Drug Dog Search: Indiana (1 Viewer)

[whoknew]

1.  Yep, drug dogs are like 4-legged polygraphs.   Not sure why they're still legal.

2.  If a cop asks if they can search it means they have no probable cause.   I can't think of any reason why I would ever let a cop search my car.  If they had reasonable suspicion then they can get a warrant.  

When my boys started driving I taught them to be as polite and cooperative as possible if they ever got pulled over.   I taught them to respect the police.   But I also told them to never say "yes" when a cop asks to search their car.  

I'm no expert in this, but I suspect you are going to see a lot of the pseudo-scientific forensic evidence that is allowed in court thrown out in coming years. Seems like most anything besides DNA is pretty unreliable. 

 

[Steve Tasker]

They certainly exist. My father in law was a Metro Dade cop for 24 years. He was a pretty stand up guy. Kind of cop that poured the pot out on the side of the road if he found any. Not really looking to hassle people and believes in serve and protect. The stuff he sees happening today does not make him happy. And there are lots more like him. But there are certainly some that isn't the case for.

I was kidding.

 

[NCCommish]

I was kidding.

Unfortunately there was more than a little truth to your joke.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Serious question, has anyone in here advocating the "say no to the search request" actually said no to an officer's search request?  How did it go?

 

[Amused to Death]

Serious question, has anyone in here advocating the "say no to the search request" actually said no to an officer's search request?  How did it go?

I was taught to answer "can we search your car" with "why?".  They have to have a reason and its worked for me* in the past.  The cop didn't have a reason and he said, "well you can just say no".  Don't surrender your civil rights.

*I'm white, so.....

 

[Sconch]

And if you are ever arrested, or physically detained, the only thing you should tell the cops is "I want to talk to a lawyer."

That too.   

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I don't understand it. Study after study has shown they are unreliable. And yet they are treated like they are infallible. It's just stunning to me. I guess there would be a lot of repercussions from admitting to that but still time for the courts to catch up to the reality here.

For every court ruling that actually makes things better, we get an awful one in the other direction. 

And the SCOTUS just about gutted the 4th Amendment protections against unlawful searches last month.

 

[NCCommish]

For every court ruling that actually makes things better, we get an awful one in the other direction. 

And the SCOTUS just about gutted the 4th Amendment protections against unlawful searches last month.

Well at some point a defense lawyer will win over a jury proving that drug dogs suck. It's a mirage and someone will notice the emperor has no clothes and then that house of cards will come tumbling down.

Hundreds of people are doing time because forensics claimed it could tell what box a bullet came from. That was an outright lie. Never could have done it. Proven over and over it can't be done. Took years and years for that to penetrate the system. And when it did lots of problems for prosecutors who convicted people on pretty much that evidence alone. Will be many more years before that is all worked out.

By the way this goes back to my idea of trained professional jurors. Trained jurors who spent their time studying these issues would know about how often current forensics are wrong, how dogs aren't reliable and how CSI is bull####. Even DNA evidence can be manipulated. But John Q Public doesn't have the time or inclination. And therefore the shams continue unabated as no one but the defendant has an interest in exposing it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Well at some point a defense lawyer will win over a jury proving that drug dogs suck. It's a mirage and someone will notice the emperor has no clothes and then that house of cards will come tumbling down.

Hundreds of people are doing time because forensics claimed it could tell what box a bullet came from. That was an outright lie. Never could have done it. Proven over and over it can't be done. Took years and years for that to penetrate the system. And when it did lots of problems for prosecutors who convicted people on pretty much that evidence alone. Will be many more years before that is all worked out.

By the way this goes back to my idea of trained professional jurors. Trained jurors who spent their time studying these issues would know about how often current forensics are wrong, how dogs aren't reliable and how CSI is bull####. Even DNA evidence can be manipulated. But John Q Public doesn't have the time or inclination. And therefore the shams continue unabated as no one but the defendant has an interest in exposing it.

"Trained professional juries" exist, they are called judges. Defendants can request a trial by judge, in most situations. 

The the problem is that while judges may be better informed than the average juror, they are no less biased.

 

[NCCommish]

"Trained professional juries" exist, they are called judges. Defendants can request a trial by judge, in most situations. 

The the problem is that while judges may be better informed than the average juror, they are no less biased.

Yeah I mean jurors not judges. Judges are not that well informed on the science. If they were lots of cases would be thrown out. For instance everything we think we know about arson and how a fire works is wrong. And yet that bad science has been introduced and led to convictions. We know that fingerprints are shoddy when you let them get down to a low level of matching points. Yet judges allow it and peopel get convicted. We know that bite evidence is basically useless yet it is used in murder trials and allowed by judges leading to convictions.

