Police k9 car search

[ERAUPIKE]

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

I said IF, not that you were. You are trying to change my statement.

 

[7654]

I said IF, not that you were. You are trying to change my statement.

Well ok. It was still irrelevant from start to finish. Let's stick to the facts.

 

[BigMouthWino]

What was the duration of time between when you were stopped and when the K9 was brought to the scene? You may have a case for suppression under unreasonable detention... they cannot simply detain you for an hour for the K9 to arrive and alert on your vehicle.

You need a competent criminal attorney ASAP!

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Well ok. It was still irrelevant from start to finish. Let's stick to the facts.

Personally, I don't think that it is unreasonable, absent your statement that you are not on probation, to think that someone with a history of drug arrests may be on probation. Do you see how that works?

 

[ERAUPIKE]

What was the duration of time between when you were stopped and when the K9 was brought to the scene? You may have a case for suppression under unreasonable detention... they cannot simply detain you for an hour for the K9 to arrive and alert on your vehicle.

You need a competent criminal attorney ASAP!

Suppression of what? The OP wasn't arrested for anything.

 

[BigMouthWino]

Suppression of what? The OP wasn't arrested for anything.

Only read the last two pages of posts. Sorry!

 

[7654]

Personally, I don't think that it is unreasonable, absent your statement that you are not on probation, to think that someone with a history of drug arrests may be on probation. Do you see how that works?

If I had been on probation this entire police stop would have been completely different.
When you assume you....ya know.

All that I can find on the internet machine is that a police dog can search the interior of a vehicle with probable cause. (not reasonable suspicion, probable cause).

I don't believe they had that.

I have found nothing so far regarding the door being opened or closed - apart from if the dog was able to enter the vehicle on instinct or directly after alerting on something and that it was able to enter because the car was open.

I have found nothing that suggests a dog can suddenly be instructed to get all the way in a car just because the door is open - when there is no probable cause and when I have not consented.

Do you have any links that would tell me the opposite?

 

[justalayman]

ERAUPIKE;3080112]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.

You posted case law that is irrelevant as it does not address the situation at hand, no matter how many times you repost it.


a police dog is considered to be an officer when speaking of actions of the police. Haven't you ever noticed that if you hit a police dog, you do get charged with assaulting an officer.

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

Why would one even post anything about a probationer unless it is applicable to the situation at hand, or one believes it is?

I know; to attempt to distract everybody from the fact you are wrong.

 

[justalayman]

Personally, I don't think that it is unreasonable, absent your statement that you are not on probation, to think that someone with a history of drug arrests may be on probation. Do you see how that works?

again, trying to insert irrelevant claims in an attempt to keep that leaking boat afloat. The fact is, the OP is not on probation so any statement or case law dealing with a probationer is simply irrelevant and a distraction.

 

[BigMouthWino]

If I had been on probation this entire police stop would have been completely different.
When you assume you....ya know.

All that I can find on the internet machine is that a police dog can search the interior of a vehicle with probable cause. (not reasonable suspicion, probable cause).

I don't believe they had that.

I have found nothing so far regarding the door being opened or closed - apart from if the dog was able to enter the vehicle on instinct or directly after alerting on something and that it was able to enter because the car was open.

I have found nothing that suggests a dog can suddenly be instructed to get all the way in a car just because the door is open - when there is no probable cause and when I have not consented.

Do you have any links that would tell me the opposite?

OK so your civil rights have been violated. You can sue the city for a civil rights violation. Do you have the finances to pursue this suit? Do you believe that your fact situation is such that an organization such as the ACLU will step up to fight it for you and pay your attorneys fees?

Contact some attorneys in your area to see if they are willing to take the case. In a federal civil rights case even if you win $1 your attorney can recover their full fees. So if you present your facts to civil rights specialists and they're not interested; consider it case closed.

Good luck.

 

[Cali408nia]

I'll help you out with your understanding.

