View Full Version : How do you feel about frug sniffing dogs being used to search your vehicle?
Averageman
03-01-20, 14:59
I'm a bit concerned about this, there is a lot of video out there showing dogs throwing a false positive on people.
I'm not so sure about it.
Being a guy that doesn't do dope, it doesn't concern me so much that they would find some, I just don't want to get my truck tossed at the whim of someone who's power tripping.
If the police want to find probable cause they can find probable cause. I haven't met a k9 officer yet who didn't have a sit signal with their dog. This is why you don't want to have a confrontation with police on the side of the road. You can win in court, but you can never win on the side of the road.
I'm a bit concerned about this, there is a lot of video out there showing dogs throwing a false positive on people.
I'm not so sure about it.
Being a guy that doesn't do dope, it doesn't concern me so much that they would find some, I just don't want to get my truck tossed at the whim of someone who's power tripping.
Generally, it shouldn't be at the officer's whim, unless the officer who has stopped you is a K-9 officer. Absent reasonable suspicion, the officer cannot detain you beyond the reasonable duration of the stop in order for a drug dog to arrive.
If the officer has given you your warning, or citation, and doesn't 'close' the stop simply ask the officer 'am I free to leave?' or say something like 'I've got an appointment, if you are through with me, I need to get going.'
If the officer tells you that they aren't through ask what the basis is for your detention. Use the 'detention' word, such as 'what is the reason for my detention?' or 'why are you detaining me?'
If they ask you if they can search your vehicle, tell them NO. If they tell you we are going to search anyway, ask why.
Remember what they say, the words they use, it may be useful in ramming an unwarranted detention or search up their rear at the department level.
Be calm and be polite, your goal is to be released with no hassle so you can report the action to higher authority.
I tell you this because no LE professional should be okay with unreasonable detentions or searches.
I'm a bit concerned about this, there is a lot of video out there showing dogs throwing a false positive on people.
I'm not so sure about it.
Being a guy that doesn't do dope, it doesn't concern me so much that they would find some, I just don't want to get my truck tossed at the whim of someone who's power tripping.
If they want to sniff, they have to hold you.
They have to have reason (probable cause) to hold you.
So just dont let them sniff. If they are not arresting you, drive, away. If they are, they need to articulate why.
If you piss clean, that would be good evidence that the whole situation is bullshit.
I’ve been pulled over a LOT, and never searched/sniffed. What you do when pulled over can usually make it a non-issue. Ive had cops rush to get me back on the road, and give me breaks... its all how you handle the situation.
If the police want to find probable cause they can find probable cause. I haven't met a k9 officer yet who didn't have a sit signal with their dog. This is why you don't want to have a confrontation with police on the side of the road. You can win in court, but you can never win on the side of the road.
Sorry, but if they are telling you they can signal an alert, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report that fact to the chief, sheriff, etc.
Why would anyone want to associate with corrupt officials or allow the behavior?
The_War_Wagon
03-01-20, 16:15
Seeing as how I'm not a frug addict... meh...
I'm a bit concerned about this, there is a lot of video out there showing dogs throwing a false positive on people.
I'm not so sure about it.
Being a guy that doesn't do dope, it doesn't concern me so much that they would find some, I just don't want to get my truck tossed at the whim of someone who's power tripping.
They, (the dogs) also miss. It depends on the handler and the dog. Good handlers and good dogs get good and honest results. I've seen both.
Dan
Seeing as how I'm not a frug addict... meh...
You know, I initially read the headline as “frog sniffing” and I was a little confused...,
Mauser KAR98K
03-01-20, 16:47
Frugs are bad, mmkay.
You know, I initially read the headline as “frog sniffing” and I was a little confused...,
Me too. I thought it was the dawn of a new totalitarian scheme instead of an existing one.
The war on some drugs needs to end, we have lost so much of our rights and liberties over this BS its pathetic.
A Society of Suspects: The War on Drugs and Civil Liberties
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/society-suspects-war-drugs-civil-liberties
A quick Google search will give you hours of reading materials, studies and court cases showing that drug dogs are less reliable than actually guessing.
Here is one such study.
Legal challenge questions reliability of police dogs
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-of-police-dogs/
In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.
The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.
But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.
In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.
But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.
Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that’s what led to such a high failure rate.
The reliability of drug dogs and their handlers is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in state district court by two Nevada Highway Patrol K-9 troopers and a consultant, who claim that the Metropolitan Police Department’s police dogs, and eventually NHP’s own dogs, were “trick ponies” that responded to their handlers’ cues, and therefore routinely violated citizens’ rights to lawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
The lawsuit goes on to make a number of other accusations in its 104-page complaint: that the Metropolitan Police Department is a racketeering organization, that money seized by motorists was misappropriated by the Department of Public Safety, that the two troopers were subjected to harassment and intimidation by their agency.
But what has defense attorneys and civil advocates taking notice are the allegations of illegal searches, which could call into question the seizure of millions of dollars from motorists on Nevada highways and jeopardize an untold number of criminal cases stemming from those stops.
Washoe County Public Defender Jeremy Bosler said the lawsuit’s allegations are “definitely an issue of concern throughout the state.”
But the case could also shine a light on the use and reliability of drug-sniffing dogs, an area of policing where there are no mandatory standards and little scientific evidence, experts say.
POTENTIAL FOR POWER AND ABUSE
The U.S. Supreme Court has given police “probable cause” to search your vehicle if a police dog detects drugs, typically by sitting, digging or barking.
That is an extraordinary power – officers working without dogs need “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime” for such searches. Mere suspicion is not enough, and criminal cases resulting from searches that don’t meet the “probable cause” standard can be, and are, tossed out in court.
When the Highway Patrol created its K-9 program in 2008, it contracted with Donn Yarnall to choose the dogs and train the troopers to handle them.
Yarnall, who created and led the training of the Los Angeles Police Department’s K-9 program in the 1980s, wanted to create a program so reliable that courts and defense lawyers couldn’t challenge the legality of their searches, according to Ken McKenna, the Reno-based lawyer representing Yarnall and troopers Matt Moonin and Erik Lee in the lawsuit.
“This was going to be his legacy that he was going to leave behind as to how a drug dog K-9 program is to be established across the country,” McKenna said.
The dogs and their handlers were deployed along the freeways in Northern and Southern Nevada, believed to be corridors for drug traffickers shuttling drugs from California to the Midwest.
They seemed to be a success. Within their first three years, the dogs helped troopers seize more than $5.3 million in cash, more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana, and dozens of pounds each of cocaine and methamphetamine, according to the lawsuit.
But the troopers noticed abuses. The lawsuit claims that one fellow trooper would make stops in Arizona, out of his jurisdiction. Another profiled Hispanic motorists, checking license plates for Hispanic owners before pulling them over.
And the abuses weren’t limited to their own department, they claim.
Often the K-9 troopers were partnered with a drug task force that paired them with Las Vegas police narcotics detectives and that agency’s K-9 dogs. They would go to a FedEx sorting facility where, the troopers allege, Las Vegas police detectives took packages from a sorting belt and poked holes in them so their dogs could better sniff for drugs inside. In one case, a detective tore open a package and searched its contents.
All of this was done without the consent of the owners of the packages, which would be illegal.
After those allegations surfaced in a report last year by Dana Gentry, a producer for “Face to Face” on KSNV-TV, Channel 3, Las Vegas police investigated and ruled that the detectives’ actions were legal, but the detectives did not follow policy because they didn’t fill out required paperwork when drugs were not found.
The troopers’ lawsuit also claims that the troopers witnessed Las Vegas police handlers abusing their dogs.
“In certain incidents they resort to hanging and then kicking the dog to get it to release,” the lawsuit states. “Trooper Moonin has personally witnessed a Metro handler take his dog behind a car after missing a significant drug seizure and brutally kick his dog repeatedly.”
ALLEGATIONS OF ‘TRICK PONIES’
The abuses – of the dogs and the law – are a result of poor training by Las Vegas police, according to the lawsuit. Las Vegas police trained their dogs to be “trick ponies” that would respond to handlers’ cues when searching for drugs.
That caused the dogs to become more interested in getting treats or toys when searching for drugs, they claim. The Highway Patrol dogs, on the other hand, were not rewarded when they signaled for drugs.
McKenna said he has video proof of Las Vegas police handlers “cueing” their dogs. Two of those videos have been uploaded to YouTube.
One, apparently from the dashboard camera of a Highway Patrol car, claims to show a Las Vegas police dog repeatedly walking past an ice chest with four pounds of metham*phetamine inside during a traffic stop. The handler, who knew the drugs were inside, eventually stops by the ice chest with the dog and gives it a toy, signaling that the dog was successful in finding the drugs.
Las Vegas police declined to comment on the allegations of physical abuse and “cueing,” saying they couldn’t comment on pending litigation. But they said that all officers receive training to reflect updates to Fourth Amendment case law.
Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Gail Powell dismissed the allegations, saying they were untrue and that the lawsuit was filed by “dis*gruntled” officers.
FEW STUDIES AVAILABLE
Despite the wide legal latitude police dogs are given, there are few studies showing how success*ful, or un*successful, they are at finding drugs in the field.
But what does exist casts doubt on their reliability.
About a month after the results of the UC Davis experiment were released, the Chicago Tribune published a study looking into three years of drug searches by suburban Illinois police departments.
The study revealed that when dogs “alerted” officers to drugs, they were right 44 percent of the time. For Hispanic drivers, the rate was only 27 percent.
Police told the Tribune that when drugs weren’t found, the dogs were detecting drug residue that was left in the vehicles.
But that explanation is bogus, according to Lawrence Myers, an Auburn University professor who has studied police dogs for 30 years.
While residual odors can cause false alerts, Myers said, too many dog handlers often use it as an excuse, making it all but impossible to assess accurately the reliability of the dog’s nose or the validity of a search.
“Frankly, many times it’s a search warrant on a leash,” Myers said of the drug-sniffing police dog.
Nationwide, the K-9 training industry lacks the cohesion and standards that would allow for objective measuring of police dogs’ reliability.
Through the Institute for Biological Detection Systems at Auburn University, which Myers founded in 1989, he has researched the effectiveness of drug-sniffing dogs while calling for the industry to improve its training methods and accountability.
For his efforts, he has been shunned by most in the industry, he said.
Fearing they will be blackballed themselves, many K-9 handlers don’t speak out about problems they see in the industry, he said.
“I’m afraid there is a conspiracy of silence” within the tight-knit police dog community, Myers said.
The lawsuit illustrates that, he said, with the troopers who spoke of being shunned by fellow troopers and removed from their K-9 handling duties.
Fellow researcher Lisa Lit noticed a split in the K-9 community after her UC Davis study was published.
Many handlers were unhappy with the findings, and at least one organization called it invalid because of flaws in the methodology. They said it didn’t conform to normal testing standards for police dogs.
Yet others handlers thanked her for the research and encouraged her to pursue more research, she said.
However, she said she continues to have trouble getting K-9 teams to volunteer to help her with her research.
CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE SIGNALS
When police dogs signal for drugs, there can be con*sequences even when no drugs are found. Police can seize money they find in the car if they believe the money has ties to drugs.
The legal standard is weak, lawyers say, and citizens who want their money back have to go through the court system, which can be costly. They often cite the 2009 case of a 22-year-old Indiana man pulled over for an unsafe lane change on an Indiana interstate.
