How to Handle this? (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

 

[Flying V]

Just be happy the small town cop didn't already have some drugs planted on your car.

You need to start watching some old Rockford Files and wise up.

 

[Zow]

so with permission if needed or without permission if not needed.....cops could go through the parking lots of concerts/football games/shopping malls/hotels/restraunts etc.....with drug sniffing dogs searching every vehicle....

wow

Sure they could. But it's a terrible waste of time and resources when you consider the slim odds of it working.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

You know, I can be pretty uptight about some things, but when I read some of the posts on here, I wonder how some of you guys function at all.

 

[NCCommish]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

And where is his probable cause to conduct said search? I am not a lawyer but I feel like PC comes before the search not after. I think him actually arresting anyone would be problematic at best.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

 

[T Bell]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

And where is his probable cause to conduct said search? I am not a lawyer but I feel like PC comes before the search not after. I think him actually arresting anyone would be problematic at best.

The car is in a public place, without a reasonable expectation of privacy. He has the same right to have his dog sniff (at the exterior of the car) as he does to look at it there. And as the OP indicated, the cop said up front he had the property owner's permission to be there so that's not an issue.

 

[Sarnoff]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

 

[T Bell]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Like I said, the car is out in the open and the search is not intrusive.

 

[mr roboto]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Dog sniffing outside of a car isn't a search.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Like I said, the car is out in the open and the search is not intrusive.

So the cops could just take their K-9s up and down the aisles of any parking lot they wish and get "hits". That give them cause to then "intrusively" search said cars?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Dog sniffing outside of a car isn't a search.

Sounds to me like it is. What's the dog doing? Looking for a place to piss?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Like I said, the car is out in the open and the search is not intrusive.

So the cops could just take their K-9s up and down the aisles of any parking lot they wish and get "hits". That give them cause to then "intrusively" search said cars?

Is you not understanding this shtick?

 

[mr roboto]

OPM, I agree it sounds like bull ####, but I think it's true.

 

[Sarnoff]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Dog sniffing outside of a car isn't a search.

Sounds to me like it is. What's the dog doing? Looking for a place to piss?

The dog is not entering the car. He's just smelling the air around it.

 

[Sarnoff]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

The dog is the probable cause to conduct an "intrusive" search. Just sniffing around the outside is not protected in any way and is not, in and of itself, a "search". That's just gathering the evidence to create the probable cause for the actual search.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

The dog is the probable cause to conduct an "intrusive" search. Just sniffing around the outside is not protected in any way and is not, in and of itself, a "search". That's just gathering the evidence to create the probable cause for the actual search.

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

 

[Sarnoff]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

The dog is the probable cause to conduct an "intrusive" search. Just sniffing around the outside is not protected in any way and is not, in and of itself, a "search". That's just gathering the evidence to create the probable cause for the actual search.

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

100% serious. Correct, the dog isn't "searching".

A cop is not searching when he can see from the street your house is blue or whatever. He's just taking in the view that is available to the general public. If drug fumes waft into his nose while he's on the street, of course that's part of the evidence that can be used to conduct a search. Same with the dog, it's just out in public doing it's thing. It just so happens to be sniffing the air around your car. You have no "expectation of privacy" to the air molecules that are a foot outside your car doors. That's public territory. Cops can do whatever they want in the public territory.

 

[Witz]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

The dog is the probable cause to conduct an "intrusive" search. Just sniffing around the outside is not protected in any way and is not, in and of itself, a "search". That's just gathering the evidence to create the probable cause for the actual search.

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

Probably no more than an officer walking around and seeing/smelling/sensing something.

I would have thought they would covered this in the academy officer.

 

[Sarnoff]

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

The case is US v. Place.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics. Because a dog sniff is so limited a test, the Court carved out this exception from the broad category of "searches" for which a warrant is generally required.

...

A "search" is an unwarranted intrusion on a person's objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. But the sniff does not require opening the luggage; it does not expose things that are not contraband to public view. The sniff is thus far more limited than the typical search. Moreover, the sniff merely reveals the presence or absence of narcotics. Thus, it is sui generis, and does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

"Search" is a legal term that doesn't just mean "checking for something."

