Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No, I have (in my youth) had similar experiences as the "above drama", where cops stripped-searched my car without cause or reason except that I was an early-20s kid in a nice sporty car (with a nice-paying legit job too, but they don't care about that, they're just hoping for a big bust to brag about). The best part is how, after they jack you around for an hour and have stripped your car to the bone with all your possession lying in the steet, they accuse you of still "holding" anyway and continue their abusive questioning, never realizing the obvious, which is that you are innocent. In the end, they cuss you out and issue threats like "We'll be watching you" as they drive off with all the contents of your car lying in the street.
Yeah... some people just loooove to hate cops. Personally, I don't hate cops, I hate how bad laws like the "War on Drugs" have corrupted them, and how they defend and seek to increase that corruption.
Some of the whiners in this thread need to actually read the case. It is illegal to detain someone during a traffic violation stop for 45 minutes in order to get a dog. You can only do it (currently anyway) if it doesn't make the ticketting process take noticeably longer.
The cop didn't have a dog with him. He pulled the guy over, and another cop came with a dog to sniff around. It's clear to me that this was a sting operation, but the facts were left out of the supreme court case since the issue was whether a dog sniffing around was a violation of the 4th amendment or the right to privacy.
If you don't have anything to hide then you still probably don't want to spend hours having a cop practically disassemble your car for no reason. The absurdity or lack of in regards to this for me relates directly to how accurate the dogs are. One of the dissenting opinions seems to have a lot of evidence that they are not all that accurate.
The cop didn't have a dog with him. He pulled the guy over, and another cop came with a dog to sniff around. It's clear to me that this was a sting operation, but the facts were left out of the supreme court case since the issue was whether a dog sniffing around was a violation of the 4th amendment or the right to privacy.
If you don't have anything to hide then you still probably don't want to spend hours having a cop practically disassemble your car for no reason. The absurdity or lack of in regards to this for me relates directly to how accurate the dogs are. One of the dissenting opinions seems to have a lot of evidence that they are not all that accurate.
just fyi: if a dog were to smell anything on your car, you better be able to get it repainted, they will scratch it.
and a dog would make it easier than tearing a car apart.
and do you guys know how dogs are trained? they are trained with a toy that has had odors put on it and the dog thinks its looking for the toy. so the dog is used to normal smells in the air, and if the marijuana, opium, whatever is not in the car it will move towards it.
MIKE
and a dog would make it easier than tearing a car apart.
and do you guys know how dogs are trained? they are trained with a toy that has had odors put on it and the dog thinks its looking for the toy. so the dog is used to normal smells in the air, and if the marijuana, opium, whatever is not in the car it will move towards it.
MIKE
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
It might have saved me time (having a drug sniffing dog there), and the pain of putting back on the molding/paneling. However, neither are justified when I wasn't breaking the law, or suspected of breaking it.
They were abusing their powers in the first place. Nothing will change that, and that's the point I was making. It directly counters CRXican's statement about how this will only affect the criminals... I was not a criminal, and the normal search and siezure (no dog) affected me.
Also, do they have booze smelling dogs? They were looking for a beer/bottle of alcohol (according to them).
Abuse of power is still abuse of power. I realize this was a couple of asshole cops and not the "dept. as a whole." However, I'm not going to accept "this only affects criminals" argument, ever.
edit: clipped out the quotes, got messy, sorry.
They were abusing their powers in the first place. Nothing will change that, and that's the point I was making. It directly counters CRXican's statement about how this will only affect the criminals... I was not a criminal, and the normal search and siezure (no dog) affected me.
Also, do they have booze smelling dogs? They were looking for a beer/bottle of alcohol (according to them).
Abuse of power is still abuse of power. I realize this was a couple of asshole cops and not the "dept. as a whole." However, I'm not going to accept "this only affects criminals" argument, ever.
edit: clipped out the quotes, got messy, sorry.
im undecided about this because i can see it from both points of view
I dont think its a problem, IF the dog was 100% reliable, but according to the dissenting opinion a study showed that dogs are only accurate 60-80% of the time and can give a positive even if money has residue on it, which over 50% of US money does.
Also what is to stop them from standing on a corner and stopping everyone who jaywalks and keeping a dog with them and if they have drugs in their pocket they are arrested.
On the other hand It is no different then their ability to use thermosensitive devices to look at homes to see if drugs are being made and it is the same as enhancing the sense of sight with a flashlight or binoculars...IF the dog was 100% accurate (which they say its not)
I dont think its a problem, IF the dog was 100% reliable, but according to the dissenting opinion a study showed that dogs are only accurate 60-80% of the time and can give a positive even if money has residue on it, which over 50% of US money does.
Also what is to stop them from standing on a corner and stopping everyone who jaywalks and keeping a dog with them and if they have drugs in their pocket they are arrested.
On the other hand It is no different then their ability to use thermosensitive devices to look at homes to see if drugs are being made and it is the same as enhancing the sense of sight with a flashlight or binoculars...IF the dog was 100% accurate (which they say its not)
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
That;s true, as long as you don't find being a law-abiding citizen of a police-state to be undesirable.
