Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolon

Page 2 of Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad No more of an assumption than you are making thinking that false positives are only from bad cops prompting their dog. ... 33 comments | 1075 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 04
    Posts
    24,784

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    Agree, but in the case the SC looked at the driver was only detained 8 or 9 minutes beyond the normal traffic stop not and hour or so. Basically once the citation is written you need to cut them loose and let them go.
    I agree. It will be interesting moving forward. If you have a handler with a dog get there in five minutes you can't really expect the officer to sit in the car doing the citation. Which will add minutes to the traffic stop.
    Advertisement

  2. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 10
    Posts
    2,043

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    Basically just saying you can't keep them just sitting there waiting for a Drug K9 to get there. However if a K9 is present during the time needed to write the citation or handle the incident they can still complete a search if the is reasonable cause.
    Yeah, I don't really care about the dog. Although, I agree tend to agree with mexitucky.

    Holding someone against their will when there is no sufficient evidence or legitimate suspicion of a crime is wrong.

    I care about the court ruling curbing police overreach and restoring protections against unreasonable searches. This is a big victory for civil liberties.

    Surely as a limited-government conservative you agree.

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 03
    Location
    Have love in your heart and an ax in your hand. Hug and swing discriminately- Jim Wendler
    Posts
    15,357

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    This ruling doesn't stop dog searches. It just says you can't detain someone an extended time to wait for a K9 to get there. It also doesn't mean a dog can't be called if the driver gives consent to search. I was talking about this with an officer today when it came out and he said it really won't change anything they are currently doing, at least not around here.

    Again most false positives are a result of drugs being there at some point but have since been removed leaving their scent behind. Not the result of faulty dogs and handlers.
    I understand what you are saying. I was not clear. I'm not talking about this current case. This was a detainment issue. I am talking about a separate issue, the use of drug sniffing dogs. The wave of the future is quickly approaching. Eventually, enough studies are going to show that the rate of false positives are too high to create probable cause. K9 Units wouldn't admit to that, but I see it happening. Then, all other evidence taken, like guns, what have you, will become fruit of the poisonous tree and not permitted in trial w/out some exception.

  4. #19
    AverageJoesGym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
    Posts
    16,782

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    This ruling doesn't stop dog searches. It just says you can't detain someone an extended time to wait for a K9 to get there. It also doesn't mean a dog can't be called if the driver gives consent to search. I was talking about this with an officer today when it came out and he said it really won't change anything they are currently doing, at least not around here.

    Again most false positives are a result of drugs being there at some point but have since been removed leaving their scent behind. Not the result of faulty dogs and handlers.
    Isn't that an assumption on your part? Isn't it possible that a large percentage of the false positives could come from a K-9 officer prompting the dog to give a reaction? This is one of the reasons K-9 searches are coming under so much fire now.

  5. #20
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    Quote Originally Posted by AverageJoesGym View Post
    Isn't that an assumption on your part? Isn't it possible that a large percentage of the false positives could come from a K-9 officer prompting the dog to give a reaction? This is one of the reasons K-9 searches are coming under so much fire now.
    No more of an assumption than you are making thinking that false positives are only from bad cops prompting their dog.

    It is a FACT that drugs can be detected by a dog a long time after they are removed from an area, no assumption there.

    You walk into your house and smell fresh baked cookies, but find out later that they have already been eaten and none are left. Yet you were able to detect that they had been there.
    Last edited by Jumper_Dad; Apr 23, 15 at 01:14 PM.

  6. #21
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,051

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    No more of an assumption than you are making thinking that false positives are only from bad cops prompting their dog.

    It is a FACT that drugs can be detected by a dog a long time after they are removed from an area, no assumption there.
    I don't disagree with you at all . But the fact this is true is why Mex is saying K-9 units will be a thing of the past in the very near future.

  7. #22
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    Quote Originally Posted by mexitucky View Post
    I understand what you are saying. I was not clear. I'm not talking about this current case. This was a detainment issue. I am talking about a separate issue, the use of drug sniffing dogs. The wave of the future is quickly approaching. Eventually, enough studies are going to show that the rate of false positives are too high to create probable cause. K9 Units wouldn't admit to that, but I see it happening. Then, all other evidence taken, like guns, what have you, will become fruit of the poisonous tree and not permitted in trial w/out some exception.
    In most cases the officer has some sort of probable cause before they walk the dog around. The dog in most cases only confirms or doesn't confirm their suspicion. If the dog alerts due to the past presence of drugs or due to the handler prompting him as some have asserted happens, If no drugs are found no one is getting arrested. Bottom line is that the dog isn't placing drugs there.

  8. #23
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    Quote Originally Posted by marvel View Post
    Yeah, I don't really care about the dog. Although, I agree tend to agree with mexitucky.

    Holding someone against their will when there is no sufficient evidence or legitimate suspicion of a crime is wrong.

    I care about the court ruling curbing police overreach and restoring protections against unreasonable searches. This is a big victory for civil liberties.

