Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/10/2005 12:09:43 PM EDT
I saw this artical in yesterdays paper. I thought we could refuse to have a dog sniff around our car, at least according to the post about alowing officers search your car.
Let me know what yall think.
www.news-journal.com/hp/content/news/stories/2005/01/09/20050109LNJdrug_dogs.html

When is a sniff a search?

By WES FERGUSON

Sunday, January 09, 2005

When Tracy Freeman cruises the interstate, which he does almost every day, he's not looking for the obvious. After all, most drug runners aren't dumb enough to drive 90 mph on I-20.

Instead, Freeman targets the drivers who go 5 mph over the speed limit, or who change lanes without signaling first. He checks to see if people's license plates are lighted, or whether they're wearing seatbelts.

After stopping a car for a minor violation, Freeman, Gregg County's crime interdiction officer, walks up to the front passenger's window. He checks insurance and driver's license, studies the car's occupants to see if they're nervous, and he smells for marijuana. He introduces himself and asks where they're headed.

If Freeman thinks they're hauling drugs, he'll ask to search the car. In three years fewer than 10 people have refused. But if they do, or if he can't find anything and is still suspicious, he brings in Luctor the drug dog.

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. Otherwise, he said, it would be time-consuming and might not hold up when the case is filed.

"If I don't get a conviction in court, I've wasted my time and the taxpayers' money," he said. "I don't want criminals getting off just because I took a shortcut."

Though Freeman says he doesn't use Luctor unless he's seen indicators of illegal activity, some law officers use drug dogs during routine traffic stops. That practice is before the Supreme Court, and justices will decide whether people who have given police no reason to suspect illegal activity have a constitutional protection against dog searches.

Roy Caballes of Las Vegas was wearing a suit and driving a new Mercury when he was stopped on an Illinois freeway in November 1998. It looked as if he would get off with a warning until Krott the drug dog showed up and sniffed out $250,000 worth of marijuana in Caballes' trunk.

Caballes' conviction eventually was overturned on grounds that police had no reason to search his car. The state of Illinois appealed, and the Supreme Court heard arguments in November.

Dogs trained to find drugs and bombs are becoming more common in airports and elsewhere even at the Supreme Court because of terrorism concerns.

The Supreme Court has tried in recent years to better define people's right to be left alone in their homes and vehicles. In this case, it must clarify earlier opinions that found that the use of drug-sniffing dogs is not necessarily a search that falls under the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches or seizures.

"A sniff is not a search," Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan told the justices.

Chicago attorney Ralph Meczyk, representing Caballes, countered: "It is accusatory. It is profoundly embarrassing."

Justice David Souter appeared troubled by the prospect of more use of dogs.

"We're opening a large vista for dog intrusion," he said, adding that he was worried about officers canvassing garages and neighborhoods with animals. Police "can take a dog to a front door and ring the bell and see what happens."

That's not something Freeman, and Luctor, will be doing anytime soon. Narcotics traffickers come in all varieties, Freeman said, and so do their cars, from rusted jalopies to fancy SUVs.

"I can't tell you what a drug dealer looks like," he said. "It could be a man in a three-piece suit, or it could be a man in overalls."

Freeman lets most people go with a ticket or a warning without ever searching their car or deploying the dog, he said.

"I've probably let loads of dope drive off," he said. "We all have in law enforcement."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:23:33 PM EDT
What a prick. But what are you gonna do? You're gonna take it and you're gonna like it, or else.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:27:25 PM EDT
I wonder if the drug dogs would smell powder residue from my car... since I have firearms in it every once in while.

Sometimes I wonder if airport screeners would pick up something on me from powder granules dropped on my floor and picked up by my shoes...
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:28:42 PM EDT
A dog sniffing around the exterior of your car is not a search and does not require RS, PC, or consent.

See that dot at the end of that sentence? It is a period.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:34:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cougar8045:
What a prick. But what are you gonna do? You're gonna take it and you're gonna like it, or else.



He is a prick. I can't believe that jackass doper thought he could buy his way out of a legit arrest!
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:38:20 PM EDT
How about bomb sniffing dogs?

Say a bomb sniffing dog alerts on your car, is that enough PC for a search?

I don't think so. Unlike a drug dog, there are a lot of legal things a bomb sniffing dog could alert to (powder residue from shooting being one example).

