Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: College Campuses: Leaving Gun in Vehicle

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    28

    College Campuses: Leaving Gun in Vehicle

    I attend a local Washington college and their policy on guns states:

    Weapons. Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the college campus, except for authorized college purposes or for law enforcement officers, unless written approval has been obtained from the vice president of student services or any other person designated by the president.
    I'm assuming their parking lot is considered campus, but is leaving an unloaded firearm locked in a safe in my car considered possession?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by meggers View Post
    I attend a local Washington college and their policy on guns states:



    I'm assuming their parking lot is considered campus, but is leaving an unloaded firearm locked in a safe in my car considered possession?
    Yes it would be considered part of the campus and yes it would be considered possession. If they don't see it then they don't know it's there.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871
    You are in possession when you arrive in the car and when you depart in the car. This, unfortunately, makes you in possession on campus.

    I would make sure it is locked and secured before arrival and it stays there until after departure form campus property. Don't say anything to anyone, because on our liberal bastions of education, someone will talk to someone else about it.

    It's sad you have to deal with this.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Just remember, it's only a secret if you are the only one that knows.

    Most people are "found out" because they have a compelling urge to "share".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    28
    Thanks guys for clearing that up. I also found a link (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p057.htm) to the legal definition of possession which states:

    A person has possession of something if the person knows of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power and intention to control it.
    I think, if I'm interpreting this right, that (1) knowing where my car is and where the gun is kept satisfies know[ing] its presence and (2) having my keys/combo to the safe satisfies physical control over it.

    I'm also worried about them running dogs through the parking lot and sniffing gun powder in my car -- maybe I'm being paranoid, but wouldn't that suck?

  6. #6
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by meggers View Post
    Thanks guys for clearing that up. I also found a link (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p057.htm) to the legal definition of possession which states:



    I think, if I'm interpreting this right, that (1) knowing where my car is and where the gun is kept satisfies know[ing] its presence and (2) having my keys/combo to the safe satisfies physical control over it.

    I'm also worried about them running dogs through the parking lot and sniffing gun powder in my car -- maybe I'm being paranoid, but wouldn't that suck?
    In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

    If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...


  7. #7
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    400
    Concealed handgun? What concealed handgun? Why would I need to carry a handgun at school...do you think I'm crazy?!

    I carried at my college. I even decided not to OC anywhere until I finished college because of that (I only had another six months or so to go when I decided I wanted to start OCing). Anyhow, if you're just wanting to keep the gun in your car, I wouldn't worry about it from the standpoint of getting caught....and it's obviously up to yourself to make the decision regarding breaking rules or not. That's the whole weighing the possibility of having to write a big essay/being suspended/being expelled over the safety of your life (since it's not illegal here...just against the rules).

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by technoweenie View Post
    in wa the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

    If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. Or 'what's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... Then stand up and say 'well officer, i just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... Or whatever... You get the drift...

    roflmao
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

    If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...

    That just made my week!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    In WA the 'rule' of the college holds no legal weight. They can expel you but can't arrest you.

    If they run a dog through and it 'alerts', tell them to get a warrant or pound sand. If you really wanna piss them off, demand you be able to talk to your accuser, then look at the dog (who will most likely be barking), and say 'what's that boy? Timmy is stuck in a well?!'.. or 'What's that boy?! You're not alerting to anything and he's making things up?'...... then stand up and say 'well officer, I just talked to officer scruffles, and he says he doesn't smell anything'.... or whatever... you get the drift...

