• 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.

K9 alert for drugs" in car search Question

Yard Sale

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
708
Location
Northern Nevada, ,
Still wondering.

RAS = required for detention

PC = required for search, arrest, or warrant

Neither is required for an external plain look/plain smell, dog or not.

If the dog creates false PC for a search which does not turn up evidence of that PC, but turns up a gun or some other verboten contraband, what do you think will happen? "Oh golly, my canine partner made a mistake so I'll just let you go on your way with your pistol." You take the ride and have a lawyer fight to suppress the evidence.

You can search this cite for recent canine sniff case law:

http://fourthamendment.com/
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
RAS = required for detention

PC = required for search, arrest, or warrant

Neither is required for an external plain look/plain smell, dog or not.

If the dog creates false PC for a search which does not turn up evidence of that PC, but turns up a gun or some other verboten contraband, what do you think will happen? "Oh golly, my canine partner made a mistake so I'll just let you go on your way with your pistol." You take the ride and have a lawyer fight to suppress the evidence.

You can search this cite for recent canine sniff case law:

http://fourthamendment.com/

Yet one costumed rights infringer claims.....

" If the officer has RS/PC for a sniff he's going to call the dog BEFORE he gives the citation... Is no needs to "ask" or give the citation so your free to leave. He would just get the dog and have it there shortly and conduct the search.... Also the OP seemed to be asking what happens AFTER the search and something is found.. Not how to "avoid" said search..."

If he already has RS/PC why call the dog.

Seems to me a tacit admission that he doesn't and is using the dog as a RS/PC generator. Using dogs should be outlawed.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Yet one costumed rights infringer claims.....

" If the officer has RS/PC for a sniff he's going to call the dog BEFORE he gives the citation... Is no needs to "ask" or give the citation so your free to leave. He would just get the dog and have it there shortly and conduct the search.... Also the OP seemed to be asking what happens AFTER the search and something is found.. Not how to "avoid" said search..."

If he already has RS/PC why call the dog.

Seems to me a tacit admission that he doesn't and is using the dog as a RS/PC generator. Using dogs should be outlawed.

"Costumed rights infringer".... That's cute.. Come up with that all on your own or get help?

And let me walk you through it reaallll slow.

If he smells MJ or sees other things that build RAS he can then call dog. Dog comes and alerts on car which creates Probable cause for search or maybe warrsnt.

Get it? See it's a tiered concept. You can build RAS on your own. Then use a tool like a dog to build on (another tier maybe?) And then eventually have PC based on all that you have found.

But in reality as already stated the dog thing is a state issue because there's probably dozens of cases throughout the States that dictate when/how dogs are used and then what's admissible.

Less talk more listen/research.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
"Costumed rights infringer".... That's cute.. Come up with that all on your own or get help?

If you aren't one of those who infringe on people's rights, then I see no need for you to be offended. You do hate crooked cops, right? He's just appealing to your gang mentality.
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
Cop shops having dogs to begin with must be outlawed.

Funny.. In one thread about dogs being shot by police, you guys will recognize a dog as private property and condemn the police for shooting a creature that is fuzzy and loveable to it's owners. (I do recognize that sometimes a trigger happy punk shoots a compliant and friendly dog just to kill something.) Yet when referring to the K-9, which is property of the police department (and since we all support unfettered OC... by extension we support companies and organizations owning property) you say that it must be banned. Why? Is there any reason you personally want to infringe on the property rights of others? Do you have something under your seat that you shouldn't? You've obviously never watched a K-9 clear out a crack house. Or maybe you have and that's why you oppose K-9s. It's awesome to see one dog do what a whole police department cannot, isn't it?

Do you also support the banning of war dogs used to detect explosives and save lives because they might alert when something isn't there (or is no longer there?)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
"Costumed rights infringer".... That's cute.. Come up with that all on your own or get help?

And let me walk you through it reaallll slow.

If he smells MJ or sees other things that build RAS he can then call dog. Dog comes and alerts on car which creates Probable cause for search or maybe warrsnt.

Get it? See it's a tiered concept. You can build RAS on your own. Then use a tool like a dog to build on (another tier maybe?) And then eventually have PC based on all that you have found.

But in reality as already stated the dog thing is a state issue because there's probably dozens of cases throughout the States that dictate when/how dogs are used and then what's admissible.

Less talk more listen/research.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

:rolleyes: You have PC or RAS or you don't.