These are the things I understand so far:
He was well within his right to approach me and question me. Absolutely. He can ask a question to any person he sees
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 (?). Correct. He can ask a K9 dog to sniff. You can be detained but not under arrest, which means you're not free to go. You can only be detained for a reasonable amount of time. There is a case law that defines what reasonable is and I believe it's in the 20-30 minute neighborhood but I'm unsure myself

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. If it had alerted, that would equal probable cause for both the dog and the cops to enter your car to search it
He likely had the right to pat search. I believe so

These are things I still have no clue on:
The dog was not allowed in the car straight up? The dog should not have entered your car, I agree with justalayman that the search was illegal. If the officer didn't have probable cause or consent to search your car, neither did the dog, unless it alerted (which would then equal probable cause)
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?

Contrary to what some have said, I think you know your rights and asserted them better than most juveniles would. Keep educating yourself and asserting your rights. Cops tend to manipulate young people like you who they think are vulnerable. The bottom line is the fact that this cop knew you previously and it was for a prior drug charge was part of the big deal here. Hopefully you can start with a clean slate when you become an adult and not encounter police that know you for negative things. Just know that asserting your rights sometimes makes things take longer than simply complying. But most of the time it's worth it to assert your rights based on principle. In the future do everything the same except for leaving your door open and unlocked. And now you know that an officer doesn't have to explain his thought process to you. If you say "Am I free to go" and he says "wait", that means you aren't free to go and are being detained. I think you may have been illegally searched but there's not a whole lot you can do about it now. If something illegal was found you would sure have a good argument at trial though.

 

[7654]

Cali408nia - thanks for your informative post.

From start to finish it was about 40 minutes, so maybe outside of 'reasonable amount of time' (though it was probably about 30 minutes from when he told us to wait for the k9) - I'm interested to find out more about that.

Cops tend to manipulate young people like you who they think are vulnerable.

Yeap, I wasn't really sure how much I could do without being out of line.

Just know that asserting your rights sometimes makes things take longer than simply complying. But most of the time it's worth it to assert your rights based on principle.

Yeap, ok. I was probably being impatient with all of the waiting and wanting to leave. I'll remember that it WILL take longer when you use your right to say 'no'. And I'll remember that the officer doesn't have to explain things. And 'wait' means detained.

And I'll close my car up! It seems like that's really the only point that has questions about it. So if the cop tells me to sit down and I ask if I can get up and close my car up - he would be supposed to let me?

Thanks. Yeah, I know there's not much I can do. I'm mostly interested in case there's another time.

No, I don't have the finances to do anything about it, BigMouthWino, and I would guess that there wouldn't be too many attorneys interested in it since it didn't go anywhere (though maybe I SHOULD ask).
But either way I will know for next time. And I can tell people what I know from it.

I'm not 100% sure of the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause if anyone wants to throw it out there? I was gonna look into that too.

 

[Cali408nia]

From start to finish it was about 40 minutes, so maybe outside of 'reasonable amount of time' (though it was probably about 30 minutes from when he told us to wait for the k9) - I'm interested to find out more about that.

Maybe someone can else can chime in on that. I'm not very good at finding case law, but if I have time I might try to find it.

Yeap, ok. I was probably being impatient with all of the waiting and wanting to leave. I'll remember that it WILL take longer when you use your right to say 'no'. And I'll remember that the officer doesn't have to explain things. And 'wait' means detained.

In addition, some cops like to "play games" if you assert your rights. "Oh so you wanna play hardball?" "This would be a lot easier if you just comply with my requests, please step out of the car". Google what a Terry Stop is. Sometimes you will assert your rights and they will take you outside of the car and sit you down and question you with all kinds of questions. "If you tell me where the dope is I'll go easy on you" "Just tell me who is selling dope and I'll get you a good deal" "If you tell me the truth now it'll be a lot better than if I catch you lying", etc. Basically they can and will try to intimidate you to get you to change your story or confess under pressure and this will take longer. Just remember that they can't have you out there forever, only a reasonable amount of time. And also remember you can choose to be silent at any time. All you have to do is identify yourself to the officer and provide any vehicle paperwork he requests. Beyond that, you pretty much don't need to say a single word except to decline a search.

So if the cop tells me to sit down and I ask if I can get up and close my car up - he would be supposed to let me?

Usually it doesn't work well that way. If he tells you to stay put and you get up that could be bad. I have been yelled at before by a pissed off officer because I took the time to close my door and lock it. The police can lie, they can be pissed off, and they can yell at you for something that is completely legal and within your rights to do. Like I said, they may intimidate you into not doing something that you have every right to because you don't know what will make them mad enough to do something like handcuff you or arrest you. You should try to close the door as you're exiting the vehicle to make things easier. If you make any move while exiting the vehicle or getting back up to close the door that could be perceived as you hiding something, that could end up being very bad.