    There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edge of the woods
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.
    Joe, I think you're wrong on this. They have a right to search a locker you are using if the dog gets a hit, because the locker is school property. Your car doesn't suddenly stop being your property just because of where it's parked. If the dog alerts, they can ASK you for your permission to search, but without a warrant, they can NOT enter your personal vehicle. If the cop asked for permission and you refuse, you can drive away. They may try and detain until they get a judge to issue a warrant, but they will be wasting their time. The most the warranted search would turn up, assuming he doesn't have anything illegal in the car like weed, is that the cop will find a legally possessed firearm. What's the crime? The school will ask him to leave and trespass him, but at no time was a crime committed simply because a dog sniffs gunpowder.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by dadada View Post
    Joe, I think you're wrong on this. They have a right to search a locker you are using if the dog gets a hit, because the locker is school property. Your car doesn't suddenly stop being your property just because of where it's parked. If the dog alerts, they can ASK you for your permission to search, but without a warrant, they can NOT enter your personal vehicle. If the cop asked for permission and you refuse, you can drive away. They may try and detain until they get a judge to issue a warrant, but they will be wasting their time. The most the warranted search would turn up, assuming he doesn't have anything illegal in the car like weed, is that the cop will find a legally possessed firearm. What's the crime? The school will ask him to leave and trespass him, but at no time was a crime committed simply because a dog sniffs gunpowder.
    I am not wrong. There are many court cases that deal with dogs alerting and probable cause for search. Here are two of them.

    Sherry Hearn v. The Board of Public Education

    Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    There are many court cases that completely disagree with you. A dog's sniff of a car in a public area, yes school parking lots are considered such, is not a violation of the 4th amendment and does not require a warrant to conduct an interior search.
    When a vehicle is in operation, yes.

    When it's not, the exigent circumstances/mobile conveyance exemption to the 4th does not apply, as there is no risk of the evidence being destroyed.

    They would have to either break a window, something that will get them in hot water if nothing is found, or restrict access to the vehicle and get a warrant.

    Dogs are BS because the handler can say the dog 'alerted', and voila, instant permission to search. Some dogs have been proven to be trained to 'alert on command'... Again, total BS...

    If I'm accused of a crime, I want the evidence proven, and articulated. A dog can't testify, yet the handler can testify for the dog. I would almost want to cross examine a handler, to paint him into a corner to get him to say he 'talks' to his dog...

  14. #14
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    I am not wrong. There are many court cases that deal with dogs alerting and probable cause for search. Here are two of them.

    Sherry Hearn v. The Board of Public Education

    Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District
    First case is a matter of a civil issue, not criminal, and has to do with a teacher wanting her job back.

    Second case is also a civil issue, with the schools utilizing 'in loco parentis' as justification, as the school is in charge of the students when they're there. The problem comes into play with seniors, who can be 18. The school can't compel them to do anything, as they do not have the legal authority to 'act as their parent'...



    Read This to find out how much BS canines are.

    They serve their function, but should not be relied on solely for RAS.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    First case is a matter of a civil issue, not criminal, and has to do with a teacher wanting her job back.

    Second case is also a civil issue, with the schools utilizing 'in loco parentis' as justification, as the school is in charge of the students when they're there. The problem comes into play with seniors, who can be 18. The school can't compel them to do anything, as they do not have the legal authority to 'act as their parent'...



    Read This to find out how much BS canines are.

    They serve their function, but should not be relied on solely for RAS.
    I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.

    They were only civil issues because people were saying it was an unlawful search therefore the grounds for suspension/termination were wrong. The courts disagreed saying that the searches were lawful. These cases are extremely relevant and they show that there does not need to be exigent circumstances to enter a car if a dog alerts. The courts have allowed searches based on a dogs alert is on a motor vehicle that has been lawful stopped by LEO or in a public environment, which is what we are talking about.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.

    They were only civil issues because people were saying it was an unlawful search therefore the grounds for suspension/termination were wrong. The courts disagreed saying that the searches were lawful. These cases are extremely relevant and they show that there does not need to be exigent circumstances to enter a car if a dog alerts. The courts have allowed searches based on a dogs alert is on a motor vehicle that has been lawful stopped by LEO or in a public environment, which is what we are talking about.
    It would appear that the problem isn't with the dogs, but with the Courts.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    It would appear that the problem isn't with the dogs, but with the Courts.
    I concur with that statement.