The man, who had won $50,000 from a car accident settle*ment, was found with $17,500 that he later claimed was for the purchase of a new car for his aunt. A drug dog alerted to drugs in his car – twice – and police seized his money. No drugs were ever found, and Indiana authorities held his money for more than a year.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has received complaints from people concerned about the reliability of drug dogs, but Allen Lichtenstein, the organization’s general counsel, said his office doesn’t have the expertise to independently verify the claims.
“If it can be shown that drug dogs are being used as a ruse to pretend to have probable cause, that would be a very serious constitutional violation,” Lichtenstein said.
Regardless of whether that allegation is proven – the case could be settled before it ever reaches a jury – the claims by three experts against their own department is extraordinary and could jeopardize criminal cases.
Las Vegas-based lawyer James Oronoz, who has defended people in drug cases, said the lawsuit could have a big ripple effect on the criminal defense community.
“I think it’s probably in*cumbent upon any criminal defense attorney in town … to really take a look at those (cases) and examine the circumstances under which they (police) made their affidavits,” he said.
McKenna, the troopers’ lawyer, said the case calls into question whether drug dogs should be given the kind of legal latitude they currently enjoy.
“The idea that dogs are the reason to get probable cause for searches really needs to be evaluated by the courts, by the police departments utilizing them and by defense attorneys,” he said.
Moonin and Lee resigned from the Highway Patrol’s K-9 program last year, amid concerns of legal abuses and claims that Department of Public Safety Director Chris Perry was dedicated to ruining the program. They’re still troopers. Yarnall is no longer a paid consultant for the agency.
They declined to comment for this article through Mc*Kenna.
“They’re just outraged that they were witness to citizens’ rights being violated by these dogs that are currently out there that are trained to alert on cue,” he said. “They just couldn’t be part of that, and they just think it needs to be exposed.”
https://youtu.be/uFn7VjYksBM
Couldn't help myself
(I was asked to embed these but forget how to do it)
Sorry, but if they are telling you they can signal an alert, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report that fact to the chief, sheriff, etc.
Why would anyone want to associate with corrupt officials or allow the behavior?
Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.
Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
Letting them know you’re friendly at some point when it’s appropriate wouldn’t be a bad idea, that way any questions or verbal resistance won’t be seen as being difficult.
Something like:
“I certainly don’t mean to be difficult with you brother. I appreciate what you guys do, standing in the gap so that others can sleep soundly. But I have to tell you, I can’t agree to a search. Nothing to hide, just need to get where I’m going, people are going to be waiting on me.”
A little respect and acknowledgement of what a hard job LE is goes a long way.
Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.
Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
Judges, lawyers and DA's are all one happy family. When GS court was in they'd all have lunch together. We'd come back from recess and somehow they would all have deals worked out so everyone could go home at 5pm. And yes, police are not obligated to tell you the truth in the midst of an investigation. Funny, but I remember for a time the word on the street was that if you asked an (undercover) officer if he was the police he had to tell you the truth or the case would be thrown out. Guys would ask and we'd be like "no way". Later when arrests were made they'd demand that charges be dropped because the police lied to them.
Letting them know you’re friendly at some point when it’s appropriate wouldn’t be a bad idea, that way any questions or verbal resistance won’t be seen as being difficult.
Something like:
“I certainly don’t mean to be difficult with you brother. I appreciate what you guys do, standing in the gap so that others can sleep soundly. But I have to tell you, I can’t agree to a search. Nothing to hide, just need to get where I’m going, people are going to be waiting on me.”
A little respect and acknowledgement of what a hard job LE is goes a long way.
Seems a bogus search isn't worthy of respect. Also seems that job would be easier if that bad habit could be kicked.
Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.
Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
A matter of technique, as opposed to corruption?
Help me understand that, because if I lie to a LEO/FBI, Im gonna be in some serious trouble. Heaven forbid I dont remember being somewhere last year.
As far as LEO dogs go. The day they gave them rights of a human being, was the day their responsibilities were fully corrupted.
Judges, lawyers and DA's are all one happy family. When GS court was in they'd all have lunch together. We'd come back from recess and somehow they would all have deals worked out so everyone could go home at 5pm. And yes, police are not obligated to tell you the truth in the midst of an investigation. Funny, but I remember for a time the word on the street was that if you asked an (undercover) officer if he was the police he had to tell you the truth or the case would be thrown out. Guys would ask and we'd be like "no way". Later when arrests were made they'd demand that charges be dropped because the police lied to them.
One time I had a cop tell me I was being pulled over because my vehicle fit the description of one recently used in a bank robbery. It was 100% nonsense and the fallout from it was kind of funny.
Most of the tools used in police investigations are based on deception. The most hilarious one is "I can't help you if you don't help me." This is why experienced criminals say "lawyer" and nothing else.
And I'm not trying to cast LEOs in a negative light, it's just the way of the world.
Criminals have no rules.
Law enforcement has some rules.
Government makes up the rules as needed.
At the end of the day the difference between criminals and government is a matter of perspective.
A matter of technique, as opposed to corruption?
Help me understand that, because if I lie to a LEO/FBI, Im gonna be in some serious trouble. Heaven forbid I dont remember being somewhere last year.
As far as LEO dogs go. The day they gave them rights of a human being, was the day their responsibilities were fully corrupted.
The difference is if a cop is lying in order to find out where a kidnapped girl is currently located vs. if a cop is lying because he already decided he thinks you are guilty and is just trying to jam you up as best he can vs. if a cop is lying because the person he is talking to is a habitual known offender who he strongly believes is in possession of large quantities of drugs, weapons or other illegal items.
If you are the father of the girl who was kidnapped, NOBODY is going to give a shit if somebody scams some dirtbag into believing the police already know more than they do and they just need the last details and are willing to give the dirtbag some consideration if he fills in the blanks.
If you are the guy on the side of the road who really DID NOT do what a police officer obviously believes you did, you are going to care very much about the fact that a cop lied to you to confuse you and see if you would implicate yourself.