Originally posted by: her209
i ment if it smelled the stuff somewhere it will go towards where the smell is strongest (aka away from car)
MIKE
EyeMWing, you are plainly lying. You drive 10mph below the speed limit and the local cop thinks that 15mph below is the prudent speed for the conditions (rain, sunshine, beautiful clouds, birds singing, etc). Since speed limit is never fixed but depends on the whim of a random police officer, you have sped thousand times. So don't come here spinning yarn about "I never speed".
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
First of all... where are the morons getting the idea that this is a new "law"? Fvcktards.
It was a Supreme Court decision.
Secondly.. I'll fix this:
From some of your posts above, some of you sound like you hate the cops. And, if you give the cops an attitude problem or lack of respect, then all power to them to even it up and give you crap by searching your car.
It was a Supreme Court decision.
Secondly.. I'll fix this:
From some of your posts above, some of you sound like you hate the cops. And, if you give the cops an attitude problem or lack of respect, then all power to them to even it up and give you crap by searching your car.
Some people here need to know a little about the K-9 laws before posting their remarks. Several people seemed to be worried about being held for 45 minutes for a K-9 to arrive because they refused consent to search. This is not true; law enforcement officers must have reasonable suspicion to hold anyone for a 45 minute wait for a K-9 to arrive. Just because a law enforcement officer stops you and asks consent to search your vehicle and you deny consent, they can?t hold you 45 minutes until a K-9 unit arrives. This would be a violation of your 4th amendment. Now if the officer stops you and asks you a few questions, and receives several indicators from either the questions he asked you or items seen inside your vehicle, they yes, he could detain your vehicle until a K-9 unit arrives but the officer must articulate this in a court hearing for the reason the officer detained the vehicle.
This case came about do to an interstate interdiction unit stopping a vehicle for a speeding violation. Spoke to the driver, probable received a possible indictor for possible narcotic trafficking, and called a nearby K-9 officer to the scene to sniff the outside of the vehicle. This was all done while the officer was writing the citation. Now, if the officer had finished the citation, then asked for consent to search, the driver denied consent and the officer called a K-9 to the scene and it took 30 minutes and the officer had no indicators, this case would have went a totally different direction. All the courts are saying if that the officer does not need probable cause to search a vehicle with a K-9 even if the officer doesn?t have suspicion of drugs. There are still lots of other guidelines the officer must follow in order to use the K-9. And still a law enforcement officer is not going to call a K-9 to a scene unless the officer thinks that narcotics are possible present inside the vehicle. I think this law was a plus for law enforcement officers and will help them greatly in apprehending drug traffickers. Criminals seemed to get all the laws in their favor, it?s about time the good guys get something.
This case came about do to an interstate interdiction unit stopping a vehicle for a speeding violation. Spoke to the driver, probable received a possible indictor for possible narcotic trafficking, and called a nearby K-9 officer to the scene to sniff the outside of the vehicle. This was all done while the officer was writing the citation. Now, if the officer had finished the citation, then asked for consent to search, the driver denied consent and the officer called a K-9 to the scene and it took 30 minutes and the officer had no indicators, this case would have went a totally different direction. All the courts are saying if that the officer does not need probable cause to search a vehicle with a K-9 even if the officer doesn?t have suspicion of drugs. There are still lots of other guidelines the officer must follow in order to use the K-9. And still a law enforcement officer is not going to call a K-9 to a scene unless the officer thinks that narcotics are possible present inside the vehicle. I think this law was a plus for law enforcement officers and will help them greatly in apprehending drug traffickers. Criminals seemed to get all the laws in their favor, it?s about time the good guys get something.
So the cop just needs to take 45 minutes to write the Citation while he waits for the K-9 to come. Well thats much better.
i dont see how those cops can be considered "asshole cops" when their actions clearly apprehended a drug trafficker. they would be "asshole cops" if the guy was clean.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
As a criminal litigator (and a person who got an A in Con Law!), I don't like this decision, at all. It impinges on our constitutionally-protected freedoms, and represents a meaningful ratcheting-down of our personal autonomy.
It's apparent to me that many of the people posting here have no idea of the acuity of a good police dog. I once spoke to the handler of a K-9 at Ellsworth AFB, SD, who has won a number of competitions as the best drug detection dog in the United States. He once alerted on a car parked on the other side of a soccer field (hundreds of feet away), and it turned out there were 3 MJ seeds, and no other drugs, in the car's ashtray. The car was parked on a cold day with the doors and windows closed. The upshot of all this is that a K-9's detection abilities are far beyond "plain view."
I don't use drugs or drive drunk, but I would never let a policeman search my car unless I had no other choice (just as I would never make any statement if I were suspected of an offense).
It's apparent to me that many of the people posting here have no idea of the acuity of a good police dog. I once spoke to the handler of a K-9 at Ellsworth AFB, SD, who has won a number of competitions as the best drug detection dog in the United States. He once alerted on a car parked on the other side of a soccer field (hundreds of feet away), and it turned out there were 3 MJ seeds, and no other drugs, in the car's ashtray. The car was parked on a cold day with the doors and windows closed. The upshot of all this is that a K-9's detection abilities are far beyond "plain view."
I don't use drugs or drive drunk, but I would never let a policeman search my car unless I had no other choice (just as I would never make any statement if I were suspected of an offense).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter