• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illegal search?

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 
Last edited:

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
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.

i love dogs, you can trust them before anyone esle. i use to know a shepperd that had great training ability.

The HLS is the reason behind those searches. I know why, and cant explain. Just understand that the federal law is not what restricts your right to have fireamrs within a state.
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
WA State v Quick

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

For some of our WA islands, the state ferry system is the only means of getting on/off. The ferry system is also an extension of the WA highway.

Constitutional protections do not end at the ferry line, regardless of any sign they may put up.

State v Quick Sep 1990: "Holding that the warrant less search without probable cause was not justified under the "functional Equivalent of the border", "extended border", or "fixed checkpoint" rationales, The court reverses the judgement."

http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/state-patrol-suspends-random-searches-ferry-docks

"Through a public disclosure law request, the ACLU obtained an advisory opinion by the Washington Attorney General's office that questioned the legality of the ferry dock searches. It stated that, "Random searches of vehicles in this manner with no individualized suspicion and conducted to prevent possible terrorist activity are unprecedented in Washington state, therefore there is no clear authority authorizing the practice." The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that random roadblocks on our state's roads are unlawful."

There have been instances where the captain of the ferry has denied permission to board, to people who have refused a search. I can't find any case law on this, suggesting that no one has sued as a result of being denied passage.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
Since most area's a dog is given the same status as an officer. wouldn't that make them the same as under the constitution

but also i know if a human police officer smells something that is probable cause
 

Uber_Olafsun

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.

Well the dog is non intrusive, and is trained to only detect a limited range of substances. Where as the X Ray machine can see every single thing you have is the distinction SCOTUS Made
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Many long years ago, when I was still a young, slim, NCO, they used to bring the dogs through every once in a while, both in the barracks and at work.

Group of us soldiers sitting in the break room, enjoying a smoke, and they brought a dog in. I don't remember what I had eaten the night before, but it had some unfortunate side effects on my gastrointestinal system causing me to be extremely flatulent. The dog stuck his nose near my rear end and I couldn't hold it;).

That dog almost broke the handler's arm trying to get away from that smell!!

Not that I would advocate anyone expelling flatus in the face of an innocent dog, but kimchee seems to be remarkably effective.:lol:

Why, yes, I am a crude, evil old man. Why do you ask?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.

Be that as it may, McBeth made a declaration about the law, and needs to provide a citation to the relevant statute or court opinion. This is required by the forum rules.* It removes the matter from the realm of "internet jabber" for readers who do not know the law, and cuts way down on arguments.

It also sets apart the serious OCers from the rest. Those who are serious take the time to learn and read the law, and ensure new guys get it straight the first time from the correct source.

An alternative to not providing a cite, is to not say anything at all.


*(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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. :p:) ( "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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing it up.

By the way, I read your post again. Cite please. :p:) ( "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.

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/
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
On WA state ferries, the only time my vehicle has been opened ad searched is when I was going Anacordes to Sydney, BC, which is a border crossing, and it was a Customs and Immigration glance, not a real "search". Happens between Sydney and Friday Harbor. If I was just going to Friday Harbor, (or Keystone/Port Townsend) I have never been searched on a WA State Ferry. Don't think it is legal.

BTW: If there was a random search on a WA State Ferry, while underway between two WA ports, I would be of the opinion that it would have to be a Coast Guard search, but even then, I still don't think it would be legal.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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.

Sorry, but the dog is looking for his toy. he has been conditioned that the toy will be given to him when he "hits" on certain smells. in a controlled environment, this will work every time, but in an open or uncontrolled environment the dog will get hundreds of smells. also there are hundreds of smells that are very similar that the dog will "hit" on. it is up to the handler"s "interpretation" the dogs reaction. of course this is the handlers goal is to get a search
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.

Do you have a cite that they can "legally" search without a warrant, without consent, without exigent circumstances, or other reasonable circumstances? If the evidence is thrown out it is because the evidence was illegally obtained.
 
Top