dog search is exempt from that requirement and have posted irrelevant (and not applicable) case law to try to support it.

I posted case law that forms a precedent. You have posted nothing but childish retorts containing no valid information. You seem to think that all police dogs are sworn officers, which is categorically incorrect. Some departments may provide their dogs with badges or ID's but it is not the standard.

Oh, so now you want to argue the OP is on probation. Did I miss something in this thread or are you simply making things up to attempt to keep your leaky boat afloat?

I guess IF means something very different in your little world. Is the weather nice there?