Questioning The Legality

[Tom Collins]

Alrighty, someone will probably flame me for daring to question the sainted, and varried, law enforcment agencies. Feel free.

The deal is, I feel certain that someone among all the wonderful and disparately educated AHers will be able to clear up my understandable, I think, confusion.

This question needs a touch of set up, so bear with me a moment, please.

Picture it…the year is 200?…fade in on an unremarkable vehicle, make and model irrelevant, parked on the side of any American highway or byway with a police vehicle of some immaterial sort positioned behind so as to hopefully shield the pulled-over civilian and exposed officer in the event that disaster strikes.

With me so far? Of course you are, you're AHers, after all.

We follow the officer up to the driver’s window and s/he goes through the usual spiel…”License, registration and insurance, please? Do you know why I pulled you over, ma’am/sir?” Etc…

For whatever reason, the office becomes suspicious of the driver and suspects that s/he might be involved in some variety of contraband activity. The officer politely asks if s/he may search the citizen’s vehicle/person. If the person has any brains—and we know many of them are deficient in this arena—they will deny the request whether they have aught to hide or no.

So far, so good. Nothing untoward here, right…?

Here’s where my confusion begins. Next, we see the motorist detained, without reason, until a dog can be brought to the scene, presuming the original officer isn’t a K-9 unit, of course.

My question is this. How is it that they can be denied the right to search the motorist’s vehicle/person by the person, as is their constitutional right, and yet it’s legal to go over them and it with a dog. How is it that this not illegal search and seizure?

And, please, don’t give me any claptrap about “probable cause.” If the officer had anything more legitimate than suspicion—say funny, white powder leaking out of the glove box or smoke/banging issuing from the trunk—, s/he could outright search and never mind the dog. Besides all of which, probable cause strikes me as little more than a Texas two-step for getting around legal channels when they’re inconvenient to law enforcement agents.

Thanks for stopping and reading my whole, blithering post. I await illumination with doughnut-baited breath.

 

[neonlyte]

My question is this. How is it that they can be denied the right to search the motorist’s vehicle/person by the person, as is their constitutional right, and yet it’s legal to go over them and it with a dog. How is it that this not illegal search and seizure?

The AH answer is: Foreplay - I can't say anymore because there's dogs involved.

 

[Corylea]

The Fourth Amendment is moribund; right-wingers love the Second but hate the Fourth.

 

[sr71plt]

Can't say whether it's legal or not--your story doesn't go far enough. What happened when the citizen filed a complaint?

 

[Liar]

Does the dog sniff the outside of the car, or is it automatically allowed inside?

If it's outside, it's just the cop who pulled a better tool, but no actual violation of no-search rights.

The detaining is a little shady though.

 

[Tom Collins]

Does the dog sniff the outside of the car, or is it automatically allowed inside?

If it's outside, it's just the cop who pulled a better tool, but no actual violation of no-search rights.

The detaining is a little shady though.

What does it matter if the dog is inside or outside the car? The dog, under police direction, has just searched that person's car directly against the owner's expressed consent.

If, in five or ten years, a cop pulls someone over and gets a, "no," on a search request and s/he pulls out a hand-dandy little, mobile unltasound/x-ray machine will it still not be an illegal search because s/he never went into the car physically? After all, s/he's just pulling a better tool...right?

 

[Tom Collins]

Can't say whether it's legal or not--your story doesn't go far enough. What happened when the citizen filed a complaint?

It was a situation I saw on one of those TruTV police video shows, so no mention of complaint was made as those programs are geared to make the cops look like heros.

 

[sr71plt]

What does it matter if the dog is inside or outside the car? The dog, under police direction, has just searched that person's car directly against the owner's expressed consent.

If, in five or ten years, a cop pulls someone over and gets a, "no," on a search request and s/he pulls out a hand-dandy little, mobile unltasound/x-ray machine will it still not be an illegal search because s/he never went into the car physically? After all, s/he's just pulling a better tool...right?

Again, you can't even begin to talk about legality until the situation spins out. Nothing legal has kicked in yet in what you describe. Legal is what the courts do when it comes to court in one or more ways.

 

[Tom Collins]

Again, you can't even begin to talk about legality until the situation spins out. Nothing legal has kicked in yet in what you describe. Legal is what the courts do when it comes to court in one or more ways.

If you're asking if the person was prosecuted for the drugs found by the dog, the answer is, "yes." The program made that much clear.

 

[sr71plt]

If you're asking if the person was prosecuted for the drugs found by the dog, the answer is, "yes." The program made that much clear.