I'm not 100% sure of the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause if anyone wants to throw it out there? I was gonna look into that too.

The meanings of the words reasonable and probable pretty much tell you the difference. Reasonable suspicion is what any reasonable person would believe given what they know. Would a reasonable person have a suspicion that you had done a drug deal if they knew you had been arrested for drugs before and they saw you exchange a handshake and conversation with somebody? Probable cause is a higher level of suspicion. Is it probable that you have drugs in the car? If it smells like weed, yes. If there's a pill container in visible sight, yes. If there are needles in the car, yes. Nothing in sight and no smells = no probable cause. A dog alerting that there are drugs in the car is probable cause. The officer you encountered was operating on reasonable suspicion to initiate contact with you. He had no probable cause and you didn't admit to anything so he could not search your car. If he had probable cause, he wouldn't have even asked you if he could search your car, he would've told you to get out and he would've tore it up right in front of you. Just remember reasonable suspicion is a lower level of proof and probable cause is a higher level. If you are being asked consent for a search, they don't have probable cause that you've done anything illegal so hold your ground and don't give in or admit to anything. Remain silent if you must.

Now would be a good time to visit http://www.flexyourrights.com and see some examples of enforcing your rights.

 

[justalayman]

.

Usually it doesn't work well that way. If he tells you to stay put and you get up that could be bad. I have been yelled at before by a pissed off officer because I took the time to close my door and lock it. The police can lie, they can be pissed off, and they can yell at you for something that is completely legal and within your rights to do. Like I said, they may intimidate you into not doing something that you have every right to because you don't know what will make them mad enough to do something like handcuff you or arrest you. You should try to close the door as you're exiting the vehicle to make things easier. If you make any move while exiting the vehicle or getting back up to close the door that could be perceived as you hiding something, that could end up being very bad.

absolutely agree. When you get out of your car, close the door behind you, and lock it (with keys in your pocket). Wiley folks make provisions to get into their cars even when leaving the keys in the ignition. Problem with that; cops will break a window if they believe they have PC. You will not be able to go back to your car (on your own for your purposes) once you walk away from it until the detention has ended.

If he had probable cause, he wouldn't have even asked you if he could search your car, he would've told you to get out and he would've tore it up right in front of you. Just remember reasonable suspicion is a lower level of proof and probable cause is a higher level. If you are being asked consent for a search, they don't have probable cause that you've done anything illegal so hold your ground and don't give in or admit to anything. Remain silent if you must..

Not always true cali. Cops often ask for permission even when they believe they have probable cause. It helps prevent an objection later to the search. Think about it; later, driver is arrested and want to plan strategy for defense. If no permission given, they can always argue no PC and make the cops prove there was. If driver gave permission, cops go; you said it was ok. No PC required. It does make things easier for the prosecution if a driver gives permission. Don't do it. If they believe they have PC, even if you refuse to allow it, they will search. If they don't have PC, they either won't search or will have to prove PC later/

along with cali's link, here are a couple you should view:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk

 

[Cali408nia]

Not always true cali. Cops often ask for permission even when they believe they have probable cause. It helps prevent an objection later to the search. Think about it; later, driver is arrested and want to plan strategy for defense. If no permission given, they can always argue no PC and make the cops prove there was. If driver gave permission, cops go; you said it was ok. No PC required. It does make things easier for the prosecution if a driver gives permission. Don't do it. If they believe they have PC, even if you refuse to allow it, they will search. If they don't have PC, they either won't search or will have to prove PC later/

You're right, I should have worded it differently. The police don't have to ask your permission if they have PC and they can tell you to move aside while they tear up your vehicle in front of you.

OP, if I were you, I'd be pretty pissed because a K9 dog going through my car probably would have scratched or damaged part of my car's interior (and I'm a car enthusiast which is the only reason I'd care or be pissed). If the dog did any damage to your car I would get an estimate and then go to the agency where the officer works and file a complaint. It can't hurt to file a complaint and try to get something out of a very questionable search if it caused some kind of damages.