I worry about this a lot because in my work neighborhood, there are bomb sniffing dogs on every other block. If I'm using a shooting bag as a gym bag, but the thing is caked in powder causing a dog to alert, do I have to allow my bag to be searched?
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:42:01 PM EDT
a sniff is not a search.

holding someone on the side of the road for an unreasonable amount of time while the dog is en route just so the dog can sniff the car is going to get something overturned in court.

if your average traffic stop lasts 12 minutes and you keep a doper on the side of the road for 35 min because the dog is on the other side of the county... that case will get tossed if the guy's lawyer is worth a shit.



Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:45:23 PM EDT
It is clearly a search; unfortunately, is is not a 4th Amendment protected search.


With a dog's nose being 2000 times stronger than a human's, I've always said if we wanted to stop drugs coming in at points of entry, Customs and USBP should employ packs of sniffing dogs.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:48:59 PM EDT
Don't get me wrong I have nothing to hide or anything, but I bought my truck used, so honestly I have no clue if anyone else has stashed anything anywhere.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 1:57:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FiveO:
A dog sniffing around the exterior of your car is not a search and does not require RS, PC, or consent.

See that dot at the end of that sentence? It is a period.



+1
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:01:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UmpaLumpa:
Don't get me wrong I have nothing to hide or anything, but I bought my truck used, so honestly I have no clue if anyone else has stashed anything anywhere.



Oh I love that excuse too. Almost as good as... This isn't my coat.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:03:10 PM EDT
I have been questioned by Pre-TSA once for powder residue from a range bag that I used as a carry on. Was told it was "bomb residue" and was questioned. When I pointed out that I had checked firearms, it got worse. When I pointed out that gunpowder was a propellant, not an expolsive, I was corrected by people who didn't even understand. Finally, a Phx PD officer who was a competition shooter and knew of me and several other comp shooters, corrected the security guards and I was on my way. Yes i was patted down, wanded and had my carry on hand searched.

A sniff by a dog, is a search. Your vehicle should be as secure as your house is. Never let them search.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:06:14 PM EDT
Your house is on your property though.
Your car is in public.
Walking around your car with infrared, dogs, etc is not a search of your property.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:13:29 PM EDT

If Freeman thinks they're hauling drugs, he'll ask to search the car. In three years fewer than 10 people have refused. But if they do, or if he can't find anything and is still suspicious, he brings in Luctor the drug dog.



There's just something wrong with that.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:16:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
Your house is on your property though.
Your car is in public.
Walking around your car with infrared, dogs, etc is not a search of your property.




I suppose you think that the see-through-clothing type scanners they want to put (are putting?) in airport are not methods of searching either?


Sorry...the dog is TRAINED. Therefore, its a SEARCH. You use infrared devices, you're SEARCHING since its not a method of observation that humans can do WITHOUT EQUIPMENT.

I know its not real popular with the LEO crowd here, but there are some on the board that don't think that .gov has ANY business in our lives, ans we're tried of the little-by-little erosion of our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:23:54 PM EDT
Isn't this like how the Nazis searched passenger vehicles with dogs looking for Jews and contraband?

Or how hueys or blackhawks full of soldiers "on loan" to the DEA are allowed to hover above your property with thermal (or even worse high frequency EM) imaging equipment and look into your house looking for grow lights?

After all, they aren't actually touching you right, so it must be OK.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:27:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
Your house is on your property though.
Your car is in public.
Walking around your car with infrared, dogs, etc is not a search of your property.




I suppose you think that the see-through-clothing type scanners they want to put (are putting?) in airport are not methods of searching either?


Sorry...the dog is TRAINED. Therefore, its a SEARCH. You use infrared devices, you're SEARCHING since its not a method of observation that humans can do WITHOUT EQUIPMENT.

I know its not real popular with the LEO crowd here, but there are some on the board that don't think that .gov has ANY business in our lives, ans we're tried of the little-by-little erosion of our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.



I'm just being "constitutional" here. Not personal.
I think we need to ground all satelites.
Any chance of that happening?
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:54:35 PM EDT
I'm beginning to see a blur of our glorious war on drugs with our righteous war on terror. I'm also disturbed by what I've come to understand about warrants and searches. The security at airports, for example, is supposed to be for anti-terror purposes. Some loser with a nickel bag of weed in his pocket gets searched for weapons or explosives and the weed is the only thing found. They take the weed and he goes on his way, right? Hardly. He now has a possession charge although what was originally being sought was never found. Now I'm hardly a druggie's advocate but this is a simple example of how procedures can be misused. The ends do not justify the means when it comes to American citizens.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:55:38 PM EDT
All those poor narcotraffickers not being able to continue their criminal enterprise. What a travesty of justice!
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:57:57 PM EDT
Great, now I can get myself and my property sniffed by dogs and hair removed from my body because neither is a search or violation of my privacy. You wanna just suck the blood out of my body, put me in a cell, and be done with it you government pricks?

