Richmond to use dogs to sniff for guns in Shockoe Bottom?

Skeptic · Oct 19, 2011

I don't have a link on this yet, but I just heard the Mayor's press secretary say they will be using dogs to sniff for drugs and GUNS.

Sounds like OC only down there now, since if you aren't concealing they should not have to ask if you have a concealed permit. And yet somehow I don't think that is what they were looking for...

ahh ok just found a link

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-is-th...ce-in-shockoe-bottom-20111019,0,1064133.story

thebigsd · Oct 19, 2011

What are they going to do if the dog detects a gun? Do they even have the authority to stop people on those grounds? Sound like a fishing expedition to me...

peter nap · Oct 19, 2011

thebigsd said:
What are they going to do if the dog detects a gun? Do they even have the authority to stop people on those grounds? Sound like a fishing expedition to me...

They probably do. The courts have put a lot of faith in dog hits.

My guess OC would be greeted with snotty comments and questions.
A hit by a K9 would prompt a "May I see your CHP"
A refusal would result in a search and if a Concealed weapon was found, arrest.

Skeptic · Oct 19, 2011

peter nap said:
They probably do. The courts have put a lot of faith in dog hits.

My guess OC would be greeted with snotty comments and questions.
A hit by a K9 would prompt a "May I see your CHP"
A refusal would result in a search and if a Concealed weapon was found, arrest.

Probably right on all counts. Have heard him use the words "Zero Tolerance" in relation to guns lately. I guess he is trying to deflect the recent spate of criticism he has gotten from some quarters for being seemingly absent during the hurricane.

Whether or not it was fair criticism, looks like he is trying to turn the page, and lo and behold, he turned to page 1 on the Liberal/Progressive Playbook - Blame the Guns.

skidmark · Oct 19, 2011

Skeptic said:
Probably right on all counts. Have heard him use the words "Zero Tolerance" in relation to guns lately. I guess he is trying to deflect the recent spate of criticism he has gotten from some quarters for being seemingly absent during the hurricane.

Whether or not it was fair criticism, looks like he is trying to turn the page, and lo and behold, he turned to page 1 on the Liberal/Progressive Playbook - Blame the Guns.

I've not paid much attention to the Bottom area because I don'yt go there (except to drive thru on my way elsewhere) but my understanding is all sorts of folks are upset about folks getting killed there. The "zero tolerance" thing includes staggered "dismissal times" for the various drinking spots[SUP]1[/SUP] and some other attempts to control how many drunks are on the streets at any given time.

stay safe.

[SUP]1[/SUP] - as a business owner I'd be very upset unless "my" dismissal time was the very latest. Anything else would cut into my earning a living. Guess the City Fathers don't see it that way.

doug23838 · Oct 19, 2011

nova said:
Most K-9s will only get a hit on a firearm if it was recently fired and not cleaned. I tested this theory earlier this year with an FCPD bomb sniffer while talking with the dog's owner who was EOD.

Interesting. I always thought the dogs were trained to hit on Hoppe's, or other solvents or lubricants unique to firearms. And the Hoppe's air freshener would be a great diversion if my thinking had been correct.

I avoid Shockhoe Bottom, esp. after dark. Ayoob said: "Don't go where you're not welcome." Although it might be fun to go to Gutenberg for breakfast.

Blk97F150 · Oct 19, 2011

Where is Shockoe Bottom? Is that the Cary St area..... near where the Indian is on top of the building?

TFred · Oct 19, 2011

peter nap said:
They probably do. The courts have put a lot of faith in dog hits.

My guess OC would be greeted with snotty comments and questions.
A hit by a K9 would prompt a "May I see your CHP"
A refusal would result in a search and if a Concealed weapon was found, arrest.

I'm not whining "Cite! Cite!", but it would be very interesting to know if the courts have extended that faith in dogs to guns.

If a dog "hits" on a gun on your person, does that indeed count the same as the officer "knowing" you have a gun well enough to demand to see your CHP? Or is this one of those areas where the ask/demand line is very fuzzy?

We have discussed in the past that there is a "Catch-22" in the law here, since you are not obligated to inform, but if you are carrying and are asked, you are obligated to display the CHP. How does a dog make this different?