    Surely as a limited-government conservative you agree.
    I have no problem with this ruling...I have trouble with what many think this ruling says that it doesn't.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 03
    Location
    Have love in your heart and an ax in your hand. Hug and swing discriminately- Jim Wendler
    Posts
    15,357

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    In most cases the officer has some sort of probable cause before they walk the dog around. The dog in most cases only confirms or doesn't confirm their suspicion. If the dog alerts due to the past presence of drugs or due to the handler prompting him as some have asserted happens, If no drugs are found no one is getting arrested. Bottom line is that the dog isn't placing drugs there.
    Ok, we'll see how it plays out.

    Florida v. Harris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This reinforces your point. Dicta, however, leaves open grounds for challenges. It will be interesting to see how this goes.
    Last edited by mexitucky; Apr 23, 15 at 12:57 PM.

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 10
    Posts
    2,043

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    In most cases the officer has some sort of probable cause before they walk the dog around. The dog in most cases only confirms or doesn't confirm their suspicion. If the dog alerts due to the past presence of drugs or due to the handler prompting him as some have asserted happens, If no drugs are found no one is getting arrested. Bottom line is that the dog isn't placing drugs there.
    You're not citing any numbers and only assuming.

    According to a study cited by the Chicago Tribune -- only 44% of searches led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia.

    Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

    So you can't really say "The dog in most cases only confirms or doesn't confirm their suspicion. "

  11. #26
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    Quote Originally Posted by marvel View Post
    You're not citing any numbers and only assuming.

    According to a study cited by the Chicago Tribune -- only 44% of searches led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia.

    Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

    So you can't really say "The dog in most cases only confirms or doesn't confirm their suspicion. "
    I may have misspoke, what my intention was to say was the dog search isn't the only thing they rely on. The dog search is secondary to the officer in most cases having probable cause or a suspicion that drugs may be present. The dog reinforces that drugs may be or have been present.

    The 44% number is still just the number drugs were found on, nothing to say they didn't have previous possession of drugs and the residue is what the dog alerted to.

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 10
    Posts
    2,043

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    I may have misspoke, what my intention was to say was the dog search isn't the only thing they rely on. The dog search is secondary to the officer in most cases having probable cause or a suspicion that drugs may be present. The dog reinforces that drugs may be or have been present.

    The 44% number is still just the number drugs were found on, nothing to say they didn't have previous possession of drugs and the residue is what the dog alerted to.
    Just so you know, you are innocent until proven guilty. Your argument in bold inverses this principle.

    Also, do they actually have probable cause when success rate hovers around 40%? Hard to make that argument.

    Searches on Hispanic drivers turned up drugs in only one of 12 traffic stops, for a rate of 8 %.

    Makes me think they go on a hunch rather than sufficient evidence.

  13. #28
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    Quote Originally Posted by marvel View Post
    Just so you know, you are innocent until proven guilty. Your argument in bold inverses this principle.

    Also, do they actually have probable cause when success rate hovers around 40%? Hard to make that argument.

    Searches on Hispanic drivers turned up drugs in only one of 12 traffic stops, for a rate of 8 %.

    Makes me think they go on a hunch rather than sufficient evidence.
    1) The fact they previously broke the law but aren't currently isn't innocence, it just not a chargeable offense.
    2) As I said the dog search is just part of it, yes officers have probable cause often but are unable to find proof.
    3) Is that the number of actual stops made or searches made...if it's stops as you said that's and outrageously high number of drugs found from traffic stops.
    4) Officer pulls someone over and he is giving off all of the signs of being high/drunk...subsequent search finds nothing in the car (because he's already used it) would this search have been unwarranted In Your Opinion? FWIW any time a search is done the driver must give consent or the officer must articulate to a judge why one is needed and get a warrant. The latter rarely happens. If someone is arrested for some other reason then under some circumstances the car can then be searched.

  14. #29
    Jumper_Dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible
    Posts
    48,078

    It looks like most of you think that K9's are wrong more often that not or only Alert when prompted to by their handlers.

    What if I tell you there are trace amounts of drugs that we come in contact with every day. snopes.com: Cocaine on Money and yes dogs can detect some of these levels. So just because they alert doesn't mean they didn't smell drugs, that why they search to verify that drugs are there. No one is getting convicted because a dog Alerts, the drugs have to be there too.

  15. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 10
    Posts
    2,043

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    1) The fact they previously broke the law but aren't currently isn't innocence, it just not a chargeable offense.
    Which means they are currently innocent of any wrong doing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    2) As I said the dog search is just part of it, yes officers have probable cause often but are unable to find proof.
    Again, this means they are currently innocent....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    3) Is that the number of actual stops made or searches made...if it's stops as you said that's and outrageously high number of drugs found from traffic stops.
    Searches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jumper_Dad View Post
    4) Officer pulls someone over and he is giving off all of the signs of being high/drunk...subsequent search finds nothing in the car (because he's already used it) would this search have been unwarranted In Your Opinion?
    We are talking about the abusive power of extending searches because someone refuses to allow them to search the vehicle.

    If they are giving signs of being drunk, laws are already in place to figure out if they are.

    If they aren't drunk and you can't prove they're high, then the cop extending the stay to bring a K-9 unit is what's unwarranted and a violation of the 4th amendment, per the SCOTUS.

Top