Oh gosh, I sound like Burt Gummer...
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 2:58:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:00:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The War on Drugs has become a War on the Constitution.

Understand that, and you will see where we are headed!

Of course, 'drug-sniffing' dogs constitute a search.

That's why they are there! To conduct a 'search.'

What is so absurd about the Courts....no, I'm not going to get started.

I don't feel well enough to launch a tirade at present!

Eric The(WeakAssed)Hun



Keep the faith. I've known many a curmudgeon (mostly on my Mom's side) to survive on nothing but acrimony and paranoia well into their 100's.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:03:56 PM EDT
I myself think it is an illegal search. That may be incorrect to some, however there still is illegal detainment. Ask the cop to leave...if he keeps you their to wait for the dog to sniff about it's illegal detainment. I'm not sure on the time limit, and you do have to ask to leave.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:05:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:07:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Sometimes I wonder if airport screeners would pick up something on me from powder granules dropped on my floor and picked up by my shoes...



I asked them that once, and the answer was that unless you had been shooting that day, you wouldn't set off the alarms.

<Shrug>
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:11:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 3:12:31 PM EDT by AZ-K9]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The War on Drugs has become a War on the Constitution.

Understand that, and you will see where we are headed!

Of course, 'drug-sniffing' dogs constitute a search.

That's why they are there! To conduct a 'search.'

What is so absurd about the Courts....no, I'm not going to get started.

I don't feel well enough to launch a tirade at present!

Eric The(WeakAssed)Hun


Define search.

My viewing into the interior of a vehicle via the window is a "search". As is my "smelling" the air near the vehicle. As is my dog "smelling" the air near the car.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:13:17 PM EDT
If you are looking for something, its a search period.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:19:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UmpaLumpa:
If you are looking for something, its a search period.



Gad. I KNOW there are smarter people around ARFCOM than this. Where are they?

I'm looking for a place to have lunch. I'm also looking for a package of aspirin to counter the headache such ridiculous statements as the ones in this thread give me. Does that meet the definition of a legal search?

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:19:43 PM EDT
I'm on the fence on this one.


Some loser with a nickel bag of weed in his pocket gets searched for weapons or explosives and the weed is the only thing found. They take the weed and he goes on his way, right? Hardly. He now has a possession charge although what was originally being sought was never found. Now I'm hardly a druggie's advocate but this is a simple example of how procedures can be misused.


Say a guy gets pulled over for a lane violation. Everything seems normal, no suspicions, and the LEO who pulls him over has a drug dog who alerts on the trunk. They detain him, open the trunk, and he has 200 pounds of cocaine or ingredients and equipment for a meth lab. You think they should let him go? No way. I guess it depends on the severity of the offense, it's not black and white. He has a small bag of weed - I can see writing him a ticket with a summons for it. 20 pounds of it - he gets the bracelets.

Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:27:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NotMrWizard:
I'm on the fence on this one.


Some loser with a nickel bag of weed in his pocket gets searched for weapons or explosives and the weed is the only thing found. They take the weed and he goes on his way, right? Hardly. He now has a possession charge although what was originally being sought was never found. Now I'm hardly a druggie's advocate but this is a simple example of how procedures can be misused.


Say a guy gets pulled over for a lane violation. Everything seems normal, no suspicions, and the LEO who pulls him over has a drug dog who alerts on the trunk. They detain him, open the trunk, and he has 200 pounds of cocaine or ingredients and equipment for a meth lab. You think they should let him go? No way. I guess it depends on the severity of the offense, it's not black and white. He has a small bag of weed - I can see writing him a ticket with a summons for it. 20 pounds of it - he gets the bracelets.





The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Pretty fucking clear???

These searches of opportunity are BS, no matter the scale. The 2nd means nothing without the 4th.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:30:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:34:07 PM EDT
The most ridiculous part of this is the definition of alert. The last time a car I was driving was sniffed by a dog, the dog "alerted" the handler by not barking, or so the handler claimed. The time before that, the dog barked once, and the handler said it was an alert. (Aside: the dog was probably barking at a couple of sausage biscuits I had in the seat since that's what he attacked immediately after the door was opened while the handler wasn't paying attention) While watching a roadblock in front of my office, I saw another dog lay its head down, and the handler claimed it was an alert. No matter what the dog does, you're screwed.z
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:36:20 PM EDT

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...


So my kids get blown up walking down the street, because they couldn't detain the asshat with the bomb that cooks off prematurely in his car that the dog alerted on, because they didn't have probable cause for a search?

Yeah, to me, it's PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:41:12 PM EDT
Popcorn............CHECK


Lite Beer...........CHECK



Comfy chair........CHECK

Ok let the games begin!!!!!!!!


Link Posted: 1/10/2005 3:59:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
blahblahblah




Figured you'd show up.


Glad I have my popcorn and beer. This is gonna be entertaining.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 4:28:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 4:28:38 PM EDT by Tango7]

Originally Posted By zoom:
The most ridiculous part of this is the definition of alert. The last time a car I was driving was sniffed by a dog, the dog "alerted" the handler by not barking, or so the handler claimed. The time before that, the dog barked once, and the handler said it was an alert. (Aside: the dog was probably barking at a couple of sausage biscuits I had in the seat since that's what he attacked immediately after the door was opened while the handler wasn't paying attention) While watching a roadblock in front of my office, I saw another dog lay its head down, and the handler claimed it was an alert. No matter what the dog does, you're screwed.z



FYI: Different training schools teach different behaviors as alerts.

Not just drugs, but nitrates and arson dogs. Depends more on the instructor than the cop, or individual dog.

Seen the "slim Jim" alert a few times

My only difficulty with the "looking for anything = search" argument involves the "plain sight" rule. Using the "looking = search" mindest, if a cop walked up to issue you a ticket (or warning) for a traffic offense, and you left half a J smoldering in the ashtray, then the cop has to ignore it?

Before the cops physically search the inside of the vehicle, the dog walks around the outside, and sniffs. Two ways around this:

1) don't traffick
2) pack your shit better than saran wrap / al foil.


BTW - I'm not defending Lisa Madigan. She's a gun grabbing anti bitch who was voted in in the absence (dare I say vacuum?) of any real republican party effort, thanks to the shit stain left on Illinois by George "Graft" Ryan, may he rot in genpop @ Joliet.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 4:28:07 PM EDT
maybe I should loan my lab to the officer so he can pull over any of the ppl on this forum
*he goes nuts over the smell of Hoppes #9*
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 4:56:30 PM EDT
The dog is an excuse, the handler can say the dog "alerted" whether it did or not, and claim to have an excuse for a search. A common scam that results in a torn up car and nothing to seize.

It happened to my son, his belongings left dirty and strewn along the roadside, not even a "We're sorry for wasting your time and making you stand in the 40 degree cold with no coat."

Nothing was found because there was nothing to find.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:04:48 PM EDT
I'm not trying to bash cops at all by my saying this: law enforcement is a real-life, thankless, and sometimes dangerous job. But we all know that in a goofy kinda way it's a big "game", and as such there are rules set forth you guys have to "play" by. Again, I'm not trying to make light of your chosen profession. I, too, have rules in my "game" of a job. But those rules and guidelines cannot be ever widened to the point that they are meaningless.
Yes, a cop writing you a ticket and SEEING a kilo of cocaine on your passenger seat is entitled to nail your ass. However, bringing a dog specifically trained to "search" for something (not in plain sight) by sniffing IS A SEARCH. Please spare me what the courts think. I already know. But YOU know, at heart, it's a "search".
Finding something OTHER than what you originally sought during a search, as long as it is not life-threatening or evidence thereof (like a bomb or a dead body), is a moot point. It SHOULD cease to exist as reason to arrest or cite. Sure, the idiot gets his otherwise illegal object confiscated, but should not be charged. It violates those "rules" previously mentioned.


Bottom line? You can't make it up as you go along AND it cannot be all-encompassing.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:09:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 5:18:26 PM EDT by JoeWang]

Originally Posted By NotMrWizard:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...


So my kids get blown up walking down the street, because they couldn't detain the asshat with the bomb that cooks off prematurely in his car that the dog alerted on, because they didn't have probable cause for a search?

Yeah, to me, it's PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR.



Citation of real life example? Please?

We don't incarcerate people on maybes in this country, last time I checked. I will not be scared into a police state. Thanks. If I see someone acting strangely, I'll take care of it myself.

No offense to anyone here, but seeing the street covered with LEOs makes my skin crawl.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:15:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NotMrWizard:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...


So my kids get blown up walking down the street, because they couldn't detain the asshat with the bomb that cooks off prematurely in his car that the dog alerted on, because they didn't have probable cause for a search?

Yeah, to me, it's PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR.



How about this:

So my kid gets shot outside of school because.....(you know the rest)
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:35:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By UmpaLumpa:
Don't get me wrong I have nothing to hide or anything, but I bought my truck used, so honestly I have no clue if anyone else has stashed anything anywhere.