TFred

peter nap · Oct 20, 2011

TFred said:
I'm not whining "Cite! Cite!", but it would be very interesting to know if the courts have extended that faith in dogs to guns.

If a dog "hits" on a gun on your person, does that indeed count the same as the officer "knowing" you have a gun well enough to demand to see your CHP? Or is this one of those areas where the ask/demand line is very fuzzy?

We have discussed in the past that there is a "Catch-22" in the law here, since you are not obligated to inform, but if you are carrying and are asked, you are obligated to display the CHP. How does a dog make this different?

TFred

Good questions TFred and ones I can't answer. Thus the "Probably":lol:

My guess would be that the dog would give the Officer the Probable Suspicion he would need, but that's only a guess.
Up on the reality plane though, we're not talking about these people going before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or even a Circuit Court Judge...

Most would Go before a City of Richmond General District Court Judge who could care less if the K9 made a good hit or his handler observed the proper procedure.

Ain't Justice Grand?:uhoh:

sidestreet · Oct 20, 2011

I've been waiting for this thread to come up...,

but I didn't think it would take this long. I was listening to some of the sound bytes from the mayor's little "pep talk" on one of the local TV channels, and if I remember correctly, in one of them he said "If you have a gun, you will have an encounter with the police."

He was running off a little list of things that would "cause" an "encounter with the police". Not suggesting to anyone to spend any of your time or tax dollars in "The $hitty of Richmond", "River $hitty", or whatever they want to call that vermin brooder, but if you do go there, it sounds like it would be prudent to have your "magical memory devices" handy and at the ready with fresh batteries, the good kind. Like cousin Eddie says, "Don't go cheap on me, now."

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 vs. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Cmdr_Haggis · Oct 20, 2011

TFred said:
I'm not whining "Cite! Cite!", but it would be very interesting to know if the courts have extended that faith in dogs to guns.

If a dog "hits" on a gun on your person, does that indeed count the same as the officer "knowing" you have a gun well enough to demand to see your CHP? Or is this one of those areas where the ask/demand line is very fuzzy?

We have discussed in the past that there is a "Catch-22" in the law here, since you are not obligated to inform, but if you are carrying and are asked, you are obligated to display the CHP. How does a dog make this different?

TFred

I see it the other way around. The report says that they plan to use "dogs to search for drugs and weapons". If a dog hits on a person, I'd imagine the police will assume drugs first and get probable cause on that. Search on.

Now if I'm carrying a concealed weapon (and have, of course, my ID and CHP on me) the dog would hit on my gun. Since the handler won't know a gun hit or drug hit, he'll just assume drugs and search me. Finding a gun is incidental (and in my case completely within my right), but my innocent behind is still getting searched because Fido wags his tail. Unreasonable search in my view since I'm no druggie or dealer; just a law-abiding citizen. While he's searching me I'm trying to say, "Hey, Officer Snuffy, I have a concealed weapon and my CHP is in my left pocket along with my ID. Please get your dog away from my junk."

(Do K9s "hit" differently based what their nose detects? Sit for drugs, lie down for guns...)

peter nap · Oct 20, 2011

I think it's time for a new OC Video!

TFred · Oct 20, 2011

Cmdr_Haggis said:
I see it the other way around. The report says that they plan to use "dogs to search for drugs and weapons". If a dog hits on a person, I'd imagine the police will assume drugs first and get probable cause on that. Search on.

Now if I'm carrying a concealed weapon (and have, of course, my ID and CHP on me) the dog would hit on my gun. Since the handler won't know a gun hit or drug hit, he'll just assume drugs and search me. Finding a gun is incidental (and in my case completely within my right), but my innocent behind is still getting searched because Fido wags his tail. Unreasonable search in my view since I'm no druggie or dealer; just a law-abiding citizen. While he's searching me I'm trying to say, "Hey, Officer Snuffy, I have a concealed weapon and my CHP is in my left pocket along with my ID. Please get your dog away from my junk."

(Do K9s "hit" differently based what their nose detects? Sit for drugs, lie down for guns...)

I do not know the answer, and I would like to know the answer, but when I wrote my post, I was assuming that yes, the dog would be able to indicate to the handler whether they detected drugs or guns.

Again, I don't know, but I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they had "drug dogs" and "gun dogs".

We need more information!