 

[T Bell]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

Sure it is

Why doesn't the cop have to have probable cause to conduct the search?

Like I said, the car is out in the open and the search is not intrusive.

So the cops could just take their K-9s up and down the aisles of any parking lot they wish and get "hits". That give them cause to then "intrusively" search said cars?

Yes.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

The case is US v. Place.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics. Because a dog sniff is so limited a test, the Court carved out this exception from the broad category of "searches" for which a warrant is generally required.

...

A "search" is an unwarranted intrusion on a person's objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. But the sniff does not require opening the luggage; it does not expose things that are not contraband to public view. The sniff is thus far more limited than the typical search. Moreover, the sniff merely reveals the presence or absence of narcotics. Thus, it is sui generis, and does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

Thanks for that.

I guess I just don't agree with the ruling.

Besides the fact that these dogs are unreliable it sounds like a ####### search to me.

 

[Sarnoff]

100% serious

So the dog isn't searching when it is sniffing around the car?

The case is US v. Place.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the sniff of a dog is sui generis, intended to reveal only the presence or absence of narcotics. Because a dog sniff is so limited a test, the Court carved out this exception from the broad category of "searches" for which a warrant is generally required.

...

A "search" is an unwarranted intrusion on a person's objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. But the sniff does not require opening the luggage; it does not expose things that are not contraband to public view. The sniff is thus far more limited than the typical search. Moreover, the sniff merely reveals the presence or absence of narcotics. Thus, it is sui generis, and does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

Thanks for that.

I guess I just don't agree with the ruling.

Besides the fact that these dogs are unreliable it sounds like a ####### search to me.

Oh, it's totally #######. But that's how the law works. If it's something that the public could just "stumble upon", like an odor a foot away from a car door, then it's out in the open and you have no privacy. (On the other hand, the court did get right two cases regarding homes: in Kyllo v US they found that using "thermal imaging" to detect what was going on inside a house, through the walls, was an unreasonable search. And, in Florida v Jardines, they found that a cop can't walk the dog up to the front door of a house to do his sniffing without a warrant and probable cause, instead the dog has to be out on the street and off private property.)

The unreliability issue was brought up in another case last year, Florida v. Harris. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that dogs are accurate enough:

if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, or if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using a "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

And next time say "Am I being detained?" if he says no you are free to go regardless if the dog is done sniffing or not. I personally think its BS for them to be doing that without PC to sniff the car. On traffic stops they cannot take more than a reasonable amount of time to issue a citation so if they ever say they have to wait for a K9 unit before you are allowed to go they are breaking they law.

 

[Zow]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

And where is his probable cause to conduct said search? I am not a lawyer but I feel like PC comes before the search not after. I think him actually arresting anyone would be problematic at best.

When a police dog with proper training gets a "hit" for drugs (as the post I was quoting indicated in the hypo) then it is very likely that is the probable cause for the officer to search the car.

 

[Zow]

And next time say "Am I being detained?" if he says no you are free to go regardless if the dog is done sniffing or not. I personally think its BS for them to be doing that without PC to sniff the car. On traffic stops they cannot take more than a reasonable amount of time to issue a citation so if they ever say they have to wait for a K9 unit before you are allowed to go they are breaking they law.

Not exactly. Caselaw in my jurisdiction has found as much as an hour to be a "reasonable wait" for a dog sniff.

 

[Zow]

I guess my problem is that the cop's initial instruction to me was to not enter my car - I refused to comply and ultimately he let me get in the car and drive off.

The problem I have is that some, or even many, people would just do what he says - let's say he gets a hit on the car, and that leads to some sort of surveillance or something similar that ultimately leads to a search of my property. That doesn't seem right.

If he gets a hit on your car he likely has PC to search it right there on the spot.

wtf This can't be right.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

OPM

I see what you did there.

 

[TheIronSheik]

How do you guys feel about cops looking in car windows?

 

[SacramentoBob]

How do you guys feel about cops looking in car windows?

As long as I'm not having sex, I'm okay with it.

 

[Spike]

put a banana in the cop's tailpipe.

put a banana in the dog's tailpipe