Drugs and dogs, SCOUS to rule if it passes the sniff test...

[Kadmos]

What if the dog hits, but no drugs are found, but other items are? Shouldn't that be poisoned fruit?

I would think so yes. Unless there was some other reason for the search.

I know that incidents like the one mriddick puts forth are despicable, however it would be too easy to train a dog to "hit" on nothing whatsoever (or some hidden command) and use that as an excuse to search anyone at any time or place.

I've heard that due to sorting machines, ATM's, and such that a huge percentage of federal reserve notes are contaminated by drugs, anyone in possession of legal tender could end up subject to a search.

If the rules end up that loose, then you might as well scrap them and simply allow the cops to search anyone anywhere for whatever reason they like.

[Warthogg]

I would think so yes. Unless there was some other reason for the search.

I know that incidents like the one mriddick puts forth are despicable, however it would be too easy to train a dog to "hit" on nothing whatsoever (or some hidden command) and use that as an excuse to search anyone at any time or place.

I've heard that due to sorting machines, ATM's, and such that a huge percentage of federal reserve notes are contaminated by drugs, anyone in possession of legal tender could end up subject to a search.

If the rules end up that loose, then you might as well scrap them and simply allow the cops to search anyone anywhere for whatever reason they like.

......simply allow the cops to search anyone anywhere for whatever reason they like.

The cops force searches on traffic stops "for whatever reason they like" now. You can allow the search or have your car impounded while a search warrant is obtained from their 'friendly' judge.

(With Dubya's PATRIOT ACT, you damn sure don't need no stinkin warrants either.)


Wart

[Kadmos]

The cops force searches on traffic stops "for whatever reason they like" now. You can allow the search or have your car impounded while a search warrant is obtained from their 'friendly' judge.

(With Dubya's PATRIOT ACT, you damn sure don't need no stinkin warrants either.)


Wart

I won't say the police aren't often high handed, the old "If you have nothing to hide" tends to work rather well.

But I think the impound and friendly judge idea might be overstating it a bit, the police still have to show probable cause, without that the search is illegal and the evidence gets tossed.

Contrary to myth, refusing a search is still not probable cause for a search.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Say a dog hits on drugs but instead the LEO's find a stash of kiddie porn, should the kiddie porn guy get off on the technicality of a drug dog hitting on kiddie porn?

Yes if you believe the Constitution is still in effect. Sadly some scumbags will slip through the cracks. Do you want a police state?

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I would think so yes. Unless there was some other reason for the search.

I know that incidents like the one mriddick puts forth are despicable, however it would be too easy to train a dog to "hit" on nothing whatsoever (or some hidden command) and use that as an excuse to search anyone at any time or place.

I've heard that due to sorting machines, ATM's, and such that a huge percentage of federal reserve notes are contaminated by drugs, anyone in possession of legal tender could end up subject to a search.

If the rules end up that loose, then you might as well scrap them and simply allow the cops to search anyone anywhere for whatever reason they like.

That is so true. Most of our legal tender is contaminated, Does Mriddick think it would be okay to arrest him on that premise?

[mriddick]

I would say the question is whether or not dogs can hit reliably enough to make it worthwhile in court. Take fingerprints for instance, they say no two are alike but I'm doubtful this has been checked 100% but it seems to work well enough for it to hold up in court. I don't see the problem with asking if this applies to dog hits as well, although at the same time I can't say if dogs are anywhere as good as fingerprints seem to be. I can say until this story I hadn't really thought about this as being a big problem, I had never heard anything but dogs being very good and efficient at such things. I wonder if any of us suspected dog searches were a problem area?

I've actually taken the time and searched around the net in what I've been able to find you're much more liable to get a false positive and searched after a human LEO feels he smells something then if a dog does. In looking around it seems a human cop saying he smells pot or something else resulting in a search that finds nothing is much more of a common complaint then dogs doing likewise. There are quite a few stories out there of humans saying they smell things resulting in a fruitless search then dog stories (found 2 dog stories to a couple dozen human stories). I thought it was sort of interesting it seems dogs are more reliable then humans at all this, maybe we ought to argue humans can't be cops since there are so many complaints with humans and false positives?

Then if the question is what if there's a false positive that leads to another crime? Granted there's a part of us wants it to be some law dog oppressing us for little reason but what if it was something such as a child rapist? Does the problem of a false positive mean the child rapist should walk free? When people complain about rapist and the like walking free on a technicality its stuff like this they are basically talking about.

Lastly I know some can't just help but make it personal, if the question is what would I do, well I got lawyers, guns and money, I'll do OK I'm sure regardless

[Texas Soldado]

'Unreasonable Search' clause has been gutted. Now you must submit a breathalizer or blood will be forceably removed from your body in many states.

step by step our freedoms and protections are being claimed by 'Big Brother' for 'our own good'