Questioning The Legality

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

I suppose that it could be considered a point of view. I tend to see it as a working professional overcoming people who make their living off other people's taxes and pimping for their mothers.
 
Welcome to the world AFTER the office of homeland security was created

The Department of Homeland Security and local/county/state police forces are completely separate entities. The federal government has no authority to tell them what they can and cannot do; all these police forces are governed by state and local laws. It's a states' rights thing.

Plus, people blame DHS for every civil right they feel is infringed upon, whether it's truly being infringed upon or not, when they need to blame Bush and Congress for it. DHS, like every other federal department, is doing what it's told to do. If you disagree with the war in Iraq, are you blaming DoD and the soldiers over there for it? Or do you blame Bush and Congress?
 
The impression that I got was that the car may have been stopped for something routine like speeding, but in speaking with the driver the officer either smelled something or could see by the driver's behavior or physical condition (bloodshot or overdilated eyes, excessive or too little sweating with respect to the weather conditions, things of that nature) that something else was amiss. People give police officers too little credit when it comes to behavior detection, and certain signs that you're throwing off without realizing it can give an officer probable cause.
 
The impression that I got was that the car may have been stopped for something routine like speeding, but in speaking with the driver the officer either smelled something or could see by the driver's behavior or physical condition (bloodshot or overdilated eyes, excessive or too little sweating with respect to the weather conditions, things of that nature) that something else was amiss. People give police officers too little credit when it comes to behavior detection, and certain signs that you're throwing off without realizing it can give an officer probable cause.

That sounds a hell of lot like starting a fist fight because someone looks at you funny.
 
Bit of a stupid sidetrack - what if the person said they were allergic to animal hair and resisted being sniffed by the dog and therefore charged with obstruct police?

That sounds a hell of lot like starting a fist fight because someone looks at you funny.

I think Katyusha is talking about more than a funny look :D Police are trained to be observant and would have to use verbal and non-verbal cues. Example -bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, smell on clothing or in the car, sleepy appearance.

Anyway, I'm going to assume the police officer did not have enough for reasonable suspicion to search the car without a warrant, and the dog provided that without the need to go in the car.
 
Back
Top