Interesting post, Dennis. I was waiting to get on the Jamestown Ferry this past Friday. While waiting on the bridge, there were security officers going up and down the line of waiting vehicles randomly selecting ones on which to do a quick "look/see", mostly looking underneath with a mirror and in the backs of pickups. I found myself thinking the exact same thing... this is America, I'm a legal, tax paying citizen, and what are MY rights in regard to this type of search? I don't begrudge the officers in any way - they are simply doing their job. It did get me thinking however of the silly, non-effective things which are being done in the name of "national security" and the MAJOR things we are not doing... THAT got my blood simmering a bit...

Dennis, basically, if a dog sniffs the exterior of an automobile and responds, that response is sufficient probable cause to conduct a search. Two of the most prominent USC decisions are included.

A) United States v Place (462 U.S. 696 (1983) U. S. Supreme Court

Exposure of traveler's luggage, which was located in a public place, to a trained narcotics detection dog for sniffing purposes did not constitute a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The canine sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.

The canine sniff does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view.

In these respects, the canine sniff is sui generis (unique). We are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited both in the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure

B) Illinois v Caballes (125 S. Ct. 834 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court

Dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop, that reveals no information other than location of contraband that no individual has any right to possess, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Use of a well trained narcotics detection dog, one that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, during lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Although respondent argues that the error rates, particularly the existence of false positives, call into question the premise that drug-detection dogs alert only to contraband, the record contains no evidence or findings that support his argument. Moreover, respondent does not suggest that an erroneous alert, in and of itself, reveals any legitimate private information, and, in this case, the trial judge found that the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk.

Where lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond time necessary to issue warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer’s arrival at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics detection dog to sniff around the exterior of motorist’s vehicle does not have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion.

There are numerous court decisions from almost every District Court and the USC that basically say the same thing.

DFrost

I agree that calling LEO "gestapo" is pretty extreme; particularly knowing how many LEO are on this board and knowing how helpful they are here. As a punk kid I had more than my share of interactions with LEO. In retrospect, I don't think any of them behaved as "gestapo" and I've never been involved with an abusive LEO. As much of a liberal whacko that I'm becoming, I know LEO are doing their best to protect our society and I appreciate it (I may have to make an exception for TSA; those guys are just posing at making us safer).

All that having been said, I think the laws regarding searches of vehicles aren't well known. Our Fourth Amendment rights are being stretched thin and it's not clear where they stand from time to time. The reality is that this is a question for an actual lawyer who's familiar with the laws of your jurisdiction and ultimately decided by the courts.

I have heard though that actually speaking with LEO doesn't do you any good. Here's a YouTube video of a defense attorney explaining why you should always "take the fifth" and decline an interview with LEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik. It's worth half an hour to watch.

Thanks David, I understand the legality for the search, my question and concern is what are my options if I suspect the LEO is just saying the dog alerted. I've seen vids of k9s supposedly doing a search and alerting but the dog was more interested in what was going on at the park across the street. I've seen first hand searches with a really excited alert and ones that are more passive where the K9 sits calmly and then looks directly at the handler.
So, the only thing I can really do is passively refuse and lawyer up and we all can burn a day at the courthouse. I would imagine in court I could ask for training records and logs on the K9 and officer in question

Let me add, that I've seen only positive and professional conduct with all the LEOs I've talked too, even when I was being detained, I've received more more breaks then tickets.

ie: "Slow it down Mr. Jones" "You can sleep at home tonight if you can get up and walk away" etc

 Quote: Dennis Jones

my question and concern is what are my options if I suspect the LEO is just saying the dog alerted. I've seen first hand searches with a really excited alert and ones that are more passive where the K9 sits calmly and then looks directly at the handler.
I would imagine in court I could ask for training records and logs on the K9 and officer in question

My experiences in court, both state and federal are; the dog teams credibility is the second challenge during a suppression hearing. Today, there is generally video to support the officer's testimony. Even without the video there are generally records attesting to the proficiency of the dog. It would certainly be in the interest of the defendant to convince a judge the dog handler lied on the witness stand. My experience however, the handler says the dog responded plus the drugs found during the search laying on the prosecutors table, plus the dog training records provide some substantiation to the dog handler's testimony and the dog's credibility. Could a dog handler lie? Well, we have doctors that sell drugs, ministers that murder, trusted bankers/investment firms that steal, so I guess a police officer that would tell a lie is not a stretch.

DFrost

I find it really funny that one of my drummer buddies is an LEO and instead of getting upset he actually apologizes for the bad seeds. He'll say, "man, Scott, I'm really sorry that you've had so many negative experiences and wish there was something I could do." The vast majority of my interactions with LEOs, though, have been negative. I will call cops who act like fascists, "gestapo". Then, I'll thank LEOs who treat me like the professionals they should be.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin.

I feel no need to further defend myself or my statement.

 Quote: Scott Garrett

I find it really funny that one of my drummer buddies is an LEO and instead of getting upset he actually apologizes for the bad seeds. ...

I don't understand why that's funny.

He doesn't owe anyone an apology for someone else in his profession, but why is it funny that he offers one?

Okay

 Quote: jo harker

 Quote: scott garrett

Seems like anything less that full compliance with the gestaopo gets you one charge or another these days. ....

Having family who lived through WWII in Nazi Germany and who were against Hitler, worked with the underground, were imprisoned for it and eventually killed, I find it highly offensive to have our law enforcement referred to as Gestapo.

I do understand the fear and worry of having a police state where the "peace officers" can do what they will, believe me, but the USA isn't that place yet. Individuals get the news and the majority get the blame and bad name....kinda like some young teens and twentys in the 60's, and 70's, and 80's, and etc. Do you understand?

You do offend people on this board by using this term ...

Yes, I see it as offensive, too, and I am not even LE.