But if the same cop is gaming a known gang banger / drug dealer and manages to get the guy to consent to a search or otherwise implicate himself and he's sitting on a trunk full of drugs, guns and other illegals shit...well he's probably the only one who cares.
When you talk to police officers and it is in relation to a possible serious crime, they really aren't trying to help you, they are mostly deciding if you meet the criteria to be arrested or not.
And yeah, you can bet when you are dealing with the FBI, it will not be a level playing field. This is nothing new.
Did you also want to know not all lawyers are honest? You probably don't want to know about judges. During contacts police often don't tell the truth for various reasons, it is usually a matter of technique than corruption.
Also the idea that I would report members of the SO to Ken Jenne (Sheriff at the time) is kind of ironically laughable.
There is a difference between tactics during a police contact which are legal and ethical, and signalling a dog to alert to a scent it hasn't detected.
Pretty sure I have a feel for the dark sides of the judicial system, but thanks for the tip.
I'd tell you stories, but I wouldn't want it posted on the internet.
Let me know when either the Broward County Public Defender or District Attorney contact you to find out who your buddies were.
There is a difference between tactics during a police contact which are legal and ethical, and signalling a dog to alert to a scent it hasn't detected.
Pretty sure I have a feel for the dark sides of the judicial system, but thanks for the tip.
I'd tell you stories, but I wouldn't want it posted on the internet.
Let me know when either the Broward County Public Defender or District Attorney contact you to find out who your buddies were.
Jeeze, if I had to list everyone in Broward Co. who fudged in the margins for good or bad intentions, I might as well hand them the phone book and cross of the names of the people who did NOT do anything wrong.
And if anyone in Broward is going to do anything, they can have my cooperation when they start at the top on move down, ironically enough the last one I knew was Scott Israel and I could have told people he had credibility problems all the way back when he worked for Ft. Lauderdale PD as head of their narcotics "raiders" team.
There has only been one BSO sheriff in my memory who wasn't completely deep in it and that was Lambertti, so of course they got rid of him.
I assume you have all the SCOTUS case dealing with admissibility of statements/confessions memorized, because I assure you, someone will care, see Brewer v. Williams, for example.
Just so we are on the same page, I'm not saying it's right, not saying it's wrong...only saying it happens and I've seen it a lot. Sometimes it works out ok, sometimes it goes all wrong and sometimes it comes back on you ten years after the fact.
When I'm able to take a break on Friday and Saturday nights, I've been watching Live PD on A&E. And I have never seen more traffic stops with all kinds of drugs being found. Meth, Cocaine, Crack Rocks, Weed, Stolen Prescriptions for Oxycodone, etc. Drugs, drugs, drugs. And to find these drugs, the reasons are prior arrests, warrants, and people on probation - all probable cause to search the vehicle.
Then comes Officer Dog - AKA "K-9" because "CANINE" is too hard to spell or doesn't fit on the quarter panel of the police SUV. And practically in every stop Officer Dog makes an appearance, he "alerts", after scratching the hell out of your door's clear coat paint job or tears up your leather seats. Officer Dog can't tell you his findings personally, but requires an interpreter to explain his barks, gyrations and agitated movements to you. Every Partner of Officer Dog instantly knows which grunt, tail wag or door scratch means you loose your 4th Amendment Right. I suppose you should be given the chance to question Officer Dog personally about his findings, but he's been given a chew toy and hurried back to his caged enclosure in the police SUV while your vehicle is being ransacked. Besides, how many average citizens speak Officer Dog's language?
Personally, I'd rather watch Officer Dog run down and administer numerous bites in the face to some burglar or fleeing felon who just ditched his stolen ride.
If you are the guy on the side of the road who really DID NOT do what a police officer obviously believes you did, you are going to care very much about the fact that a cop lied to you to confuse you and see if you would implicate yourself.
.
If you didn't do it what's there to be confused about?
ChattanoogaPhil
03-02-20, 07:12
The equivalent of search warrants issued by Judge Fido... no thanks.
Speaking of... never been pulled over when my dog was riding shotgun.
Keep in mind I'm not anti-dog use in LE, it's just ripe for potential abuse when you have to rely on an interpreter to translate what Dog is "alerting" to. Officer Dog's partner may say he's alerting to drugs, when it could be that Quarter Pounder with Cheese sitting on the center console. If you're carrying illegal drugs in your vehicle, you had better be carrying a small container of Cayenne Pepper to sprinkle inside as you're getting pulled over. However, I guess a sneezing Officer Dog could be an "alert" also.
Not all dogs are equal, and their individual sensitivity to smells do vary, even within the same breed. I have a crew of Australian Shepherds working the ranch and we breed 'em.
The equivalent of search warrants issued by Judge Fido... no thanks.
Speaking of... never been pulled over when my dog was riding shotgun.
Indeed... we live in a world where the kangaroo courts allow dogs to issue search warrants.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-02-20, 10:26
I'm a bit concerned about this, there is a lot of video out there showing dogs throwing a false positive on people.
I'm not so sure about it.
Being a guy that doesn't do dope, it doesn't concern me so much that they would find some, I just don't want to get my truck tossed at the whim of someone who's power tripping.
Seeing as how I'm not a frug addict... meh...
Being innocent it the main reason I don't like dog alerts. If a LEO rolls up on me and thinks there are drugs in the car, he either the most incompetent cop ever or has malice on his mind.
The main reason I don't like canine unit searches is that you can't really audit or certify the dog-handler team. You will always have the issue of intentionally falsed positives. That is inherent in the handler-dog system. From a scientific standpoint, you might as well roll some chicken bones and interpret them.
Averageman
03-02-20, 10:40
If you didn't do it what's there to be confused about?
A friend was moving to his new residence.
