Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Traffic stop delayed for drug dog. Not more than eight minutes, USCA8

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Traffic stop delayed for drug dog. Not more than eight minutes, USCA8

    "Just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Rodriguez that seven to eight minutes is de minimis. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Nevada held a few months ago in State v. Beckman that nine minutes is too long."

    http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/01/131176P.pdf http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-suprem...t/1638595.html
    If courts say that the police can’t extend the stop even one second to bring over the dogs, then the dogs will only be used when they happen to be right there or some reasonable suspicion exists specifically justifying their use. On the other hand, if the courts say that the police can extend the stop for a long time, then the police will be free to bring out the dogs at routine traffic stops whenever they like. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...traffic-stops/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    So they are admitting they don't have enough RS to justify the detention until they use a dog, but in order to do that they must detain them........
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    So they are admitting they don't have enough RS to justify the detention until they use a dog, but in order to do that they must detain them.
    That's the way I have always understood it.

    I believe that is also why THEY are so resistant to one securing ones car (windows up doors locked keys pocketed) and greeting the cop curbside in front of ones car, with two barriers to oncoming traffic. They need the extra-legal sniff and peek to argue cause, it is essential to their argument.

    We let them get away with it for their threat of harassment and death.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    So they are admitting they don't have enough RS to justify the detention until they use a dog, but in order to do that they must detain them........
    No you still have RAS for the stop based on the traffic infraction. Then you need separate PC for a search in the vehicle. The dog can build that PC for said search. But the issue is the RAS you used for the traffic stop is NOT RAS to keep you to build RAS /PC for other things (drugs).

    If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop then its ok. But its exactly that has to be in the course of the stop.

    8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive then the stop for the light. Which I think is their whole point.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No you still have RAS for the stop based on the traffic infraction. Then you need separate PC for a search in the vehicle. The dog can build that PC for said search. But the issue is the RAS you used for the traffic stop is NOT RAS to keep you to build RAS /PC for other things (drugs).

    If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop then its ok. But its exactly that has to be in the course of the stop.

    8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive then the stop for the light. Which I think is their whole point.
    Dogs are OFTEN wrong.

    In fact, they are wrong more often than they are right.

    Dogs are about as accurate as PIGS.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Dogs are OFTEN wrong.

    In fact, they are wrong more often than they are right.

    Dogs are about as accurate as PIGS.
    Actually pigs are very accurate. They are used to sniff out truffles. Which are worth a lot of money.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Actually pigs are very accurate. They are used to sniff out truffles. Which are worth a lot of money.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I film pigs almost every day. Looks to me like 98% of their searches yield nothing.

  8. #8
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    Not sure, but I think Onus may have been referring to the two legged kind of "PIGS"?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Dogs are OFTEN wrong.

    In fact, they are wrong more often than they are right.
    Cite please.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No you still have RAS for the stop based on the traffic infraction. Then you need separate PC for a search in the vehicle. The dog can build that PC for said search. But the issue is the RAS you used for the traffic stop is NOT RAS to keep you to build RAS /PC for other things (drugs).

    If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop then its ok. But its exactly that has to be in the course of the stop.

    8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive then the stop for the light. Which I think is their whole point.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    The poster I quoted flings more fallacies.

    First, regarding a dog sniff he writes, "If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop...has to be in the course of the stop. That is absolutely not what the court wrote in the opinion upon which SVG was commenting. In fact, the court expressly said at the end of that opinion that the court did not have to address that question.

    And, then we have this fallacious gem, "8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive..." Meaning, since you are already seized, an additional eight minutes is fine--not because it was justified, but because its only a little while. And, since additional unjustified seizure is not any more intrusive than a justified seizure, its "fine."

    SVG called it right. The court in essence said they don't have enough RAS/PC to justify the additional seizure until they use the dog, but they can seize the motorist until they use the dog.

    But, there is an additional problem. Read the opinion again. Notice the cop had no RAS for the additional seizure. Then he asked consent to walk the dog around, which the driver refused. At that point the cop called for back up, continued the seizure, and then walked the dog around. Facially, the car was searched (sniffed) because he exercised his right to refuse consent. Meaning, the exercise of the right to refuse consent was what bought the driver the additional seizure and search.

    This is another reason the court danced around the RAS question. Had they called any attention to the lack of RAS for the sniff-search, the fact he was additionally seized and searched solely for exercising his right to refuse consent would have been too obvious.