    There was an instance where kids were coming out of class and the police ran a drug dog through the crowd of students. The dog alerted 12 times and the police and school officials searched all 12 kids and found zero items that were unlawful or against school policy. The courts seem to ignore the fact that there are many instances of false alerts given by dogs.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    I'm not disagreeing that dogs are BS. The court rulings do say though that a dogs alert is not a violation of the 4th and it gives probable cause for an interior search.
    Bzzzt! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

    The question becomes one of "does a dog 'alerting' constitute reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has occurred." I'd say NO! because what can the officer say: "we think the dog alerted on a bomb, firearms, marijuana, and ultraporn, for which you are too young."? The point being that establishing suspicion to search is very hard now, much harder than 10 years ago.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Bzzzt! Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30328976/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

    The question becomes one of "does a dog 'alerting' constitute reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has occurred." I'd say NO! because what can the officer say: "we think the dog alerted on a bomb, firearms, marijuana, and ultraporn, for which you are too young."? The point being that establishing suspicion to search is very hard now, much harder than 10 years ago.
    Nice way to enter the discussion Mr. Smarty Pants but you are way off base so you should just quit playing.

    That case deals with a search incident to arrest. That is not the same as a dogs alert.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    Nice way to enter the discussion Mr. Smarty Pants but you are way off base so you should just quit playing.

    That case deals with a search incident to arrest. That is not the same as a dogs alert.
    While I'm being "Mr. Smarty Pants" I'd like to point out that Freud said no such thing as what you have in your signature.

    You're wrong about a dog alerting in a parking lot, because that pesky fourth amendment requires a warrant. Under Illinois v. Caballes, it was decided that a dog's sniff does not constitute a search and thus does not require reasonable, articulable suspicion to do during a legitimate traffic stop. The question of a dog randomly searching the parking lot, then requiring opening a trunk, is of a different nature. Moreover, the court did not address the actual search portion of the sniff-test. That is, while use of a dog may not constitute a search, the violation of privacy of what is held in the non-public areas of a vehicle most certainly does constitute a search. To uphold that under the fourth amendment requires a warrant under any reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment. That warrant can be obtained using the dog's alert, with the affirmation of an officer that the dog did alert and what the dog alerted upon.

    Important to this discussion, as well, is the protections afforded by the WA state constitution that go beyond the federal in some means. Under Article 1 Section 7, it reads "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." This is critical, because even with ****-poor decisions like Illinois v. Caballes (or Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz), our state provides greater protection for the individual, as it does not allow merely "reasonable" searches. Direct authority of law must exist to violate your private affairs. In the case of a dog, this comes back to the "get a warrant, or go away" standard.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    While I'm being "Mr. Smarty Pants" I'd like to point out that Freud said no such thing as what you have in your signature.

    You're wrong about a dog alerting in a parking lot, because that pesky fourth amendment requires a warrant. Under Illinois v. Caballes, it was decided that a dog's sniff does not constitute a search and thus does not require reasonable, articulable suspicion to do during a legitimate traffic stop. The question of a dog randomly searching the parking lot, then requiring opening a trunk, is of a different nature. Moreover, the court did not address the actual search portion of the sniff-test. That is, while use of a dog may not constitute a search, the violation of privacy of what is held in the non-public areas of a vehicle most certainly does constitute a search. To uphold that under the fourth amendment requires a warrant under any reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment. That warrant can be obtained using the dog's alert, with the affirmation of an officer that the dog did alert and what the dog alerted upon.

    Important to this discussion, as well, is the protections afforded by the WA state constitution that go beyond the federal in some means. Under Article 1 Section 7, it reads "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." This is critical, because even with ****-poor decisions like Illinois v. Caballes (or Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz), our state provides greater protection for the individual, as it does not allow merely "reasonable" searches. Direct authority of law must exist to violate your private affairs. In the case of a dog, this comes back to the "get a warrant, or go away" standard.
    I couldn't care less if he actually said it or not. I like the phrase and that;s all that matters. I removed his name from it. I was not aware as that is the first time I have seen that specific article.