Program? What program? I didn't see anything posted here about a program. I love it when people post on something with outrageous indignation, asking for shared outrageous indignation, and then start fooling around with the scenario that was posed in the first place.

 

[Tom Collins]

Program? What program? I didn't see anything posted here about a program. I love it when people post on something with outrageous indignation, asking for shared outrageous indignation, and then start fooling around with the scenario that was posed in the first place.

You didn't see anything posted about a program? You didn't read very well did you?

It was a situation I saw on one of those TruTV police video shows, so no mention of complaint was made as those programs are geared to make the cops look like heros.

That post was in responce to one of your posts, btw.

Besides that mistake, you've made another. I'm not looking for "shared indignation." I'm asking if someone who understands how this passes for legal to explain how it's legal. I didn't fool around with the scenario in the slightest. It happened just as presented in the first post, as viewed from the dash cam of the police cruiser.

 

[sr71plt]

You didn't see anything posted about a program? You didn't read very well did you?




That post was in responce to one of your posts, btw.

Besides that mistake, you've made another. I'm not looking for "shared indignation." I'm asking if someone who understands how this passes for legal to explain how it's legal. I didn't fool around with the scenario in the slightest. It happened just as presented in the first post, as viewed from the dash cam of the police cruiser.

Ah, yes, I see. I was composing my next post when you posted that and never saw it. It's still information that isn't in the original posting. It's still a "give an opinion and then I'll add more information you didn't have when you gave an opinion based on what I first gave you" Internet game.

I think your problem is that you are relating "true" TV shows with legality. If you want to get all worked up over a slanted TV script, though, I guess you can. If you had revealed the source from the beginning, I'd known to give it all a pass.

 

[Tom Collins]

Ah, yes, I see. I was composing my next post when you posted that and never saw it. It's still information that isn't in the original posting. It's still a "give an opinion and then I'll add more information you didn't have when you gave an opinion based on what I first gave you" Internet game.

I think your problem is that you are relating "true" TV shows with legality. If you want to get all worked up over a slanted TV script, though, I guess you can. If you had revealed the source from the beginning, I'd known to give it all a pass.

I fail to see how the reference point for the situation matters. It's something that happens all the time, and that show is just what really got me thinking about it. I just would like to know how come it's considered a legal search, or not considered a search at all, as the case may be. That's all I wanted to know and you've got to make some kind of big, shitting deal about where I saw it.

Jesus fuck! I was just asking a goddamned question. All I wanted was clarification so I could stop being baffled by this. You know what? Never fucking mind. Apparently, I was wrong when I thought someone around here would be able to explain it. Looks like all I'm going to get is a raft of shit because police dash cams aren’t “reality.”

 

[Lee Chambers]

Probable cause can strike you any way you want it to, it still comes down to the reason why a dog will allow a car to be searched. If the cop were simply to pull a person out, hand cuff them and start digging in the car, that leads to a lawsuit for harassment for any number of reasons you can think of.

The dog, on the other hand, is trained to smell things like drugs and gun powder. So if the dog hits on something the assumption is you have guns or drugs in your car. When the cop walks up on you when you're first stopped, he's already searching your car when he checks the backseat then checks you. There's nothing illegal going on there since there's no law against looking through the window of someone's car, only going into it and digging around under the seats, in the glove box, the trunk, etc.

As for being detained without reason, the officer's safety is the only reason he needs to detain someone. Understand that when an officer enters a situation, whether it's a traffic stop or being called out to a scene, their procedures and tactics center around one thing: taking complete control of the situation. This often means handcuffing people who aren't under arrest yet in order to keep them pacified and out of the way.

If you still have concerns about legality, I would suggest looking up local laws where you live and also looking at cases of police brutality and abuse in your area. Laws will vary from state to state as to what passes for probable cause and what procedures can be used. And which cases resulted in victory for the cop and victory for the person they offended will tell you what kind of things the local community will and will not accept from police behavior.

But in the end, the cop has the gun and the badge and the authority to make your life hell until you can turn it around in a court of law. Legality only enters after you take them to court.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The car and driver were pulled over for some reason, traffic violation, warrants, vehicle malfucktion. According to the law you are being detained for the violation. In the course of getting information from you he suspects you of other illegal goings on and can detain you until he feels, in his mind, that you are clean.

He has the right to ask if he can search you and your vehicle, just as you have the right to refuse. He also has the right to have a dog, not search your car, but sniff the outside of your car. Once the dog alerts though, all bets are off and the probable cause clause kicks in and they get to search your car.

