 Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#368823 - 11/03/2012 08:13 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
 Offline |
|
An officer does not need suspicion of any kind to have the dog sniff the outside of a vehicle during an otherwise legal traffic stop.
If the officer is not suspicious, why would the dog be deployed?
Generally you wouldn't on a regular traffic stop but the supreme court has seen fit to allow police the latitude to conduct searches sans any suspicion. My guess is to allow law enforcement to utilize dogs in numerous other venues such as customs or border patrol where you basically use the dog constantly in hopes of preventing certain illegal activities.
If LEOs had to have suspicion to use the dogs then we'd be way behind the curve. And because the fact that the dog sniff in public is not considered a search, why would we need suspicion?
David....your welcome:-)
|
 Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#368826 - 11/03/2012 08:41 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 02-28-2008
Posts: 2075
Loc: Dallas, Texas
| Offline |
|
Several years ago, when I lived in Mpls. I went through a 'Citizen's Academy' where I got a 12 week overview of all the departments in LE.
During the ride along with two officers, I was pretty amazed at their skills as they honed in on many I would never have thought to look twice at.
It seemed to me, many officers really develop their skills for hunches they get, and that night every single one was accurate, and right on, when they further investigated, they found something that was illegal.
I won't answer for any officers, but in the night I observed, I was astonished at how keen and accurate these officers were at picking out the citizens that were out there that had been evading the law.
It was pretty impressive.
Joyce Salazar
 |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Brian Couse ]
#368827 - 11/03/2012 08:41 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
Thanks Howard.
I certainly understand free use of the dog in public, and how that carries over to stops. I was asking specifically about the traffic stop. I just couldn't imagine an officer pulling out his dog for a routine traffic stop, unless he did become suspicious. A roadblock, I could see.
Sadie |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#368832 - 11/03/2012 11:53 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
| Offline |
|
Thanks Howard.
I certainly understand free use of the dog in public, and how that carries over to stops. I was asking specifically about the traffic stop. I just couldn't imagine an officer pulling out his dog for a routine traffic stop, unless he did become suspicious. A roadblock, I could see.
Actually, using a dog at a roadblock presents more problems than than a legal traffic stop. Some courts have held under those conditions, the roadblock was nothing more than a ruse to use the dog to find drugs. Yeah I know, the law is really really strange. When you mix in 9 different circuit courts and the USC, you even have to be mindful of what circuit you are working within. Thankfully, I'm in the 6th, a somewhat more conservative court as opposed to what we call the 9th "Circus" that are brothers on the left coast have to deal with. One other thing, some dog handlers have just made it part of their routine to run the dog on every vehicle they stop. I can show by training records that in over 100,000 vehicle sniffs (privately owned and commercial vehicles) drugs were found on over 12% of them. So even absent suspicion, can anyone describe what a drug courier looks like? I can not and I've been doing this a long time.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Brian Couse ]
#368833 - 11/03/2012 12:03 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 11-30-2009
Posts: 3724
Loc: minnesota
| Offline |
|
I'm curious about a group of signs on I-80 someplace in Nebraska that say, "Drug dogs in training". The signs are in the median.
Well, if you get off at the next exit the drug dogs are there. Usually 3-4 with officers on both sides, going east and going west.
So, if you are warned, then is it legal? One of my son's friends was busted with a tiny bit of pot.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Betty Landercasp ]
#368849 - 11/03/2012 07:31 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
| Offline |
|
I'm curious about a group of signs on I-80 someplace in Nebraska that say, "Drug dogs in training". The signs are in the median.
Well, if you get off at the next exit the drug dogs are there. Usually 3-4 with officers on both sides, going east and going west.
So, if you are warned, then is it legal? One of my son's friends was busted with a tiny bit of pot.
In Florida very near me there were similar "Details" where signs were posted on a stretch of interstate just past an exit. The signs mentioned something about a drug check point ahead. Couriers, or those with something to hide would pull a U-turn in the median which is illegal. That U-turn gave the officers PC for a traffic stop. I thought that was an awesome idea but it seems the 5th DCA and the Civil Liberties Union didn't see it that way. The "Detail" was very effective which is probably why.
David...regarding running the dog on every traffic stop. With the details of the Harris case I'd be concerned about 12% documented finds being a negative insofar as K9 reliability.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Howard Knauf ]
#368850 - 11/03/2012 08:58 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
| Offline |
|
I'm curious about a group of signs on I-80 someplace in Nebraska that say, "Drug dogs in training". The signs are in the median.
Well, if you get off at the next exit the drug dogs are there. Usually 3-4 with officers on both sides, going east and going west.
So, if you are warned, then is it legal? One of my son's friends was busted with a tiny bit of pot.
In Florida very near me there were similar "Details" where signs were posted on a stretch of interstate just past an exit. The signs mentioned something about a drug check point ahead. Couriers, or those with something to hide would pull a U-turn in the median which is illegal. That U-turn gave the officers PC for a traffic stop. I thought that was an awesome idea but it seems the 5th DCA and the Civil Liberties Union didn't see it that way. The "Detail" was very effective which is probably why.
David...regarding running the dog on every traffic stop. With the details of the Harris case I'd be concerned about 12% documented finds being a negative insofar as K9 reliability.
I don't see the problem. The dog's reliability isn't the issue, it's the number of vehicles, subsequent the sniff of a dog that were found to have drugs ie, 12 out of 100 vehicles sniffed, not 12 of 100 responded on. The dog's were NOT 12%. With our records we track each time the dog is used to sniff, whether or not the dog responded and whether or not anything was found subsequent a response. It's all in black and white, no guess work, no smoke and mirrors.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Brian Couse ]
#369033 - 11/09/2012 05:49 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
| Offline |
|
You are right of course. 12% ain't bad. No alerts do not negatively affect the dog team's reputation.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Supreme Court
[Re: Brian Couse ]
#369035 - 11/09/2012 09:38 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-08-2008
Posts: 1473
Loc: Alaska
| Offline |
|
Duane you said what I was going to say. Our rights as a nation are more important than busting a few more criminals (and whomever else gets caught in the net).
I don't particularly agree with the idea but I had to laugh at the U-turn thing. Its just funny. :-D
A tired dog is a good dog, a trained dog is a better dog. |
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