The people who sit in the jury box need to know these things and need to act accordingly.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Yeah I mean jurors not judges. Judges are not that well informed on the science. If they were lots of cases would be thrown out. For instance everything we think we know about arson and how a fire works is wrong. And yet that bad science has been introduced and led to convictions. We know that fingerprints are shoddy when you let them get down to a low level of matching points. Yet judges allow it and peopel get convicted. We know that bite evidence is basically useless yet it is used in murder trials and allowed by judges leading to convictions.

The people who sit in the jury box need to know these things and need to act accordingly.

Okay.

There is no mechanism for professional juries legally.

And I suspect that prosecutors would be very opposed to the idea. Hell, some civil rights groups might be too. 

It will never happen, even if it is an interesting idea.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

When you combine these things your answer should always be no you may not. Your next question should be am I being detained. If they say no then off you go. you get your speeding ticket which is why you were stopped to begin with.

We keep overlooking the speeding in this case.

 

[NCCommish]

We keep overlooking the speeding in this case.

Not really. If they issue a ticket they do. That seems fair enough. But speeding in and of itself doesn't rise to the level of a crime to lead to an unwarranted search. That's why they asked permission. So they say we are writing you a ticket. Fine officer I'll wait over here while you do so and then we'll be on our way. Still don't have to consent.

 

[sho nuff]

It seems reasonable?

I would say it sounds wholly unreasonable, but might be the better of two bad alternatives.

What would be more reasonable is law enforcement not subjecting people to illegal searches as a matter of SOP.

They consented...its not illegal.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Not really. If they issue a ticket they do. That seems fair enough. But speeding in and of itself doesn't rise to the level of a crime to lead to an unwarranted search. That's why they asked permission. So they say we are writing you a ticket. Fine officer I'll wait over here while you do so and then we'll be on our way. Still don't have to consent.

I'm not saying you have to consent. I'm saying it's the smart play to get out of the (deserved) ticket.

 

[eoMMan]

OP, please provide the link to your avatar pic in full size. 

Thanks.

 

[Sconch]

I'm not saying you have to consent. I'm saying it's the smart play to get out of the (deserved) ticket.

What's the guarantee that you still won't get a ticket after the search?  

 

[NCCommish]

I'm not saying you have to consent. I'm saying it's the smart play to get out of the (deserved) ticket.

But is it? We have proof of police depts stopping motorists and finding any reason to search the car. If they find cash well you must be a drug dealer. There was a police dept that actually confiscated jewelry because the person wearing it didn't seem rich enough to them so it must be drug money related. They get to keep that stuff and sell it. Including the car if they want. When we turned police depts into profit centers there is no more just let them do their thing and you'll be fine. You very well may not be and in fact the speeding ticket might nave been the better option if you run into the wrong guy.

 

[Amused to Death]

But is it? We have proof of police depts stopping motorists and finding any reason to search the car. If they find cash well you must be a drug dealer. There was a police dept that actually confiscated jewelry because the person wearing it didn't seem rich enough to them so it must be drug money related. They get to keep that stuff and sell it. Including the car if they want. When we turned police depts into profit centers there is no more just let them do their thing and you'll be fine. You very well may not be and in fact the speeding ticket might nave been the better option if you run into the wrong guy.

My thought as well.  Half an hour after the search, you may be wishing all you got was a speeding ticket.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

My 18yr old son and his buddy where traveling back from a 4 day golf binge in Lexington Ky. when they got pulled over north of Indy... His buddy was driving and they were traveling 10-12mph over the speed limit. 2 officers cautiously approached the car and eventually got to the part of the conversation where they asked, do you have any drugs in the car.  They replied they didn't and the officer said you sure are nervous for not having anything to hide.  If you don't have anything to hide you won't mind if our K9 searches the car for drugs.  My son thought it was BS but knew he had nothing to hide so consented to the search.  They went through all luggage, golf bags, opened shampoo, deodorant inspected everything.  He said they stood on the side of the highway for 30 plus minutes. In the end they where clean and got let go with a warning to slow down.

I'm interested in the thoughts of the FFA... Some of my friends say they should have acted like disobedient "am I being charged with a crime" attitude; while others say cops and dogs need to train too.

What say ye?

Officer, I've never been in trouble with the law before so seeing your lights and getting pulled over definitely has me nervous not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure my dad is going to kick my ### if I get a speeding ticket.  I don't do drugs and there are none in the car.  However, I am not voluntarily agreeing to a K9 search of my car.  If you decide to move forward with a search, I understand but I will not be nervous that you will find anything because I know there is nothing to find.

 

[Bucky86]

Simply say, "I do not consent to any searches." Then sit down, shut up, and accept your ticket. Pretty simple. 

 

[jomar]

I'm not saying you have to consent. I'm saying it's the smart play to get out of the (deserved) ticket.

not the smart play if there's half a joint in my golf bag.  I'll take ticket and be on my way, officer

can't the officer just say that he smells pot and then have probable cause?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

They consented...its not illegal.

