User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2005 6:31:04 PM EDT
[#1]
I can't be the only one that caught this!! That's not my coat/not my car/not my purse/and these pants I'm wearin' don't belong to me either. I'm just usin' them.  Oh, and as this gets better........... IBTL 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2005 6:35:25 PM EDT
[#2]
by policy here, 'reasonable' is about 20 minutes. I'm sure this has happened in the past, I don't doubt that, but imagining that some K9 handler would 'fake' that his dog alerted... that is just un fathomable. dinhonest, unethical, impossible to defend in court, and a big fat waste of everyone's time. I just can't imagine a cop doing it. Why bother? walk the dog around the car, if he doesn't alert, then save yourself some time. Like the cop "knows" more than the dog does? bah... crazy talk.
You still have cushions? how quaint... hard plastic baby!!  no stuffing and puke cleans out very nicely. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2005 7:07:12 PM EDT
[#3]
You know what is pretty fucking clear? The word UNREASONABLE. Look it up. A dog walking around your car during a lawful encounter with a LEO is NOT unreasonable. That is just stupid. Call me a Nazi. I'll call many of y'all here snivilling, irrational, paranoid pussies. Hey, everyone has an opinion, right? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:09:43 AM EDT
[#4]
It wasn't my car. What's the problem with that? I don't own a car, and my boss handed me his keys to go pickup biscuits at Hardee's. Why do cops have such a problem with something like that?z |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:28:16 AM EDT
[#5]
Your ideas of what is reasonable and what mine are are worlds apart. You are a part of the machine, an apparatchik who will do whatever he can to incarcerate people. You've previously stated that you could find PC anytime you wanted. If that is the case, our system no longer protects the citizens from overzealous JBTs like you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:29:33 AM EDT
[#6]
Sorry,But if a person ,Barks back at a K-9 dog,it has been ruled as an "Assault on a Police Officer" and the guy was sentenced to like 3 years.
This has been posted here before. Now,the point is: That if a K-9 dog is considered a "Police Officer",Then the Same Rules/Laws apply to any attempted search by this type of officer. I am pretty sure any Lawyer worth a shit,could get any search conducted in this manner,thrown out,if they did their reasearch correctly by showing the numerous cites where K-9 dogs were clearly declared as a police officer. It doesn't matter if it is a dog, the defence needs to assert the same logic and court cites that the prosecutors use,in successfully prosecuting cases against people for Barking at, hitting,assaulting in any manner,a K-9 dog on a police force,because the main charge is always "Assault or attempted Murder of a Police Officer". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:32:39 AM EDT
[#7]
Entry: search
Part of Speech: verb Definition: seek Synonyms: beat, beat about, cast about, chase after, check, comb, examine, explore, ferret, fine-tooth-comb, forage, frisk, go through, grope, grub, gun for, hunt, hunt for, inquire, inspect, investigate, look, look for, look over, poke into, probe, prospect, pry, quest, rake, ransack, rifle through, root, rummage, run down, scan, scour, scout, scrutinize, seek, shake down, sift, smell around, study, track down Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1) Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:33:52 AM EDT
[#8]
  I love it! Guess, what? You are more right than you know! If I walk up to a car and smell drugs I can then search it so the dog and I are given the same "authority"! Thanks for backing us up and so much for your legal brainstorm!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:35:35 AM EDT
[#9]
I bet you have a point buried in there some where, eh? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:40:23 AM EDT
[#10]
I know that i am right concerning this.My point is about the initial search,If an officer pulls someone over but has no P.C. for a search,{Meaning he/she did not smell or see anything}, but then hold the person and vehicle until a K-9 unit arrives to conduct a walk around.This action would be considered an illegal search,by a police officer {K-9 dog}. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:45:43 AM EDT
[#11]
About a year after I bought my BuickGN, I took apart the center console and found a bag of dried up marijuana.
