• 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.

College Campuses: Leaving Gun in Vehicle

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top