Absent consent it would be illegal. 

 

[NCCommish]

My thought as well.  Half an hour after the search, you may be wishing all you got was a speeding ticket.

Yep. I was just reading a report about how unreliable roadside drug tests are. They can be affected by a ton of variables down to how hot is it that day. Leading to one study showing that at least one third of the time the test gives a false positive. These tests cost 2 dollars and perform accordingly. But hey they find a little white fleck on your carpet and the 2 dollar test says it's crack. It's wrong but you are still screwed. Well now you are arrested and confiscation begins. Take the ticket.

 

[Ned]

Officer, I've never been in trouble with the law before so seeing your lights and getting pulled over definitely has me nervous not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure my dad is going to kick my ### if I get a speeding ticket.  I don't do drugs and there are none in the car.  However, I am not voluntarily agreeing to a K9 search of my car.  If you decide to move forward with a search, I understand but I will not be nervous that you will find anything because I know there is nothing to find.

My initial reaction of the cop using the 'nervousness' as an excuse to search was utter BS.  It's a kid who barely has his license and was just pulled over.  How many kids do you expect to not be nervous?  They simply took advantage of a young kid.  Thank god that dog didn't find something.

 

[mr roboto]

Absent consent it would be illegal. 

There's a joke in here that I'm just going to pass up. 

 

[simey]

I was the madam foreperson on a grand jury for a year. We met the first Monday of every month. Most of the indictments were drug charges, and the percentage of bust happened during traffic stops. The sgt. told us that a lot of people don't know that they can say no when they are asked if their car can be searched. He said that they generally ask those that seem nervous or ones that have a record when they call in the tag. He said all they have to say is no. They don't need to consult with a lawyer to say no either.  

 

[Bucky86]

My initial reaction of the cop using the 'nervousness' as an excuse to search was utter BS.  It's a kid who barely has his license and was just pulled over.  How many kids do you expect to not be nervous?  They simply took advantage of a young kid.  Thank god that dog didn't find something.

Exactly. The saw two young kids and they thought for sure they were going to find a few joints.  

 

[The_Man]

I've heard that if you say no, they bring in the dog and make it "alert" on the vehicle, and now they've got probable cause anyway. Plus you've got an angry cop who thinks you're hiding something.

I wonder what the percentage is of times a police dog has sniffed a car and not alerted, providing probable cause. Probably about 0%

 

[In The Zone]

I had an incident to the OP's son when I was 18 as well that ended similarly.  Got pulled over around 11 PM with a friend in the car going 7-10 mph over the speed limit and "swerving/not staying in the lane".  The officer pretty much terrified me into letting him search my car....we had nothing and were both stone cold sober.  He let us go without a ticket.

This is where a good dashcam could b handy.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

F' no pig.  Should have been their answer.  Maybe some F the police by NWA playing adds a little flavor.  Just kidding I am white so I don't worry about po po shooting me for driving while black.   

 

[In The Zone]

Also, IMO don't answer any questions not related to speeding. Where you are coming from, where you are going, passenger's ID are none of the cop's business. 

 

[The Tick]

The other big scare is while your son knows he doesn't have anything illegal in the car, he only thinks he "knows" that none of his friends do either. Even if it gets proven it's not his could be an issue for you guys.

glad to hear it turned out well though. Probably some good things to talk to him about.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

When it comes to the police, I think Joseph Heller's classic novel is instructive:

"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

 

[[icon]]

Serious question, has anyone in here advocating the "say no to the search request" actually said no to an officer's search request?  How did it go?

Yes. 

Was in college, got pulled over at 3am-ish for "going a little fast back there" (no alert on my radar detector, which he noticed on my window). I got a "You mind if we take a quick look around in your car?"  "No sir I'd rather you not, I'm just trying to get home from work at (Bar)" 

He kinda shined the light in my eyes for a bit waiting for me to say anything else, then took my license back to the car and came back with a warning. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

What's the guarantee that you still won't get a ticket after the search?  

There isn't one. But in this case that's how it turned out and I think it worked out well. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

not the smart play if there's half a joint in my golf bag. 

 

[urbanhack]

not the smart play if there's half a joint in my golf bag.  I'll take ticket and be on my way, officer

can't the officer just say that he smells pot and then have probable cause?

You need some doob tubes. 

 

[Sconch]

There isn't one. But in this case that's how it turned out and I think it worked out well. 

"See here, boy.  Y'all gotta a choice to make.  Y'all can take this here traffic ticket or we can violate the ever loving #### out of your civil rights.  Which one will it be?"

i guess im a dummy but I go with the first option.

 

[parasaurolophus]

"See here, boy.  Y'all gotta a choice to make.  Y'all can take this here traffic ticket or we can violate the ever loving #### out of your civil rights.  Which one will it be?"

i guess im a dummy but I go with the first option.