    This is an outrage to any red-blooded American who knows the price paid in blood and treasure to obtain the right in question!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Drug dogs accuracy

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...acker-drug-dog

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/cr...aining-program

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ten-than-right

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ten-than-right

    That’s how Justice David Souter put it in 2005, in dissenting from another pro-dog ruling. Souter said, in response to the argument that dogs can only detect the presence or absence of drugs, that “the infallible dog, however, is a creature of legal fiction.” Souter’s best evidence was an Illinois study showing that trained dogs tasked with sniffing for drugs came up with false positives between 12 and 60 percent of the time. In fact, there’d been hints of the false positive problem earlier: In Indiana in 1979, 26 trained dogs sniffed 2,780 junior high and high school students, running their noses along the kids’ legs. They identified 50 students as drug carriers. The kids were strip-searched or told to empty their pockets. Thirty-five of the 50 students were clean.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...onducting.html
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-02-2014 at 04:43 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,619
    Those are essentially the same report, cited four different times.

    I don't doubt but that poorly trained and badly handled dogs have a substantial failure rate. Well trained and supervised dogs will do considerably better - I have personally witnessed extreme success in a training environments with some of the best trainers.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Those are essentially the same report, cited four different times.

    I don't doubt but that poorly trained and badly handled dogs have a substantial failure rate. Well trained and supervised dogs will do considerably better - I have personally witnessed extreme success in a training environments with some of the best trainers.
    I think (hence opinion hence no cite needed) that a dog handler can make the dog do whatever he wants and interpret the dog's movements however he wants.

    This is not a scientific examination for compounds ~ its voodoo ~ and voodoo that the courts embrace.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    This is not a scientific examination for compounds ~ its voodoo ~ and voodoo that the courts embrace.
    Thanks David.

    Coincidentally, I ATM doing background on Bill Nye and Ken Ham that stream a Cr-evo debate Tuesday from the Creation Museum. Bill Nye will lose and Ken Ham will quibble on Nye's citations. They could have gotten a better spokesperson for Evo than a children's entertainer.

    http://debatelive.org/?utm_source=cr...ken-ham-debate
    Last edited by Nightmare; 02-02-2014 at 05:12 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    So, let me see if I understand this correctly... Essentially what this all boils down to is that the courts have decided that even though prolonged detention beyond what is necessary is essentially a violation of a person's rights, it is legally consequential (opening the possibility of suppressing evidence) only when that violative detention is "long enough" to be a "big deal" and the arbitrary number of minutes that they've decided on appears to be about 8 or 9 minutes.
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    George Mason Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2006 Detector Dogs and Probable Cause

    Abstract:
    In this Article, the Author argues that an alert by a detector dog, standing alone, does not provide enough information to a court to allow it to decide whether the alert established probable cause to search. Given the variability of dogs and handlers, courts need access to the particular dog’s track record in the field to determine the particular dog’s initial rate of accuracy. As the included Bayesian analysis demonstrates, a base rate calculation of some kind is necessary before the determination can be made. The possibility of false positives means that in a given case, an alert by a very accurate dog might not mean that there is even a probability that there is contraband present.

    Number of Pages in PDF File: 36
    Accepted Paper Series
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Question : How come law enforcement agencies don't compile statistics or records from actual field incidents on canine accuracy ?

    Answer : It would destroy the myth that dogs can accurately detect drugs or illegal human beings. It would also expose the truth about police using canines and "false alerts" to search vehicles only to find the dog was wrong and nothing illegal was inside the car.

  18. #18
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Question : How come law enforcement agencies don't compile statistics or records from actual field incidents on canine accuracy ?

    Answer : It would destroy the myth that dogs can accurately detect drugs or illegal human beings. It would also expose the truth about police using canines and "false alerts" to search vehicles only to find the dog was wrong and nothing illegal was inside the car.
    You mean, only to find that the officer and his "hunch," that led to him using the dog to fabricate PC/RAS, was wrong.

    Not saying that's always the case. I'm sure that dogs are legitimately used for policing purposes, probably every single day, but I'm also sure that they are misused for bad policing fairly often as well.
    Advocate freedom please

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The poster I quoted flings more fallacies.

    First, regarding a dog sniff he writes, "If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop...has to be in the course of the stop. That is absolutely not what the court wrote in the opinion upon which SVG was commenting. In fact, the court expressly said at the end of that opinion that the court did not have to address that question.