Oh I love that excuse too. Almost as good as... This isn't my coat.


I probably get piss tested more then most as I fall under 2 fed regs, CDL and work for a utility in gas operations. I have never done shit, and I DID find MJ in one of my old trucks. Funny thing tho. it could have been the previous owner OR LEO/Forest rangers as it was their truck before that, cops and fed employees NEVER do drugs do they? I have heard that before too. [18 yrs+mp before that and ZERO + piss tests to date.] It does happen, as I recall the feds/cops sold a car that was confiscated that had a couple of Ks of coke left in it. The new owner found it as he was cleaning it one day. Even COPS can have a oh-shit every now and again.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:45:40 PM EDT
So while this non-search is happening I decide to listen to a music CD... Which has an added ultra-hi feq track embedded....

Wonder how far that dog will drag that cop.

BTW unlike low freq which travels, for this to have an effect the dog must be brought into very close proximity.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 5:52:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 5:56:09 PM EDT by hard]
What about South Caralina? I dont know if there are other states like this but... Here you're car is considered the same as your house is, that is why anyone is allowed to carry in their car. You also pay property taxs on your car yearly so I dont know if that would work here, not sure. Interesting though. I geuss the guy needed more money.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:01:14 PM EDT
I've always wondered why dope dogs seem to be so accurate. Compared to any other kind of dog used in public safety--search and rescue, cadaver dogs, etc. Most of these dogs I have been around are not that great, they would not be considered good hunting dogs with their track record. But mutts from the pound are suddenly turned into super dogs.

HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Makes you THINK!!!!!!!!

Yet another right we freely give away in the quest to get rid of something that was legal and in our soft drinks until the government needed to do something with the agents that should have been fired after prohibition was repealed.

There are ways that some dope officers can "encourage" their dogs to hit on a car once they get to know them. Any that are honest will tell you they know officers that do this or that theirs will.

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$---ON BOTH SIDES!!!!

GR
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:03:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GackMan:
a sniff is not a search.

holding someone on the side of the road for an unreasonable amount of time while the dog is en route just so the dog can sniff the car is going to get something overturned in court.

if your average traffic stop lasts 12 minutes and you keep a doper on the side of the road for 35 min because the dog is on the other side of the county... that case will get tossed if the guy's lawyer is worth a shit.



Don't count on it getting tossed. There is no specific time limit at to what is reasonable. It would depend on the circumstances on a case by case basis.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By UmpaLumpa:
Don't get me wrong I have nothing to hide or anything, but I bought my truck used, so honestly I have no clue if anyone else has stashed anything anywhere.



Oh I love that excuse too. Almost as good as... This isn't my coat.


I probably get piss tested more then most as I fall under 2 fed regs, CDL and work for a utility in gas operations. I have never done shit, and I DID find MJ in one of my old trucks. Funny thing tho. it could have been the previous owner OR LEO/Forest rangers as it was their truck before that, cops and fed employees NEVER do drugs do they? I have heard that before too. [18 yrs+mp before that and ZERO + piss tests to date.] It does happen, as I recall the feds/cops sold a car that was confiscated that had a couple of Ks of coke left in it. The new owner found it as he was cleaning it one day. Even COPS can have a oh-shit every now and again.



Drugs are frequently found in the back seats of patrol cars. Improperly searched suspects stuff illegal drugs and weapons where the back seat cushions meet.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:21:18 PM EDT
Sniffing around the OUTSIDE of a car is not a search becuase its plain smell/sight/touch.
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:25:27 PM EDT
Maybe we should legalize drugs and use the drug war money to fight illegal immigrants.


GR
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:26:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2005 6:27:43 PM EDT by wildearp]
I travel on business and typically have several rental cars a week. Place me in the dope dog 5mph over scenario. You fuck up my meetings, my appointments, for what? The last renter smoked a fattie and now you want to rip my car and luggage apart? I am as pro-law enforcement as the next guy, with several in the family, but this is getting dangerously close to the "your papers please" arbitrary stop. If you aren't writing tickets at every stop, you are profiling, no matter how you dance around the word.



....and I detest taking my fucking shoes off at the airport. Fat white AR15.com members did not fly planes into those towers!!!

.....and yes, I have been in the field many times with cops making legitimate traffic stops. Ask me how many times I have heard "these aren't my pants".
Link Posted: 1/10/2005 6:30:22 PM EDT
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


That's pretty clear. Searches are okay. Only unreasonable searches are not.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top