You know you have lived a sheltered life when a cop asking for permission to search a vehicle of adults (that were speeding and likely pretty darn hungover) and getting granted permission is considered such an extreme violation of civil rights. Its like that one time I went to Panera and they only had one kind of cream cheese. It was like free will had been stripped from me. 

 

[Sconch]

You know you have lived a sheltered life when a cop asking for permission to search a vehicle of adults (that were speeding and likely pretty darn hungover) and getting granted permission is considered such an extreme violation of civil rights. Its like that one time I went to Panera and they only had one kind of cream cheese. It was like free will had been stripped from me. 

Wow, nailed it.

 

[Johnny Rock]

My 18yr old son and his buddy where traveling back from a 4 day golf binge in Lexington Ky. when they got pulled over north of Indy... His buddy was driving and they were traveling 10-12mph over the speed limit. 2 officers cautiously approached the car and eventually got to the part of the conversation where they asked, do you have any drugs in the car.  They replied they didn't and the officer said you sure are nervous for not having anything to hide.  If you don't have anything to hide you won't mind if our K9 searches the car for drugs.  My son thought it was BS but knew he had nothing to hide so consented to the search.  They went through all luggage, golf bags, opened shampoo, deodorant inspected everything.  He said they stood on the side of the highway for 30 plus minutes. In the end they where clean and got let go with a warning to slow down.

I'm interested in the thoughts of the FFA... Some of my friends say they should have acted like disobedient "am I being charged with a crime" attitude; while others say cops and dogs need to train too.

What say ye?

Read the whole thread. Good conversation. 

Was it your son's car but his buddy was driving? I'm thinking yes because you said son consented. 

Is there any story about the K9? Or was that just the title?

 

[Sabertooth]

In my opinion they should not have given the cops permission to search. Be respectful to the police but do not allow a search without probable cause.

Exactly.  Never ever ever let the cops question you without a lawyer or consent to to let them search you.  

I made a mistake once by allowing cops to search a home I was flipping.  I got a call about a sexual assault that had alleged happened at the property.  I was out of town so when I got home, I went right over.  The cops were waiting there with a form to sign.  I did.  I knew had nothing to hide.  They opened every single container in the house, all my tool bags, nail boxes, paint cans, you name it good thing I'd already thrown away the weed and pipe the previous owner had left.  Otherwise I could have been charged with it.   

Well turns out the assault was my buddy hooking up with a chick after a nearby bar closed.  He went in and was investigated.  Her story was found to be very implausible.  She said he left her there after the assault and fled but there was camera footage of them walking to get cigarettes together the next morning.  Stuff like that.  

So for no reason at all I was in peril.  So was my friend.  #### that.  Never again.  I'll call a lawyer.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You know you have lived a sheltered life when a cop asking for permission to search a vehicle of adults (that were speeding and likely pretty darn hungover) and getting granted permission is considered such an extreme violation of civil rights. Its like that one time I went to Panera and they only had one kind of cream cheese. It was like free will had been stripped from me. 

This is an exceptionally stupid comment.

 

[top dog]

When I was 16 I was pulled over for speeding from an undercover drug task force vehichle.  I actually thought the two guys were following me from the local convenience store... I jumped out thinking I was going to have to fight these 2 guys, ... They asked me if the could search the car... I didn't have anything to hide so I said "Sure, I don't have anything to hide"... THey pulled the back seats down and really ripped apart the car...  The seats never really did lock back up if I remember right... My old man was livid with me..  "Don't you EVER agree for them to search your car!  Tell them no thank you and call me if you have to!"  He was pretty pissed that they damaged the back seat.  

The point?  You do stand the risk of them breaking something if they start ripping your car apart too...  Besides the whole 4th amendment thing..

 

[Amused to Death]

You know you have lived a sheltered life when a cop asking for permission to search a vehicle of adults (that were speeding and likely pretty darn hungover) and getting granted permission is considered such an extreme violation of civil rights. Its like that one time I went to Panera and they only had one kind of cream cheese. It was like free will had been stripped from me. 

Shouldn't be a problem if ya got nothing to hide, amirite?

 

[matuski]

"See here, boy.  Y'all gotta a choice to make.  Y'all can take this here traffic ticket or we can violate the ever loving #### out of your civil rights.  Which one will it be?"

i guess im a dummy but I go with the first option.

If you consent to the search, no civil rights are getting violated.

 

[parasaurolophus]

If you consent to the search, no civil rights are getting violated.

Police: Mind if we search your car?

Civilians: Go right ahead officer. 

Police: Well we didnt find anything. Seems like you guys are a couple of decent kids. Try to keep the speed down. Going to let you off with a warning.

Civilians: Thanks for violating my civil rights pig by politely asking if you could search and then doing it after I said yes.