    Listen, I am not disagreeing that the decisions that have been made by appellate courts are crap. I don't think a dog sniff should provide probable cause for a search, but they do. The fact of the matter is that they did make them and they will be relied upon as case law. Illinois v. Caballes agrees with me in the fact that the search did not violate the subjects 4th. However this case deals strictly with the use of a dog during a lawful traffic stop. The cases I posted specifically deal with dog sniffs in a school parking lot, not just any parking lot, and that the subsequent searches of the car were lawful.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by joeroket View Post
    I couldn't care less if he actually said it or not. I like the phrase and that;s all that matters. I removed his name from it. I was not aware as that is the first time I have seen that specific article.

    Listen, I am not disagreeing that the decisions that have been made by appellate courts are crap. I don't think a dog sniff should provide probable cause for a search, but they do. The fact of the matter is that they did make them and they will be relied upon as case law. Illinois v. Caballes agrees with me in the fact that the search did not violate the subjects 4th. However this case deals strictly with the use of a dog during a lawful traffic stop. The cases I posted specifically deal with dog sniffs in a school parking lot, not just any parking lot, and that the subsequent searches of the car were lawful.
    Probable cause as a basis for a "reasonable" search was justified in Terry v. Ohio specifically under the grounds of officer safety. It's also called a "Terry weapons frisk", because the search is for weapons only. This standard was later applied to limited cases where it was possible that a suspect might have immediate ability to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence. However, mere probable cause is not enough to allow warrantless search. Probable cause provides the evidence required to obtain a warrant for search. To wit:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The reason I brought up Arizona v. Gant earlier is that it should be guiding in terms of whether a warrantless search may be conducted upon the trunk of a vehicle. Even the earlier New York v. Belton, which Gant overturned, noted that "Our holding encompasses only the interior of the passenger compartment of an automobile and does not encompass the trunk." The point being that the trunk is considered more private than the passenger compartment, and thus has a stricter scrutiny for search.

    Again, while a dog's sniff may provide probable cause, that's only the first step. Probable cause may only lead to actual search when that cause is used to obtain a warrant, when the search is for "officer safety" or evidence destruction concerns, or when the court goes retarded because they want to take the teeth out of the fourth amendment.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Probable cause as a basis for a "reasonable" search was justified in Terry v. Ohio specifically under the grounds of officer safety. It's also called a "Terry weapons frisk", because the search is for weapons only. This standard was later applied to limited cases where it was possible that a suspect might have immediate ability to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence. However, mere probable cause is not enough to allow warrantless search. Probable cause provides the evidence required to obtain a warrant for search. To wit:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The reason I brought up Arizona v. Gant earlier is that it should be guiding in terms of whether a warrantless search may be conducted upon the trunk of a vehicle. Even the earlier New York v. Belton, which Gant overturned, noted that "Our holding encompasses only the interior of the passenger compartment of an automobile and does not encompass the trunk." The point being that the trunk is considered more private than the passenger compartment, and thus has a stricter scrutiny for search.

    Again, while a dog's sniff may provide probable cause, that's only the first step. Probable cause may only lead to actual search when that cause is used to obtain a warrant, when the search is for "officer safety" or evidence destruction concerns, or when the court goes retarded because they want to take the teeth out of the fourth amendment.
    Well then, it seems there is some separation between the courts, which really does not shock me, as to what meets the requirements for a warrantless search. What you quote seems to be in disagreement with what I quote, with the exception that mine is specifically related to probable cause for search based on a canine alert. The contradiction will have to be sorted by SCOTUS then as the only case I know of that they have heard is based on the canine sniff during a traffic stop, not in a public parking lot like the case I have mentioned.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    What a cluster....

    Read up on some cases looks like the 9th is the only one that made a decision I agree with in the use of dogs.

    The men in black have once again used "rationalization" instead of reasoning to further erode our 4th amendment rights.
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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