TFred

ETA: PS, someone with some handy cites in their pocket might ought to write the mayor and tell him that the courts have declared that mere possession of a gun is not probable cause for any abnormal police scrutiny! "Mere" being the key word.

skidmark · Oct 20, 2011

Cmdr_Haggis said:
(Do K9s "hit" differently based what their nose detects? Sit for drugs, lie down for guns...)

Dogs can be trained to "hit" differently. But even with multiple angles videoing the dog and handler there can be "false hits" based on cues/commands the dog has been trained to respond to. The more the handler interacts with the dog the higher the possibility that there might be a cued response happening. But do you really expect the City PD to let their high-priced mutts run free in violation of the leash law?

Adding a further complication to the situation - how are the cops going to set up a search zone in such a way that a citizen has the opportunity to avoid it? Currently DUI and seat-belt checkpoints have to have notice and several other requirements must be met. Drug interdiction checkpoints are even more tightly constrained. Look at this for a decent review of both procedural and legal requirements that do not seem to be met by the City's plan: http://www.smartsafeandsober.org/resources/DUI Model Policy-sm.pdf

So - anybody got the money to fund a fight in court over being caught in this spider's web of fail? I admit my finger is not the one to use in addressing the issue - perhaps the next one over, and held in a different direction?

stay safe.

Grapeshot · Oct 20, 2011

TFred said:
-------snip----------- "Mere" being the key word.

Did someone say "Meer"? Who me?

In RPD speak that means "come over here."

Don't anybody move! Keep your [strike]paws[/strike] hands where I can see them!

zoom6zoom · Oct 20, 2011

"No, officer.... I have a bacon cheeseburger in my pocket."

Baked on Grease · Oct 21, 2011

zoom6zoom said:
"No, officer.... I have a bacon cheeseburger in my pocket."

Hehe... Walk around with a baggy of Beggin' strips. I don't think any dog would turn them down, no matter how well trained.

On topic, I personaly don't see any difference between a dog giving a cue and police using x-ray goggles to fish for PC for a search. Either way they did not glean this info of their own accord and to me becomes unreasonable. I feel the same way with Sobriety Checkpoints, while the courts have ruled that they are not unconstitutional, you have no obligation to cooperate, and non-compliance does not constitute RAS or PC. I have not tried this yet (only ever even seen 1 in my life) but can't wait to piss them off next time I have the opportunity.

Sent using tapatalk

Skeptic · Oct 21, 2011

Baked on Grease said:
Hehe... Walk around with a baggy of Beggin' strips. I don't think any dog would turn them down, no matter how well trained.

On topic, I personaly don't see any difference between a dog giving a cue and police using x-ray goggles to fish for PC for a search. Either way they did not glean this info of their own accord and to me becomes unreasonable. I feel the same way with Sobriety Checkpoints, while the courts have ruled that they are not unconstitutional, you have no obligation to cooperate, and non-compliance does not constitute RAS or PC. I have not tried this yet (only ever even seen 1 in my life) but can't wait to piss them off next time I have the opportunity.

On your first point - you might be accused of carrying Doggie Crack. :banana:

On the second, I wonder what the courst have to say on this, especially where it regards "expectation of privacy" I know a bit on what they have said about tracking devices on cars, and of course garbage left at the curb.. I wonder if there is a "scent" component to this as well.

TFred · Oct 21, 2011

Skeptic said:
On your first point - you might be accused of carrying Doggie Crack. :banana:

On the second, I wonder what the courst have to say on this, especially where it regards "expectation of privacy" I know a bit on what they have said about tracking devices on cars, and of course garbage left at the curb.. I wonder if there is a "scent" component to this as well.

The interesting question would be what would the authors of the Fourth Amendment have thought of this? I guess they probably used dogs for hunting back then, but could they have ever foreseen senses greater than human being used for such things?

TFred

Cmdr_Haggis · Oct 21, 2011

If one is pulled over for a traffic violation and the officer smells an odor of marijuana coming from the car, does this give probable cause or RAS to warrant a search of the vehicle?

If so, then a K9 (being a police officer itself, yes) using its nose on a pedestrian would be no different than the human officer using his nose during a traffic stop. The pooch just has a much better sense of smell.

Richmond to use dogs to sniff for guns in Shockoe Bottom?

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member