    And, then we have this fallacious gem, "8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive..." Meaning, since you are already seized, an additional eight minutes is fine--not because it was justified, but because its only a little while. And, since additional unjustified seizure is not any more intrusive than a justified seizure, its "fine."

    SVG called it right. The court in essence said they don't have enough RAS/PC to justify the additional seizure until they use the dog, but they can seize the motorist until they use the dog.

    But, there is an additional problem. Read the opinion again. Notice the cop had no RAS for the additional seizure. Then he asked consent to walk the dog around, which the driver refused. At that point the cop called for back up, continued the seizure, and then walked the dog around. Facially, the car was searched (sniffed) because he exercised his right to refuse consent. Meaning, the exercise of the right to refuse consent was what bought the driver the additional seizure and search.

    This is another reason the court danced around the RAS question. Had they called any attention to the lack of RAS for the sniff-search, the fact he was additionally seized and searched solely for exercising his right to refuse consent would have been too obvious.

    This is an outrage to any red-blooded American who knows the price paid in blood and treasure to obtain the right in question!
    What? Where did I say ADDITIONAL 8 minutes? You can't call a k9 after first interaction then write citation as they are driving there?

    Hmmm....



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    I film pigs almost every day. Looks to me like 98% of their searches yield nothing.
    Are you referring to police as pigs?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What? Where did I say ADDITIONAL 8 minutes? You can't call a k9 after first interaction then write citation as they are driving there?

    Hmmm....



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    My understanding is that...
    He is talking about what happened in the cases which this thread was created to discuss. In the first case, it was an additional 7-8 minute wait after the written warning was issued before the drug dog search was conducted, and the court said that this was not too long of a wait, not too big of a violation of the person's rights. In the second case, the detainee was actually released after the written warning for the traffic violation and then re-detained in order to wait for the drug dog. In the second case, the wait was 9 minutes and the court ruled that this actually was too long, but irrelevant because the detention itself was unlawful as it was a separate detention than the detention for the traffic violation.
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    Dogs are OFTEN wrong.

    In fact, they are wrong more often than they are right.

    Dogs are about as accurate as PIGS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Cite please.
    http://illinoistimes.com/article-133...niff-test.html

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/cr...ty-police-dogs

    Second one had 100% false positives.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    George Mason Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2006 Detector Dogs and Probable Cause

    George Mason Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2006 Detector Dogs and Probable Cause

    Applying Bayes’ Theorem debunks the common fallacy that an alert by a dog with a ninety percent success rate means there is a ninety percent chance that this particular vehicle contains the controlled substance. In fact, that conclusion could not be further from the truth. Yet, as the literature and the cases confirm, such a conclusion is a widely held and intuitive misconception.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What? Where did I say ADDITIONAL 8 minutes? You can't call a k9 after first interaction then write citation as they are driving there?

    Hmmm....



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE
    Depends on the definition of "first interaction". Is that eye contact? The clock starts ticking when the brake lights come on the "Scrote's" ve-he-cle after the road pirate hits the blue lights? Or does the interaction begin after the pirate thinks he's been served some "contempt of cop" in the form of a refusal to search"?

    Something tells me there has been locker room tutorials to get around the time restrictions, hasn't there? Constitutional rights. Just something to overcome.
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 02-02-2014 at 06:45 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    No you still have RAS for the stop based on the traffic infraction. Then you need separate PC for a search in the vehicle. The dog can build that PC for said search. But the issue is the RAS you used for the traffic stop is NOT RAS to keep you to build RAS /PC for other things (drugs).

    If you happen to build RAS/PC based on observations in the course of your stop then its ok. But its exactly that has to be in the course of the stop.

    8 minutes is fine. You'll be out there that long anyways if a citation is being written so its not anymore intrusive then the stop for the light. Which I think is their whole point.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    No, detaining the motorist for even an additional second for the sole purpose of letting the dog sniff should require PC, or the intent of the 4A is being completely ignored. The officer has no business continuing to seize a citizen without already having a good reason, not just for the purpose of developing it, as you suggest he should be given the opportunity.

    If the dog is on the scene already and alerts during an otherwise lawful stop, without increasing the delay, that is one thing. It is a completely different matter to delay a person while building PC. The latter is unacceptable.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •