you might want to read and think about the article at the link

It's not just drug offenses. In Ga. the cops have a dog standing by at all their "checkpoints" i.e. fishing expeditions for seatbelts, license and ins., and anything else they can dream up. If you tell them they can't search without a warrant the drug dog is allowed to sniff your car. The dog, for some reason:rolleyes: , always "strikes" on your car and that is probable cause for a search. Our country is turning into a fascist police state.

badbob
 
Papers please.... Vat is your business Herr Freeman. Ve are only here to maken you safe. Blah blah blah.

We the people love safety more than liberty. We will get what we ask for. Careful what one asks for. Have to wonder what makes the average man not want have personal freedom as opposed to national safety. Is it possible that the government training facilities(public schools) preach the goodness of guberment and too many believe it without question? No one should worship at the altar of Man. The sacrifices will be too great for people handle.
 
My neighbor was stopped by a deputy for speeding and the deputy asked if it was alright to look in the trunk, it was deer season and there was an unloaded shot gun laying on the back seat. the guy said no, not because he had anything in the trunk, but is was a violation of his rights.. The deputy said "Pal you lost all your rights with the patriot act".
 
War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights
by Radley Balko
Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment.

On the Volokh Conspiracy website, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment.

It was a troubling precedent. It's hard to see how any police search would violate any rights under Justice Stevens' ruling, so long as the search turned up something illegal, which undermines what the Fourth Amendment is all about.

<snip>
Click to expand...

No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.
No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.
No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.
<clicks heels together three times>
No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.
No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.
No law that is abhorrent to the constitution is valid.

Unfortunately it takes a court ruling to overturn an unconstitutional law and the courts might just uphold an unconstitutional law rather than strike it down - like they did with the McCain-Feingold CFR law.

Our rights are being usurped a little at a time, my friends. And I don't know what we can do about it. :(

Read the last paragraph of the article and tell me that we have two congressmen or senators that will sponsor a bi-partisan bill like that. It just isn't going to happen.
 
You might find this video interesting.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/141206_hidden_camera.html


Hidden Camera Exposes Illegal Search by Police
Officer Blatantly Disregards 4th Amendment, Considers Possession of Gun Reason to Kill

Aaron Dykes / Jones Report | December 14, 2006

A driver who wishes to remain anonymous has used a hidden camera mounted in the dash of his car to record instances with police as a protection against potential harassment or any violation of rights.

He was pulled over in a 2002 incident which reveals an illegal search by police recorded on his camera. The man clearly tells police not to search his vehicle because it would be in violation of his 4th Amendment right under the Constitution and threatens to sue if they do.

The officer blatantly ignores the warning and performs a thorough search, including the trunk of the vehicle. Moreover, he focuses on minutiae and obviously intends to exploit anything he can find in violation.

At about 2:50 in the video, the officer's female partner asks if she sees a TV. The male officer responds, laughing, "Yeah, too bad it wasn't on." The policewoman responds, "Yeah, we could charge him with that, too."

Later, at 3:57 in the video, she makes sure that her partner has verified that a Gatorade bottle indeed contains Gatorade-- obviously hoping that it contained alcohol and the driver, who was pulled over for a traffic violation, could be additionally charged with an open container or even a D.U.I.

The female officer asks if there is a gun. The male officer responds, "He'd be dead."
The male officer also states that he thought he "caught a whiff of marijuana" when he first entered the car, though finds none during his unconstitutional search.

Even more shocking, the male officer becomes alarmed at a "gun bible" and "a bunch of pictures of him all camouflaged with a bunch of guns and sh**" and recommends a "10-0" advisory.

The female officer is somewhat alarmed at this and asks if there is a gun. The male officer responds, "He'd be dead," indicating that he would have killed the driver if there was a gun in the car.

This is a shocking position for the driver: not only has he been subjected to an illegal search, but his life is clearly threatened by the policeman's belief that it is his right to shoot in the presence of a gun-- though the driver has made no hypothetical threat (since he has already been pulled from the car).

So goes due process with police dismissal of everything else constitutionally guarded.

In Texas, shotguns and rifles are not prohibited from vehicles. Even handguns are permitted if the person is deemed a 'traveler' under Texas HB 823. Otherwise, carrying a handgun in a vehicle is generally considered a Class A misdemeanor. While the legal definition of 'traveler' has never been defined, the idea of carrying a weapon is clearly not a justified reason to kill someone.

Furthermore, the driver agreed that he had a 'gun bible' in his backseat, but that the "bunch of photos" mentioned was only one picture which was not of him--but rather that of his friend stationed overseas in official military service, holding his issued weapon (scan of actual photo from the vehicle below). The image of an armed member of the military should not make police officers wary.

badbob
 
The fact is ...
Most K-9 officers will use subtle hand signals to get a "positive" from their dogs.
 
badbob:

The two idiots in your posts should be fired and arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment, harassment and malfeasance. They should be immediately stripped of their titles and sentenced to long terms in prison for that crap. These are the kind of jerks that give good cops a bad name.

hoji:

Prove it.
 
Grew up around lots of cops. Used to hear it joked about.I don't need to prove it, I know it to be a fact. It is not like there is going to be anything in the training about how to do this.
 
Hoji, I AM a cop, and I have seen a lot of working dogs on the job.

The only hand signal used in most cases is a pointing or snap of the fingers, indicating where the handler wants the dog to sniff. In many cases, the handler does not even need to point or indicate--the dog will find the drug odor on his or her own, and will alert in the manner they are trained in.

In ten years I have NEVER seen a dog that was "trained" to alert by a hand signal.

Please get your facts straight.
 
Read between the lines on stories where a dog "alerted " to drugs and none were found, but other stolen property was recovered. And I do not expect you to admit to knowing about it if you knew it was going on.

But trust me, it does happen.
 
The fact is ...
Most K-9 officers will use subtle hand signals to get a "positive" from their dogs.
Click to expand...
That positively has to be one of the most inane statements I've heard on TFL to date.

In a total of almost 30 years in law enforcement, and present for literally hundreds of "sniffs" involving a multitude of agencies, I have never heard of, let alone seen, such a thing.

To the contrary, every sniff is documented in detail, including false hits, to establish a dog's credibility in court (or a lack thereof). Dogs with a high percentage of false hits don't last very long.

Read between the lines on stories where a dog "alerted " to drugs and none were found, but other stolen property was recovered.
Click to expand...
That, in fact, does happen, but it doesn't mean that there never was any dope. A dog's nose is so sensitive that it can detect residue that would be undetectable to the human eye, but a drop of cobalt thiocyanate reagent (for cocaine base) on the object in question will establish that there was indeed dope present in the vast majority of cases.

A few years ago, a major dope slinger's car was subjected to a sniff here, and as per policy, a "control" was established by having the dog sniff a "neutral" vehicle, which in this case, was a supervisor's cruiser. The dog hit on the back seat, and a search of the cruiser revealed a crack pipe tucked way back in the back seat. Now the clincher is that this car hadn't been used to transport prisoners since it was assigned to be a supervisor's vehicle, and that was well over a year before.

You've made a sweeping, bold statement that puts every K-9 officer in a bad light, Hoji. I'm calling you on this one. Either present reliable sources, or retract your statement. The clock is ticking.
 
I will retract "most" but to say it does not happen is putting your head in the sand.

I know K-9 officers{both military and public } who have claimed this happens. There is no way to prove it until one is caught and blows the whistle.
You know that officers will let a pretty speeder go for "favors". Just because YOU have not seen it happen does not mean it does not go on.

Used to be that bad apples were the exception, more and more the opposite is becoming the norm.
 
hoji said:
You know that officers will let a pretty speeder go for "favors". Just because YOU have not seen it happen does not mean it does not go on.
Click to expand...
And yet another assertion without any facts.

Tell you what hoji: Either a complete retraction is called for or incontrovertable proof will be forthcoming. Not another post until one or the other is made.

Don't like it? Get off our bandwidth.
 
War on Drugs -- and the Bill of Rights
by Radley Balko
Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Click to expand...


I still believe that even using the dogs without a warrant is still a Fourth Amendment violation. What do you think LEO`s?
 
I still believe that even using the dogs without a warrant is still a Fourth Amendment violation. What do you think LEO`s?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is, and here's why. Vehicles enjoy less privacy than fixed property because their mobility provides for exigent circumstances, to some degree. This is called the "vehicle exception".

From the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 2005:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_8_74/ai_n15966238

There is a presumption that a search conducted under the authority of a search warrant is reasonable. (1) Conversely, a search conducted without a search warrant is presumed unreasonable. (2) The presumption of unreasonableness can be rebutted through an applicable exception to the search warrant requirement. One of those exceptions is known as the motor vehicle exception. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that if an officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is located in a motor vehicle, he may search the area of the vehicle he reasonably believes contains that evidence without a search warrant to the same degree as if he had a warrant. (3) The scope of the search is limited only by what the officer has probable cause to search for and may encompass the entire vehicle, including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception is based upon the reduced expectation of privacy that citizens have in their motor vehicles because of the pervasive regulation to which they are subjected and the fact that the mobility of vehicles present an inherent exigency. (4)

In addition to the motor vehicle exception, there are other exceptions to the search warrant requirement that allow an officer to search all or part of a motor vehicle. Those exceptions allow officers to 1) search the passenger compartment (but not the trunk) of a suspect's vehicle incident to his arrest; (5) 2) frisk the passenger compartment (but not the trunk) of an automobile for weapons upon reasonable suspicion that a weapon may be there; (6) 3) inventory an impounded vehicle, including items in the trunk, pursuant to standardized agency regulations; (7) or 4) search a motor vehicle upon the consent of the person who has the actual or apparent authority and control over that vehicle. (8) While these listed exceptions can be applied to motor vehicles, they are not limited in their application to motor vehicles, as is the motor vehicle exception.
Click to expand...

