OC for ME
Regular Member
Take who to court.....the dog? Good luck with that.
Use of search dogs is a search under the 4th amendment. You would have to take them to court to see if an exemption is appropriate.
Use of search dogs is a search under the 4th amendment. You would have to take them to court to see if an exemption is appropriate.
Well my thoughts on this are
1) We in Western WA state consent to a search when we board the ferry. I believe the reason is due to the fact that ships are a unique environment versus traditional road transportation.
2) the search is not illegal as you agreed to such search by using the ferry
A dog smelling odors is no different than plain sight. But if a trained attack dog is allowed to sniff a person up close I would consider that an assault. IMO
They would still need permission, or a warrant to search after the dog alerts.
I don't know. Dogs have an enhanced sense of smell and we don't have enhanced vision. Imagine saying its in plain sight if you use an X-ray. Plain sight should mean just that.
Screw with them, put scent drops on random bags. Deer, Pheasant, quail, duck,...... get creative.
One drop is all it takes to get a dog's attention.
All those false alerts should get the dog's testimony thrown out of court. The other thing to note is that dogs are being trained to give false positives by way of cues from the handler.
EDIT: to beat someone to the cite request
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/false-positives-police-canines-searches/
Actually, you would screw with the handler's sniffer....if the dog is trained to sniff for explosives, the scent of a deer won't confuse him. They may smell the deer scent, but the dog will disregard it and look for the explosive scent. If you have never worked with or seen a cadaver or arson dog in action, it is remarkable what they can smell. They wouldn't have a false alert, if trained properly.
How about "Rose O'Donnell" scent? Dog may just hold his breath until dead I assume.
A dog smelling odors is no different than plain sight. But if a trained attack dog is allowed to sniff a person up close I would consider that an assault. IMO
They would still need permission, or a warrant to search after the dog alerts.
Actually I did not intend to have your quote in the post, I hit the wrong button. I should have fixed it, sorry.
Fixed~again my apologies.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing it up.
By the way, I read your post again. Cite please. ( "They would still need permission, or a warrant to search after the dog alerts." )
To all readers. A request for a cite is not a backhanded way of arguing or claiming the statement is wrong. I've requested cites tons of times when I knew full well the other member had imparted the law correctly. So, just because a cite is requested does not mean the other guy is wrong. It just means he made a statement about a rule of law without providing a cite to authority.
Actually, you would screw with the handler's sniffer....if the dog is trained to sniff for explosives, the scent of a deer won't confuse him. They may smell the deer scent, but the dog will disregard it and look for the explosive scent. If you have never worked with or seen a cadaver or arson dog in action, it is remarkable what they can smell. They wouldn't have a false alert, if trained properly.
I'll have to dig, but when I was working still, we needed either permission from the property owner, or a warrant, to proceed further. This was for both military and civilian. Now that was a long time before Homeland security or the Patriot Act.
This was the first thing I came across, but I am sure there is more. http://www.policek9.com/html/drugdog.html
http://www.policeone.com/K-9/articl...nt-rights-A-Quinlan-investigative-stops-quiz/
the police can search anytime, anywhere they want to, and you can not legally stop them. the difference is, if and when it goes to court, weather or not the "evidence" is thrown out. then it will be up to the courts weather or not we can be convicted on that evidence, or of course, on what the LEOs saw.