Using another method to by pass rights is an infringement capice? If you don't have it without the dog and need to call one in you are purposefully trying to work around the 4th.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Funny.. In one thread about dogs being shot by police, you guys will recognize a dog as private property and condemn the police for shooting a creature that is fuzzy and loveable to it's owners. (I do recognize that sometimes a trigger happy punk shoots a compliant and friendly dog just to kill something.) Yet when referring to the K-9, which is property of the police department (and since we all support unfettered OC... by extension we support companies and organizations owning property) you say that it must be banned. Why? Is there any reason you personally want to infringe on the property rights of others? Do you have something under your seat that you shouldn't? You've obviously never watched a K-9 clear out a crack house. Or maybe you have and that's why you oppose K-9s. It's awesome to see one dog do what a whole police department cannot, isn't it?

Do you also support the banning of war dogs used to detect explosives and save lives because they might alert when something isn't there (or is no longer there?)

A trained dog owned by the cops is a search tool. They should only be implemented in the same way you would implement a physical search. The 4th guarantees security against unreasonable searches.
A dog is property just like a vehicle x-ray machine is property. The use of either must be limited on private citizens without a warrant to do so based on probable cause.
These damn fishing expeditions are egregious.
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
A trained dog owned by the cops is a search tool. They should only be implemented in the same way you would implement a physical search. The 4th guarantees security against unreasonable searches.

A dog is property just like a vehicle x-ray machine is property. The use of either must be limited on private citizens without a warrant to do so based on probable cause.

These damn fishing expeditions are egregious.


And my dog is trained to grab your hand and twist and break it to retrieve your weapon for me. I could easily train him to alert to drugs or gunpowder. What I do with my dog is my business and I am liable for it. Same as a cop using the dog while violating your 4th amendment rights. Do you honestly think a cop of such low character would hesitate to search your car without permission in the event he didn't have the dog? Is cops inventing PC unheard of? You don't like cops having dogs? Big deal. It's private property. Some officers own the K-9 they work with. If officers are allowed to carry their own guns, knives and corrective lenses then what's the problem with a dog? Do you argue there must be limits on an officer's eyesight as well?

You might have another reason for hating police dogs. Just sayin.
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
And because you guys always ignore the points I make (which is usually something you don't want to acknowledge), here is what I am implying: with or without the dog, those cops who choose to violate your right to be free from unreasonable searches were going to invent PC anyways because they are dirtbags. Not because of the uniform, because of their lack of morals and the probable presence of mental illness.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
And because you guys always ignore the points I make (which is usually something you don't want to acknowledge), here is what I am implying: with or without the dog, those cops who choose to violate your right to be free from unreasonable searches were going to invent PC anyways because they are dirtbags. Not because of the uniform, because of their lack of morals and the probable presence of mental illness.

Well said. +1

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
And my dog is trained to grab your hand and twist and break it to retrieve your weapon for me. I could easily train him to alert to drugs or gunpowder. What I do with my dog is my business and I am liable for it. Same as a cop using the dog while violating your 4th amendment rights. Do you honestly think a cop of such low character would hesitate to search your car without permission in the event he didn't have the dog? Is cops inventing PC unheard of? You don't like cops having dogs? Big deal. It's private property. Some officers own the K-9 they work with. If officers are allowed to carry their own guns, knives and corrective lenses then what's the problem with a dog? Do you argue there must be limits on an officer's eyesight as well?

You might have another reason for hating police dogs. Just sayin.


Cops on the job work for the people and are constitutionally restricted.

Comparing a dog who has senses above and beyond that of a cop to a cops sight is a bad analogy.

The point is that a dog makes it easier for cops to violate your rights, at least when they make shite up you can prove them a liar in court and hopefully have your charges dismiss and end up with a Brady cop. A dog is work around this.
 

wimwag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
1,049
Location
Doug
Cops on the job work for the people and are constitutionally restricted.

Comparing a dog who has senses above and beyond that of a cop to a cops sight is a bad analogy.

The point is that a dog makes it easier for cops to violate your rights, at least when they make shite up you can prove them a liar in court and hopefully have your charges dismiss and end up with a Brady cop. A dog is work around this.


Read the post after the one you quoted.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Funny.. In one thread about dogs being shot by police, you guys will recognize a dog as private property and condemn the police for shooting a creature...
False premise...flawed premise. A cop shop dog is not the property of the cop(s) it is the property of the people, the state if you will...government property. Cop dogs are lethal weapons that have no off switch, no safety once released. Heck, even when on a leash they are killing machines. When you get around to knowing the difference between private and public property we may be able to discuss this cop dog issue.

If I were to shoot a cop dog in self defense, because it growled at me, it would be "nice" if I were afforded the same "latitude" as a cop who shoots a privately owned dog...but I am not.

And because you guys always ignore the points I make....
Make better points...

Anyway, nooo, it is the badge/uniform that permits a dirtbag to violate a citizen's rights. Without the badge/uniform the dirtbag can do nothing to you. nor would they cuz they would understand that they could/would be held to account for their dirtbaggery right there on the spot. Nope, a badge/uniform enables dirtbags to flourish with little downside to their dirtbaggery.
 
Top