Or they can make you sit there and wait while they get a search warrant from the judge of the jurisdiction.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

The car and driver were pulled over for some reason, traffic violation, warrants, vehicle malfucktion. According to the law you are being detained for the violation. In the course of getting information from you he suspects you of other illegal goings on and can detain you until he feels, in his mind, that you are clean.

He has the right to ask if he can search you and your vehicle, just as you have the right to refuse. He also has the right to have a dog, not search your car, but sniff the outside of your car. Once the dog alerts though, all bets are off and the probable cause clause kicks in and they get to search your car.

Or they can make you sit there and wait while they get a search warrant from the judge of the jurisdiction.

Zeb nailed it.

The legal jusification for cops using "drug dogs" as TC described it is similar to cell phone communications not being protected by wire-tap laws. If it's in the air, it's not unfair.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LEECHAMBERS

Youre under arrest the moment a cop stops you. If you fail to stop you get charged with fleeing and eluding arrest.

They brought the dog out to get probable cause for some suspicion the cop had, but the driver was already under arrest when he was stopped.

 

[Liar]

What does it matter if the dog is inside or outside the car? The dog, under police direction, has just searched that person's car directly against the owner's expressed consent.

Does the cop legally need consent to look at the car from the outside?

No?

Then why does the canine cop?

If, in five or ten years, a cop pulls someone over and gets a, "no," on a search request and s/he pulls out a hand-dandy little, mobile unltasound/x-ray machine will it still not be an illegal search because s/he never went into the car physically? After all, s/he's just pulling a better tool...right?

In a way, yes. The cop may also today look through the window and spot stuff on the inside. He may also use a flashlight to illuminate the inside through said window. What yuo described is just a better flashlight. You asked about legality, not what is morally right.

However, the dog doesn't even examine what's inside the car, just how the car smells from the outside. So the inside of the car has not been searched. So if you think that's wrong, then you need to change the current law to forbid the canine tool for outside examination.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

According to a police officer that I know, in New Jersey, they technically aren't even allowed to ask you to search the car, even with your permission. They need a warrant.

Now, something that the program may have left out, is that when the K9 unit was being brought over, the officers involved might very well have called in for a warrant to search the automobile. that is something that should be considered, seeing as now none of us was originally there.

 

[Guest]

Welcome to the world AFTER the office of homeland security was created

 

[alyxen]

If it's in the air, it's not unfair.

Rumple Foreskin

Why does this make me think that we are now searching OJ Simpson's vehicle? (and I apologize for the minor thread jack there!)

 

[sr71plt]

It might just be me, but reading between the lines here (which I must do, as the scenario wasn't set out fully and clearly), I get the impression that the car was stopped because the cop suspected the driver was drunk or on drugs (otherwise, not given another reason, I can't see why the driver was stopped and the copy looked for what the cop was described as looking for). If so, the driven must have been doing something to exhibit that possible condition. Given the choice upholding someone else's fullest possible individual rights and keepimg druggies and drunks off the road so they don't kill the innocent, I'll go with keeping the druggies and drunks off the road.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Welcome to the world AFTER the office of homeland security was created

Not really, things like this happened long before 911 and Homeland Security. Most likely the stop was along one of the interstates coming from Florida or Texas or Arizona or California. Most likely Florida...the counties in southern Georgia know that drugs are bought into the country by boat via Florida, when they stop a car that has either a single male or two male occupants the bells go off...drug runners...this may not be true 100% of the time, but 95% of the time it is.

 

[R. Richard]

I supose that this is a bit ofa threadjack.

The guy who got stopped was an idiot and probably deserved what he got. A friend of mine used to come up out of Mexico with a Ford Cammer, running 64 max pounds of boost under his foot. He was running a cargo of an ancient Aztec herbal remedy, banned in the US for some unknown reason. The scumbags tried to stop my buddy on a few occasions. My buddy didn't use interstates. Back roads and 9000RPM out of the 427 Cammer left the scumbags in the dust. Even with the 'Motorola,' the scumbags never caught 'And Now You Don't!'

 

[sr71plt]

I supose that this is a bit ofa threadjack.

The guy who got stopped was an idiot and probably deserved what he got. A friend of mine used to come up out of Mexico with a Ford Cammer, running 64 max pounds of boost under his foot. He was running a cargo of an ancient Aztec herbal remedy, banned in the US for some unknown reason. The scumbags tried to stop my buddy on a few occasions. My buddy didn't use interstates. Back roads and 9000RPM out of the 427 Cammer left the scumbags in the dust. Even with the 'Motorola,' the scumbags never caught 'And Now You Don't!'

Sounds like you are sort of confused on who the "scumbag" was.