18 guns in cases in the trunk, many were family heirlooms some from the civil war. Many of these guns had no serial number because they were made before the requirements.
He gets pulled over, asked if there are any drugs or guns in the car and replies "I am late, I'm in a hurry may I please go?"
Guess who got jammed up?
They brought the dog, the dog sniffed, they tossed the car and still have many of his heirloom guns. You can't explain a lack of serial numbers to a 25 year old non gun guy.
A friend was moving to his new residence.
18 guns in cases in the trunk, many were family heirlooms some from the civil war. Many of these guns had no serial number because they were made before the requirements.
He gets pulled over, asked if there are any drugs or guns in the car and replies "I am late, I'm in a hurry may I please go?"
Guess who got jammed up?
They brought the dog, the dog sniffed, they tossed the car and still have many of his heirloom guns. You can't explain a lack of serial numbers to a 25 year old non gun guy.But he wasn't confused about what he had. It wasn't like he sat there thinking maybe I do have drugs? Not sure anymore. I never did drugs, or buy drugs or even see them in real life but now that this officer is asking ....well maybe I do have drugs!
Nothing about what happened there was confusion. He did have gun, and guns were taken. Not saying it was right or wrong simply that he did physically have them and wasn't fooled into thinking they were his
Generally, it shouldn't be at the officer's whim, unless the officer who has stopped you is a K-9 officer. Absent reasonable suspicion, the officer cannot detain you beyond the reasonable duration of the stop in order for a drug dog to arrive.
I've had deputies pretend to lose my license for about 45 minutes until they could get a K9. Thank you very much Montgomery County Sheriff's Office and Montgomery County Precinct 3 Constable's Office. I actually was looking around for it while 4 units sat around and watched me. I was a dumb kid, didn't know that they were just ****ing with me at the time...
Sorry, but if they are telling you they can signal an alert, it is your responsibility as a citizen to report that fact to the chief, sheriff, etc.
Why would anyone want to associate with corrupt officials or allow the behavior?
Because: Thin Blue Line. Who was the bad cop in the situation that I described above? The guy that had my ID in his pocket the whole time, the guys that taught him that "trick" or the 3 other guys that didn't say anything?
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-02-20, 11:25
A friend was moving to his new residence.
18 guns in cases in the trunk, many were family heirlooms some from the civil war. Many of these guns had no serial number because they were made before the requirements.
He gets pulled over, asked if there are any drugs or guns in the car and replies "I am late, I'm in a hurry may I please go?"
Guess who got jammed up?
They brought the dog, the dog sniffed, they tossed the car and still have many of his heirloom guns. You can't explain a lack of serial numbers to a 25 year old non gun guy.
If I have pants on, I have a gun. I only drive with pants one. Ergo, there is always a gun in my car. Why is having a gun in your car reason for a search? Or did the dog alert on 'drugs'? A canine is a master key to any vehicle.
Dr. Bullseye
03-02-20, 12:06
Maybe we can develop a whole breed of dogs whose sole function is to sniff out illegal aliens, breed millions of them and deploy them on the border.
Because: Thin Blue Line. Who was the bad cop in the situation that I described above? The guy that had my ID in his pocket the whole time, the guys that taught him that "trick" or the 3 other guys that didn't say anything?
I guess the first time I told another officer if he tried that shit around me again he was going to be the subject of a criminal report - a little more direct and colorful verbiage was used - word got around where my compass pointed so I didn't much have to deal with that kind of stuff.
The thing is, from childhood I had realized that those who 'go long to get along' suffer in the long term. I told the student officers I taught that theirs a word for officers who keep quiet when something shady is going down - co-defendant.
As probable cause? Too likely to be abused.
After probable cause to help find something, at the border or on probation/parole searchable are good uses.
I guess the first time I told another officer if he tried that shit around me again he was going to be the subject of a criminal report - a little more direct and colorful verbiage was used - word got around where my compass pointed so I didn't much have to deal with that kind of stuff.
The thing is, from childhood I had realized that those who 'go long to get along' suffer in the long term. I told the student officers I taught that theirs a word for officers who keep quiet when something shady is going down - co-defendant.
Don't get me wrong, you seem like you're "one of the good ones". But you've probably been around long enough to know how far and how deep that "ends justify the means" element permeates your profession. That experience has colored all of my interaction with LEO since then. Everyone gets the same guarded treatment that I'd give a rando trying to bum a cigarette or lighter. I don't know if I'm getting you or the guy that's going to drop a roach under my seat after he "determined from his training and experience that there was an odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle." because I won't roll the window down more than a few inches and told him that his questions aren't relevant and to just write my citation so we can get this stop over with.
gunnerblue
03-02-20, 14:19
Maybe we can develop a whole breed of dogs whose sole function is to sniff out illegal aliens, breed millions of them and deploy them on the border.
We do, albeit not quite that many ��
If you didn't do it what's there to be confused about?
Really? Well the answer is because most honest people (the ones who didn't do it) tend to believe what the police tell them. And they are confused because their brain is trying to reconcile what they officer said and what they know they actually didn't do.
This is a problem in those rare instances where LEOs are in contact with people who are actually not criminals.
When I used to live in downtown Ft. Lauderdale because I was young and broke, I got pulled over all the time being a white guy in that neighborhood. I was one of the rare .0001% that wasn't there to buy drugs and I have heard some laughable reasons for being pulled over, including a few honest ones that went along the lines of "not a lot of white people in this neighborhood...most are here to buy drugs."
But the funny ones were the guys trying to bluff me with "We just watched you do a buy back at the intersection, the dealer was one of our undercovers so we need you to step out of the vehicle" or something very similar. If I didn't have a job that put me around LEOs most of the week I would have been very confused and probably would have tried to explain that it must have been some other car that looked exactly like mine.
Averageman
03-02-20, 15:34
But he wasn't confused about what he had. It wasn't like he sat there thinking maybe I do have drugs? Not sure anymore. I never did drugs, or buy drugs or even see them in real life but now that this officer is asking ....well maybe I do have drugs!
Nothing about what happened there was confusion. He did have gun, and guns were taken. Not saying it was right or wrong simply that he did physically have them and wasn't fooled into thinking they were his
No, it's pretty simple, that was just wrong.
The way it was explained to me was he was asked "Do you have any drugs or guns in your car?"
I'm not sure answering " Yes, I have guns in the trunk." would have made any difference.
I'm afraid that this is going to change my demeanor the next time I'm pulled over. That's too bad.
No, it's pretty simple, that was just wrong.
The way it was explained to me was he was asked "Do you have any drugs or guns in your car?"
I'm not sure answering " Yes, I have guns in the trunk." would have made any difference.
I'm afraid that this is going to change my demeanor the next time I'm pulled over. That's too bad.I don't get pulled over often but when asked I tell them I do and then usually get a ticket and be on my way
Averageman
03-02-20, 20:50
But you're not likely carrying 100k worth of antique guns without serial numbers.
It's a humbug search. Likely based on appearance.
So my friend should just happily donate dozen antique family heirlooms to be destroyed because a bogus drug dog was brought out specifically to initiate an unwarranted search?
I really don't think that's why we have a Constitution.
But we can always happily vote for Socialst shit like this.
Have there been court challenges to warrant-less dog initiated probable cause searches? The vehicle is an easy alert, but what about coming to your front door. LE standing out there without a search warrant, wanting permission to access your house. You deny them. Here comes the dog and his partner and the pooch alerts on something just inside the door - it's gotta be blow or weed. Does that provide the probable cause for barging into your house? How far away and thru how many layers of metal or wood can the dog pickup the drug scent?
And when Officer Dog makes a mistake or indicates a false alert, your rights are already trashed at that point.
Have there been court challenges to warrant-less dog initiated probable cause searches?
Several. In one thread, we recently talked about Florida v/ Harris, which was a unanimous decision with Justice Kagan writing the Court's opinion. I got to be honest, in that case I was concerned about the lack of records leading to the impossibility of determining false positives in the field, or in training.
The vehicle is an easy alert, but what about coming to your front door. LE standing out there without a search warrant, wanting permission to access your house. You deny them. Here comes the dog and his partner and the pooch alerts on something just inside the door - it's gotta be blow or weed. Does that provide the probable cause for barging into your house? How far away and thru how many layers of metal or wood can the dog pickup the drug scent?
You are talking about Florida v. Jardines. I think this case is a good example of the distinction between the probable cause required to search a vehicle, or other conveyance, because of it's mobility, and the probable cause required to search a structure, which is not mobile. It also reinforced the expectation of privacy within our homes. In this decision the Court was split, with several conservative justices saying it was not a search, and several of the liberal justices saying it was in a 5-4 decision.
But you're not likely carrying 100k worth of antique guns without serial numbers.
It's a humbug search. Likely based on appearance.
So my friend should just happily donate dozen antique family heirlooms to be destroyed because a bogus drug dog was brought out specifically to initiate an unwarranted search?
I really don't think that's why we have a Constitution.
But we can always happily vote for Socialst shit like this.
No, your friend needs to get the family members and other folks that can attest to the provenance of the firearms and get them back. That failing, they need to get an attorney and seek a civil remedy, including damages.
But you're not likely carrying 100k worth of antique guns without serial numbers.
It's a humbug search. Likely based on appearance.
So my friend should just happily donate dozen antique family heirlooms to be destroyed because a bogus drug dog was brought out specifically to initiate an unwarranted search?
I really don't think that's why we have a Constitution.
But we can always happily vote for Socialst shit like this.Absolutely not. He should demand his guns back. Hire a lawyer if need be.
Really? Well the answer is because most honest people (the ones who didn't do it) tend to believe what the police tell them. And they are confused because their brain is trying to reconcile what they officer said and what they know they actually didn't do.
This is a problem in those rare instances where LEOs are in contact with people who are actually not criminals.
When I used to live in downtown Ft. Lauderdale because I was young and broke, I got pulled over all the time being a white guy in that neighborhood. I was one of the rare .0001% that wasn't there to buy drugs and I have heard some laughable reasons for being pulled over, including a few honest ones that went along the lines of "not a lot of white people in this neighborhood...most are here to buy drugs."
But the funny ones were the guys trying to bluff me with "We just watched you do a buy back at the intersection, the dealer was one of our undercovers so we need you to step out of the vehicle" or something very similar. If I didn't have a job that put me around LEOs most of the week I would have been very confused and probably would have tried to explain that it must have been some other car that looked exactly like mine.I still don't get it. Sorry. If I didn't do it there's no way any police officer in the world is going to convince me otherwise.
The example you gave of the officer saying he saw you buy drugs... Yeah....not going to work because I don't do drugs, I didn't buy drugs, I don't buy drugs, I've never bought drugs, Ive never even seen drugs outside of a TV show. I don't have any criminal history and I don't even have run ins with police. just last month I got pulled over for forgetting to renew my registration. Prior to that I was last pulled over at least a decade ago. So he's not going to convince me otherwise, not even to second guess myself. If he wants to search my car he'll need a warrant.
Absolutely not. He should demand his guns back. Hire a lawyer if need be.
If the system was working as claimed, Averageman would be telling us how the authorities involved were doing time for theft with enhanced penalties for doing it under color of authority. Instead, there are exemptions and immunity.
gunnerblue
03-03-20, 09:42
Have there been court challenges to warrant-less dog initiated probable cause searches? The vehicle is an easy alert, but what about coming to your front door. LE standing out there without a search warrant, wanting permission to access your house. You deny them. Here comes the dog and his partner and the pooch alerts on something just inside the door - it's gotta be blow or weed. Does that provide the probable cause for barging into your house? How far away and thru how many layers of metal or wood can the dog pickup the drug scent?
And when Officer Dog makes a mistake or indicates a false alert, your rights are already trashed at that point.
There have been numerous challenges. Some states, Montana for instance, require a warrant to search a vehicle based on a canine alert.
The motor vehicle exception does not apply to residences as far as canine use is concerned.
There have been numerous challenges. Some states, Montana for instance, require a warrant to search a vehicle based on a canine alert.
The motor vehicle exception does not apply to residences as far as canine use is concerned.
I can only reference the State of New Mexico. Here, when it comes to firearms, your vehicle is considered an extension of your home. That means firearms can be in the open or hidden in the vehicle. So any search turning up a gun in the vehicle is no issue, unlike the mention above regarding a pile of non-serial numbered antiques. Just from personal observation, it is rare to see any traffic stop here involving Officer Dog sniffing around. Maybe I watch too much Live PD, but fido is used a lot in other States.
I still don't get it. Sorry. If I didn't do it there's no way any police officer in the world is going to convince me otherwise.
The example you gave of the officer saying he saw you buy drugs... Yeah....not going to work because I don't do drugs, I didn't buy drugs, I don't buy drugs, I've never bought drugs, Ive never even seen drugs outside of a TV show. I don't have any criminal history and I don't even have run ins with police. just last month I got pulled over for forgetting to renew my registration. Prior to that I was last pulled over at least a decade ago. So he's not going to convince me otherwise, not even to second guess myself. If he wants to search my car he'll need a warrant.
You don't understand how a person who has never done drugs might get confused when an officer says he just saw them buying drugs? Honest folks don't think like criminals, they tend to want to help police officers figure out a misunderstanding. Not every person walking around is as savy as you.
You don't understand how a person who has never done drugs might get confused when an officer says he just saw them buying drugs? Honest folks don't think like criminals, they tend to want to help police officers figure out a misunderstanding. Not every person walking around is as savy as you.
Unpopular opinion but the folks going out of their way (including command staff pushing it) everyday to purposely hang paper on folks whenever possible do more damage to the profession than the blatantly corrupt ones. At least the latter group can get sent packing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nightvisionary
03-03-20, 21:09
I have watched a few episodes of Americas Top Dog competition and many of those trained police K9s are wrong as much as or more than they are right when it comes to detecting contraband. It seems slightly more accurate that water witching.
The_War_Wagon
03-03-20, 22:19
Judges, lawyers and DA's are all one happy family. When GS court was in they'd all have lunch together. We'd come back from recess and somehow they would all have deals worked out so everyone could go home at 5pm.
Having been the occasional witness in court, I'm gonna quote this for TRUTH.
ClearedHot
03-04-20, 03:56
It's incredibly easy for a K9 handler to manufacture PC for a vehicle search. The dog doesn't even need to give a final response during the sniff, the handler can simply say the dog showed a "behavior change" and that's all they need to search your vehicle.
This video is a good example of a unscrupulous K9 handler using the aforementioned tactic to manufacture PC.
https://www.facebook.com/conflictk9/videos/vb.2155302954516136/359687781554378/?type=2&theater
I've made my thoughts on this topic pretty clear here in the past, but to reiterate...
Canine manufactured PC is bullshit
Police fishing expeditions are bullshit
Asset forfeiture is bullshit
The war on frugs is bullshit
Lazy judges and DAs that would rather get to their tee time than do their jobs are bullshit
Lazy bullshit cops that smell weed coming out of literally every vehicle they encounter are bullshit
These things all reward overzealous departments with financial windfalls which perpetuates a cycle of corruption and abuse of power. This, then, makes the citizenry distrustful of police.
I'm an over 40 white guy who works hard, follows the law, and pays his taxes. I'm at the point that I avoid cops like the plague and would only voluntarily interact with law enforcement if it was a literal life and death situation, because I do not believe that I would be treated fairly by whoever responded.
The difference is if a cop is lying in order to find out where a kidnapped girl is currently located vs. if a cop is lying because he already decided he thinks you are guilty and is just trying to jam you up as best he can vs. if a cop is lying because the person he is talking to is a habitual known offender who he strongly believes is in possession of large quantities of drugs, weapons or other illegal items.
If you are the father of the girl who was kidnapped, NOBODY is going to give a shit if somebody scams some dirtbag into believing the police already know more than they do and they just need the last details and are willing to give the dirtbag some consideration if he fills in the blanks.
If you are the guy on the side of the road who really DID NOT do what a police officer obviously believes you did, you are going to care very much about the fact that a cop lied to you to confuse you and see if you would implicate yourself.
But if the same cop is gaming a known gang banger / drug dealer and manages to get the guy to consent to a search or otherwise implicate himself and he's sitting on a trunk full of drugs, guns and other illegals shit...well he's probably the only one who cares.
When you talk to police officers and it is in relation to a possible serious crime, they really aren't trying to help you, they are mostly deciding if you meet the criteria to be arrested or not.
And yeah, you can bet when you are dealing with the FBI, it will not be a level playing field. This is nothing new.
You don't understand how a person who has never done drugs might get confused when an officer says he just saw them buying drugs? Honest folks don't think like criminals, they tend to want to help police officers figure out a misunderstanding. Not every person walking around is as savy as you.
So, the LEO lies about watching you buy from one of his undercovers, you are savy enough to call his bluff. Everyone gets a good laugh and just walks away? Nevermind the complete undermining of public goodwill? Deralict of their oath to the public?
I get his name and badge number to report his BS and guess what, the Union steps in and tells us how tough of a job they got and all the other sob stories. I get it, they deal with scum bags, but treat J.Q. Public with the same perspective. Because we are all just one bad answer away from getting our cars sniffed up by fido.