So the real question is, can a K-9 sniff "hit" establish probable cause? If the dog has a proven track record, I believe that it does. Reasonable suspicion leads to an investigation limited in scope (sniff), which results in evidence (K-9 Alert by reliable, proven dog), that provides probable cause for a search, which can be warrantless under the vehicle exception.

Now having said that, I have a problem with random sniffs. I do think there should be at least a modicum of truly reasonable suspicion to justify a temporary detention for a sniff. By that, I mean circumstances where the vehicle owner is a known dope runner, or gang bangers driving a brand new Mercedes, etc. Having a K-9 run sniffs on every "routine" traffic stop, or at a DUI checkpoint, is crossing the line to my way of thinking.
 
Thanks, Capt., I agree with you. I did not know that searches are limited though. So, if the officer has real probable cause he can bring out the dog to detect drugs, and if the dog is telling the officer it smells drugs, he can then do a complete search without a warrant, correct?
 
So, if the officer has real probable cause he can bring out the dog to detect drugs, and if the dog is telling the officer it smells drugs, he can then do a complete search without a warrant, correct?
Click to expand...
Almost. I think you're confusing reasonable suspicion with probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is much less solid than probable cause, but still must be articulated. Think of it as reasonable suspicion being, "I believe that Mr. X is dirty because this, this, and this suggest that he may be", and probable cause as being "I'm darned sure because this, this, and this provide solid evidence."

Understand that reasonable suspicion still must be justified. An officer cannot rightfully call it that based on an "itchy feeling" or "my spidey sense is tingling" :D . It must be such as would lead a reasonable and prudent man in any calling to be suspicious.

A K-9 officer only needs reasonable suspicion to conduct a sniff, not probable cause, but the dog's alert upgrades reasonable suspicion to probable cause, and allows for a warrantless search.
 
Capt Charlie
Staff


Join Date: 03-24-2005
Location: Steubenville, OH
Posts: 2,323 Quote:
I still believe that even using the dogs without a warrant is still a Fourth Amendment violation. What do you think LEO`s?

I don't believe it is, and here's why. Vehicles enjoy less privacy than fixed property because their mobility provides for exigent circumstances, to some degree. This is called the "vehicle exception".

Capt. Charlie:

I noticed the above and thought that the following questions might be appropriate. You might not agree, however if you care to respond, the question(s) follow below.

You say that vehicles enjoy less privacy than fixed property. Seems that that might depend on the jurisdiction, for in Louisiana, as I recall, a person’s vehicle is considered an extension of their home.

Also, respecting procedures utilized by some in law enforcement, the individual is SOL, when it comes to Law Enforcement and or the actions of those therein involved. Any rights that the individual might possibly have are based on sufferance of LE, which is not something that I'd care to bet overly much on. It appears that, in the view of some in LE, that FIXED PROPERTIES, as with the individuals home or residence, and the supposed sanctity thereof, do not account for much at all either.

Please note the following, if you would.
Bad bob writes:

It's not just drug offenses. In Ga. the cops have a dog standing by at all their "checkpoints" i.e. fishing expeditions for seatbelts, license and ins., and anything else they can dream up. If you tell them they can't search without a warrant the drug dog is allowed to sniff your car. The dog, for some reason, always "strikes" on your car and that is probable cause for a search. Our country is turning into a fascist police state.

-------------------------

While the above might perhaps be somewhat "over the top", many others would question the use of "turning" as in "Our country is turning into a police state", as being inappropriate to describe a situation amounting to "our country has turned into a police state".

By the way, should Mr., Mrs., and or Ms. Every person happen to get sufficiently pissed off at the antics of LE, whatever became of PEACE OFFICERS, to the point that they simply refuse to cooperate, I'm not speaking of physical resistance which could come to pass, then what do you realistically think might then come to pass, and whom might it be that would be to blame for the mess that would surely follow on?
 
"If you tell them they can't search without a warrant the drug dog is allowed to sniff your car." Having trained dogs, I know the handler can tell the dog to bark at anything they want him to. I wonder what would happen if someone accidentally spilled a little lye or chili powder in front of a bottle of prescription pain medication?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top