The Use Of Drug Dogs Prior To A Signed Warrant

[LITLJON]

On my boring fathers day (son is camping), was thinking are dogs really a form of illegal search? Am I wrong? Shouldn't it be considered a tool used to search with, (like a flashlight,rubber gloves, computer, radiation detector, LEO personal, or even the eyes all tools for searching)? After all they are just dog's (I love dog's) and regardless if they say they are cops too, at the end of the day they are a dog. I hope this sparks some provocative thought because I feel it to be true.

[LITLJON]

Stirring the pot.

Police departments use dogs successfully to gather evidence, deter crime, protect officers, control crowds, and apprehend suspects.

 

My link

 

Dogs are often called upon to assist in law enforcement. Among other things, they can help detain a suspect, pursue a suspect (by tracking him), identify a suspect (by his scent), detect illegal substances (including bombs and controlled substances like illegal drugs), deter crime, protect officers, and control crowds.

 

Testimony that a dog alerted officers to the presence of illegal drugs is generally admissible. (United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983).) This is true even when officers are stopping an individual for a routine traffic ticket; as long as the traffic stop is based on probable cause, the police have the right to employ a drug-sniffing dog to walk around the car and attempt to discern the presence of illegal drugs inside it. (Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. ____ (2005), 01-24-2005, docket no. 03-923.)

[garyfisher]

In the recent 3 years, Michigan Supreme court has ruled that LEO can walk a drug dog up to the door of your house and this does not constitute an illegal search. If the dog (who is trained by the dog handler) signals there may be illegal substances within, that is probable cause for a search warrant.

[garyfisher]

Stirring the pot.

 

In reply to the drug dog in a traffic stop: If LEO has to call a drug dog to a traffic stop and you have to wait for this to happen, it is illegal. It is illegal because he is detaining you without probable cause. However, if you are stopped by a K9 unit, there is no wait time and he has the right to walk his dog around your car without detaining you...

[The Digital Nomad]

uh - the officer can reasonably detain you for as long as it takes for a K9 to respond. So, don't relax just yet because you didn't get pulled over by a K9. If the officer can make reasonable statements as to what causes suspicion or probable cause, you will be waiting for K9. Courts will uphold that officers can reasonably detain a person long enough to do a reasonable investigation. Holding someone for 40 minutes to check for a serious crime like drug trafficing is common, waits of 1.5 hours had been done before. They have also let people go, because K9 was tied up working another crime.

 

Dogs can be used on you as long as they are on public accessable areas of your property - ie - your front door. Unless you fence your property and stop all visitors at the gate, the public is assumed to be allowed to approach your front door.

 

Now this brings the real question -

Since judges acknowledge that a smell could be from a legal citizen growing for medical use per state law - just because a dog 'alerts' the handler for the smell of marijuana - that alone cannot be justifiable for a warrant. Same for my trashmen finding stems or seeds in my trash - it should have little or no evidentary value - as it does not mean a crime is being committed.

 

So how much weight or evidence do officers need? 1. smell 2. visual surveillance 3. reconizable drug traffic 4. criminal/financual records - perhaps now they need to collect more evidence to prove criminal activity is involved with marijuana.

 

DN

[garyfisher]

the officer can reasonably detain you for as long as it takes for a K9 to respond.

No. That would violate the 4th amendment. It is called illegal search and seizure. If you are pulled over for a traffic violation and detained for 40 minutes or 1.5 hours for a dog to show up, that is illegal. The reasonable investigation ends at the traffic citation. He no longer has probable cause to detain you for further investigation without evidence of another crime being committed. If he has evidence of another crime being committed, he doesn't need a dog because he already has probable cause. Suspicion is not probable cause.

http://en.wikipedia....ois_v._Caballes

Flex your rights. Ask if you are free to leave.

 

 

 

In regards to the dog alerting on your door. I dont think the dog discerns between marijuana and narcotics. That is why is is wise to stay well within the limits of our law. Your door may be kicked in at any time because it is impossible to know if you are a patient unless you tell them. This is why I strictly adhere to the 12 plant/ 2.5oz policy. It's not worth it. People are losing the right to claim medical simply by going over those numbers. It should be a civil infraction

[The Digital Nomad]

... as long as the vehicle is not detained beyond the time necessary to accomplish the purpose of the traffic stop, whether it be to issue a citation, await for a licensed driver, or simply give a warning, the exterior of the vehicle is free game for a sniff. The Tenth Circuit has held that no consent is required for a canine sniff, even absent any reasonable suspicion, if the vehicle is otherwise lawfully detained. United States v. Morales-Zamora.

 

..

But as I was referring to:

 

If your suspicions are aroused during the course of a traffic stop and you can articulate reasonable suspicion of drug activity, you may detain the vehicle for the arrival of a drug detection dog. Just what constitutes reasonable suspicion is beyond the scope of this article, however, reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause. The Supreme Court has defined reasonable suspicion as a "level of suspicion considerably less that proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance (a “more likely than not” standard) of the evidence. . . . The level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding than that for probable cause." United States v. Sokolow. Reasonable suspicion requires nothing more than particular facts, coupled with reasonable inferences drawn from those facts, that create a suspicion of criminal activity. You must form individual reasonable suspicion to detain the driver and any passengers, separate from the reasonable suspicion to detain the vehicle. If you cannot detain the occupants, tell them that they are free to leave, and make arrangements for them to later claim the vehicle, if appropriate.

 

..

 

If the driver consents to a sniff, the driver has also consented to the necessary detention while the drug detection dog arrives, according to United States v. Chivara, a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1802-the-dog-day-traffic-stop---basic-canine-search-and-seizure

 

http://www.caselaw4cops.net/searchandseizure/k9.htm

 

Anyone can protest their Admendment rights, after the stop. Like you closed your post with - stay legal, then even if they do find anything - you are following state law.

 

-DN

[+EdwardGlen]

I just love it when people say, "they can't do that it violates my rights" until this country regains its sanity and replaces politicians and judges with ones who really do respect our rights this statement has no meaning,

 

"they can't do that it violates my rights"

 

 

We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.

- Charles Evans Hughes