I can only IMAGINE the CLUSTERFUCK that would have taken place had it had been "sniffed out" one day, or even better while I was on my way to the range with a trunk full of firearms. My blood is already boiling from the WACO thread, so I'll just leave this where it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:46:43 AM EDT
[#12]
Problems with these dogs are that they seem to alert on anything. Been there done that. Seen officers that are a little more than untrained, say, look he alerted. However, he just farted and made a sudden move and sat down. Then on with the 4th amend violations and so forth. We should not be subject to violating based on a dog "alerting" on our car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:58:17 AM EDT
[#13]
Yeahhhhh... Well if the K9 is just like a police officer then he can legally walk around the car just like the cop can and smell for evidence just like the cop can... RightO, BuckO? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 11:01:05 AM EDT
[#14]
Good handlers keep a log just like a sniper. They can verify the number of verified hits compared to false positives. A dog with too many false positives or no log is gonna be out of a job. If the dog is worked with no log or too many false positives any lawyer worth his salt can get the gharge tossed. Some of y'all here want to tie our hands worse than the libs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 11:48:41 AM EDT
[#15]
Too bad if the false positives erupt on the traffic stop eh? You will never convince me or alot of the persons on this board that the LE agencies that spend $10k for a dog and training, are going to just fire a dog for a few false hits. I have seen these handlers you speak of and they regard a false hit as a bad day and laugh about it. That said, you yourself admit that the system with these dogs is not even close to good. Kind of like a pistol that jams every other round. You would put it aside for one that is reliable due to your life being on the line. Well my friend, in this case, the dog is the unreliable pistol and the life on the line is the poor chap you pull over. Your line of thinking sounds more like"The ends justify the means" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 12:05:40 PM EDT
[#16]
"Not even close to good"? Now where in the hell do you get that??? My experience with the dogs I have seen working affirms for me that they are usually highly accurate with a good track record. 100%? Of course not. What is? Eyewitnesses? Nope. The handlers you mention certainly are not the "ones I speak of" and you are MORE than putting words in my mouth... The ones I know are very serious about their profession and train 8 hours per week. Their dogs are very, very good. If the department keeps working a poor dog they will lose cases and will get sued. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 12:12:54 PM EDT
[#17]
"He said he never calls in Luctor unless he has a reasonable suspicion that drugs, weapons or other contraband are in the car and he has exhausted his other options."
If the officer did have "reasonable suspicion" that the car containes drugs, etc., then he could have searched the vehicle himself. He called the dog in because he didn't have legitimate "reasonable suspicion" and was using the dog to make his case for him. Any other way of justifying it is pure bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 12:17:15 PM EDT
[#18]
You call it bullshit. The system calls it legal. During a traffic stop you get feelings that you may not be able to articulate. You see things that may tweak you. You observe behaviors that are not right. That ain't reasonable suspicion but a dog hitting on that car is and calling him in is prudent. It is called DOING YOUR JOB. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 12:25:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Most PD's here get their patrol cars from a state bid contracted price. They don't care about an officer's safety or how easy it is to clean puke up. Some departments like the NYSP don't even have a cage and transport handcuffed subjects in the R/F seat if they are on one man patrols. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 12:57:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Because in a cops view, just about everyone they meet on the job is a liar. It doesn't matter if you are or not, in their view, you are. You can call me a lot of things, but never, ever call me a liar. That burns my blood about as bad as anything. That's when I'd start getting a little "testy" with the officer. Calling me one in relation to this thread doesn't mean squat, however.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 1:29:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Now wait a second. It's pretty widely accepted that you can safely go up to 5 over the limit without getting pulled over. This guy is targeting people who are in that zone. So say I am driving to Florida, and I am going 70 in a 65, slower than MOST traffic there. Or it's late and I forget to use my signals. Or there is some obscure state-specific traffic law that I am not necessarily aware of. He comes up to the window and I'm wondering why he pulled me over. He found an EXCUSE to pull me over to look for drugs. He then asks me if he can search my car. I have nothing illegal in my car, and need to get moving, AND I KNOW MY RIGHTS, so I say "No, you may not search my car. You have no cause, and I have nothing illegal in my vehicle." Hmmm, since I didn't let him tear apart my car and rummage through our luggage, I must have something to hide, right? So I will have to sit there and wait while a drug sniffing dog comes to check my car, or more officers to search it? Is knowing my rights actually probable cause? How sad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 1:46:54 PM EDT
[#22]
It is to a lot of them. It's pretty much an us vs them thing. I can understand it to a point, but it sure is aggrevating when you're not blue. We, as in the public, are the enemy and it seems we are always the one's in the wrong no matter what happens. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 9:13:52 PM EDT
[#23]
I believe the officer in the article has the dog with him. That is the way it sounds to me. Not a matter of waiting an unreasonable amount of time if the dog it already there.
And, no, telling a cop to pound sand does not create PC. If a cop tells you "Oh well then, if you won't let me search your car then I'll get a dog to come sniff your car." - I'll let you in on a little secret.... He's tricking you. No law says that we have to tell the truth. We pulled a guy over for speeding and failure to maintain lane. Late at night taking the back roads. doesn't seem drunk. my buddy asks if he has drugs in the car or if he has used drugs recently. the guy says no. my buddy says "Well, I have a drug dog in my car and he is freaking out about something. Any reason he would be acting that way?" kid cops to having a little weed. we take his weed, cite him for possession of MJ, less than an oz. Couldn't prove DUI-Cannabis... THERE WAS NO DOG IN THE CAR. If the kid wasn't a little pot smoker he would have said, "No, I have no idea why your dog is acting that way." Hell, he might have even figured out that there was no dog. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 9:41:08 PM EDT
[#24]
I'm not for drugs or drug running, but running a dog around somebodies car is a search and SHOULD require a warrant.
Lord Jesus come quickly. I cannot believe the number of people here on ARFCOM who are condoning this practice. Your homes are next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 9:51:15 PM EDT
[#25]
If its not a search why do you need special searching equipment?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:00:32 PM EDT
[#26]
It is a search, but falls under the "plain sight" exception to the Fourth Ammendment. I bet the officer tickets the drivers when he's done  FWIW, I think the drug dog is OK, but if they search the rig and find no drugs but do find something else, it shouldn't be admissable. Not a legal opinion here, just a personal opinion on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:20:15 PM EDT
[#27]
I tried making that point earlier. Seems they have the opinion that dogs aren't "equipment" -- the fucking dogs are officers too. Maybe the nickname should be FIDO instead of PIG. but since its an US vs THEM thing... <LEO>Sit the FVCK DOWN and SHUT THE FVCK UP!</LEO> 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:42:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Dogs searching for Jewish people. Do they have their own unique scent? About the helicopters... Full of soldiers?? What do they do, jump out on your house if the thermal camera finds a hot spot? FWIW, Thermal imaging equip searching the exterior of a house has been determined to require a search warrant: It's unconstitutional, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo (2001) that the police can not use infrared cameras to locate "suspicious" concentrations of heat in private places and then get warrants to search for hydroponic systems (which is what they had been doing up until then, and were supposed to stop doing from then on). Instead, the police have to get a search warrant before they can use an infrared camera to search private property for "suspicious" emissions of heat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:46:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Read up on "reasonable suspicion" versus "probable cause".
An officer would need probable cause to search your vehicle. For example if they saw something in the vehicle, and they can always search your stuff if they are arresting you. If they do not have probable cause to search, you would have to consent to a search (never do this). Generally if an officer asks to search your car it is because they have NO reason to and are just fishing for a reason to arrest you! If you choose not to consent to a search often times the officer may use a veiled threat to call in drug sniffing dogs. Refusing consent to search is not reasonable suspicion, but this is one of our rights that is often violated. The officer is usually required to cite why he believed there was reasonable suspicion to call in the dogs, but that can vary from state to state. Circling the drain... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 10:50:49 PM EDT
[#30]
And by that light dogs should be the same as FLIR. I rest my case. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 11:12:30 PM EDT
[#31]
This is my hometown newspaper and Tracy Freeman works for the Gregg Co. SO, He almost exclusively works the Interstate as it passes thru Gregg Co.
Hey, this guy takes alot of drugs out of the pipeline and that is a good thing, but he searches alot of people that don't have drugs on them and just leaves their shit on the side of the road for them to pack back up. Almost any trip thru Gregg Co. on I-20 you can see a car pulled over and alot of times you can see families standing outside their cars in all kinds of weather, with clothes and luggage spread out in the ditch. It works because he is not searching locals that vote. If they were searching Gregg Co. residents, we would soon have a new sheriff. And this practice would end. I have mixed feeling on this....I want the drugs gone, but this is a shitty way to be treated just because you are driving thru my town and break a minor traffic law. It has never happened to me, and I could not imagine how pissed I would be if someone threw my shit in the ditch and then just hauled ass. There has got to be a better way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 11:16:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Its called the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2005 11:23:56 PM EDT
[#33]
How long does it take to get a canine unit to a traffic stop? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 12:28:12 AM EDT
[#34]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 1:46:48 AM EDT
[#35]
Based on the logic of some of you are using I shouldn't be allowed on patrol because I'm 6'4" and can actually see over fences into yards. If I see your pot garden in the backyard you can be sure I'll be knocking at your door. And it's perfectly legal if I was in a place I had a legal right to be when I saw the pot garden.
Some of you paranoid so-called constitutionalists baffle me..... Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 2:38:04 AM EDT
[#37]
So you feel its reasonable to to make a person wait for an hour to get a dog? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 3:27:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Sieg Heil! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:17:30 AM EDT
[#39]
"He said he never calls in Luctor unless he has a reasonable suspicion that drugs, weapons or other contraband are in the car and he has exhausted his other options."
So, when did my firearms (weapons in above quote) become contraband? Give me a break, guys. You know damn well a drug dog is "search equipment" just like FLIR gear. What are you going to say when you are issued the new Acme2000 air sniffing machine that replaces Fido in 10 years? They already have versions installed at 20 airports across the country, only a matter of time before there is a field version. A lie told often enough starts to sound like the truth after a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:23:23 AM EDT
[#40]
It is a search... It is not an unreasonable search.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:26:54 AM EDT
[#41]
Nope and neither does SCOTUS. Have you even READ any of this? You MIGHT learn something. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:28:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Ahhh... The Nazi Name Caller Guy! I love him! Fun at parties but kinda slow on the uptake if ya get my drift... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:33:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Nothing like a night full of watching old people phuck to really get you in the mood........ 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 4:45:28 AM EDT
[#44]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 5:02:28 AM EDT
[#45]
 Holy shit! You got me Dick Tracy! The "enlightened" ones here were splitting hairs so I split a few myself. The good thing is that I am still right!
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 5:03:50 AM EDT
[#46]
but what about infringing on the rights of people to traffic drugs???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 5:17:12 AM EDT
[#47]
Correct me if I'm wrong but....
What the dog is sniffing is the air, testing the air for particulates that we call scents. Since we do not own the air individually, it cannot legitamately be called a search. Granted, the dog alerting (which comes in different forms, not all dogs bark or sit) will trigger a search by the officers, but then they have reasonable and justifiable cause, by dint of suspicious smells lingering by your person/possessions. Just my $.02. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 6:10:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Whether or not I am cuffed in the back seat of the patrol car, if I am not allowed to leave, I consider myself arrested. If a dog is sniffing around my car, my car is being searched. I don't care what SCOTUS says, I cannot simply get in my car and leave. I am being held against my will.
Play all the word games you want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 6:29:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Don't call me a Dick!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2005 6:39:53 AM EDT
[#50]
It's in discussions like these that people who normally call the ACLU "communists" and "traitors" suddenly realize that PERHAPS the ACLU also occasionally does some good things. I'm not saying ya'll should run out an join them like ErictheHun and I have but they do fight pretty hard on issues like this (and I like their convenient little wallet card that tells you what you can and cannot do when pulled over)Now back to your regular programming ... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
