Police use dogs to illegally search

[Hannibull]

If a police dog is considered a "police officer" and is protected under the same laws as a police officer, than why should they be allowed to walk around the outside of a vehicle and search after the owner has refused search ? If you assult a police dog that is attacking you, you are charged with assulting a LEO. It seems that the law believes a dog labled a "police dog", is not held to the same standards as the police themselves. If this is true then the dick head holding the leash is infact carrying out an illegal search by using the dog. Not allowing a search on the side of the road after a traffic stop is in fact being used as probable cause for search because it almost always causes the release of the "hounds".

And how do we know the dog actually smelled any type of drugs??? The interpitation of the dogs reaction is solely the opinion of the same dickhead trying to crush your stones. How do we know that the police dog isnt reacting to, lets say, jelly donut crums under the seat.

 

[Weed420]

Nothing illegal about using a dog to search the outside of a vehicle.
Its the fake hits thats the issue. I've never heard of drug dog not hitting on a car.lol Its all phoney and there should be a way in court to prove that the dog didn't really hit on the car. But its pretty hard to put a dog on the witness stand. Dog hits should be ruled unconstitutional because you have a lega right to confront your accusers. Hard to talk to a dog.

 

[StinkFinger]

Believe it or not, your day in court can actually allow you to challenge the credibility of the dogs nose. During the discovery phase, you may inquire about:

*Handler's Logs
*Training Records
*Testing and Field Logs
*Score Sheets
*Certification Records
*Training Standards and Manuals
*What drugs has the dog been trained to alert on?
*Case Reports involving dogs
*Number of False Alerts
*What is the dog's method for Alerting?
*Can the dog tell when drugs were present?
*Training Records of Handler
*Veterinary Records

I'm not a lawyer, just a legal junkie. If you're interested in a brief read, you can see a summary of what case law guides defense lawyers (utilizing drug sniffing dogs).

https://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ids/Defender Training/2007 Fall Conference/DrugDogs.pdf

Have a great holiday!

 

[Hannibull]

If the dogs nose is as good as they "Meaning the law" say it is then they should need warrant to search with them. I know thats not the case but im just one of those crazy pot smokers. It seems pretty simple to me,the same thing as the cop searching without a warrant. It is their intention right?

 

[FreakNature]

Well if the dog's reaction is real or not, if they subsequently enter the vehicle and find contraband, it doesn't matter. You're sunk, unless you can get it thrown out for some technicality or argue it well enough in court. If there's no contraband to find then most people will allow a search. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. But the OP has a very good point I think.

 

[EdwardChase]

Illinois v. Caballes, ruled the use of drug-sniffing dogs to detect drugs in automobiles on routine traffic stops is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Case law is specific; "Using a trained drug-sniffing dog is not a search that you're protected from by the Fourth Amendment." And using dogs to search vehicles w/o another cause is by all means legal.

You bring up some valid arguments but many of them have been tried and tested w/o much success. Legislation helped that dickhead bust you man.

Good luck!!