Honest folks keep their eyes wide open and see this type of tripe for what is...complete BS. That continually gets covered up by other officers, Unions and than the STATE.
I have been pulled over multiple times, because I do volunteer work, in BAD neighborhoods in NOLA. I have had my share of run ins with NOPD....POST Consent Decree! White dude, driving through the 8th and 9th wards...I have heard all the BS lines. Had fido jump on my truck, not because it got a hit, but rather it was instructed. Been cuffed, because I did the LEO's the courtesy of knowing I had firearm in the truck...you know, officer safety. After I told you there was a pistol? That all but gives them necessary "suspicion" to cuff you and search your vehicle, eventhough my vehicle is an extension of my home in this state.
Of course they say they smell weed or they see a ziploc bag with CheezIt crumbs ledt from my son and think Im free basing heroin.
The crazy goes on and on, but we the people have no real recourse.
Diamondback
03-04-20, 20:11
I get real nervous when I see ANY dog, LE or not--I just have one of those miswires that naturally brings out even Lassie's inner Cujo. So, unless and until your four-footed friend and I have established some rapport, please kindly keep either some hard barrier or five feet of distance with solid restraint between Fido and myself.
A Norwegian elkhound trying to rip your face off at three years old tends to have interesting and long-lasting effects on you...
I've made my thoughts on this topic pretty clear here in the past, but to reiterate...
Canine manufactured PC is bullshit
Police fishing expeditions are bullshit
Asset forfeiture is bullshit
The war on frugs is bullshit
Lazy judges and DAs that would rather get to their tee time than do their jobs are bullshit
Lazy bullshit cops that smell weed coming out of literally every vehicle they encounter are bullshit
These things all reward overzealous departments with financial windfalls which perpetuates a cycle of corruption and abuse of power. This, then, makes the citizenry distrustful of police.
I'm an over 40 white guy who works hard, follows the law, and pays his taxes. I'm at the point that I avoid cops like the plague and would only voluntarily interact with law enforcement if it was a literal life and death situation, because I do not believe that I would be treated fairly by whoever responded.
This pretty much sums it up.
So, the LEO lies about watching you buy from one of his undercovers, you are savy enough to call his bluff. Everyone gets a good laugh and just walks away? Nevermind the complete undermining of public goodwill? Deralict of their oath to the public?
And I don't disagree with you. Just saying what I've seen and experienced personally. Of course for every "you have to be effin' kidding me" LE story I have, there are 20 cops from the same department that don't stand out and don't make the news because they essentially do their job, enforce the laws as intended and aren't trying to compensate for any personality defects.
At this point, I mostly feel bad for those guys. They will actually attempt to pull you out of a burning car wreck, if there is a school shooting they will run towards the sound of gun fire and if they ever hurt an innocent person unintentionally it would be a burden they carried for the rest of their lives. They became cops to protect people and make the world a little bit better.
But if you have one shitbird on your shift it makes all that very difficult to do. If you have 10 shitbirds on your shift you begin to wonder why you bother. If you have 20 shitbirds on your shift you feel like you have to watch your toes because the shitbirds might get you. And if they actually make a shitbird sheriff (as Broward did several times) you start to realize that you'd make a pretty good pizza delivery guy because you can find any address off the top of your head.
Sadly, PDs are like a microcosm of government. Mostly the wrong people are in charge. The things they make you do don't really fix anything and you don't have the discretion to do the things that would actually work. The only people more sick of shitbird cops are cops who do things right. I've known a lot of guys at the "20 years in" point who seriously thought about walking away because too much had changed in 20 years.
So, the LEO lies about watching you buy from one of his undercovers, you are savy enough to call his bluff. Everyone gets a good laugh and just walks away? Nevermind the complete undermining of public goodwill? Deralict of their oath to the public?
I get his name and badge number to report his BS and guess what, the Union steps in and tells us how tough of a job they got and all the other sob stories. I get it, they deal with scum bags, but treat J.Q. Public with the same perspective. Because we are all just one bad answer away from getting our cars sniffed up by fido.
Honest folks keep their eyes wide open and see this type of tripe for what is...complete BS. That continually gets covered up by other officers, Unions and than the STATE.
I have been pulled over multiple times, because I do volunteer work, in BAD neighborhoods in NOLA. I have had my share of run ins with NOPD....POST Consent Decree! White dude, driving through the 8th and 9th wards...I have heard all the BS lines. Had fido jump on my truck, not because it got a hit, but rather it was instructed. Been cuffed, because I did the LEO's the courtesy of knowing I had firearm in the truck...you know, officer safety. After I told you there was a pistol? That all but gives them necessary "suspicion" to cuff you and search your vehicle, eventhough my vehicle is an extension of my home in this state.
Of course they say they smell weed or they see a ziploc bag with CheezIt crumbs ledt from my son and think Im free basing heroin.
The crazy goes on and on, but we the people have no real recourse.
While I'm not discounting the stories most of you have told, I hope you understand that the behavior related isn't the norm.
The very vast majority of officers are honest folks, many of them trying to make a living like any other person.
Sometimes when you hear of bad things happening, it is a training issue, coupled with inadequate supervision.
Other times it is a case of leaving 'heroes' in 'cool' positions too long.
Dogs are tools, they can be used improperly, intentionally or unintentionally, when you feel you have been treated unfairly, go up the chain, you generally won't get anyplace at the time it happens.
I always wondered how much of the pot/underage EtOH caught is actually turned in.
Couldnt the police just partake in the forbiden fruit they confiscated, and get away with it if the dash cans werent reviewed?
Happens all the time. After the end of our shift we’d all get together in the WalMart parking lot, break out our stash of seized forbidden fruit and have a party. If anyone said anything to us we’d tell them to hit the road or we’d sick the dog on them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.