reasonable cause no longer needed in auto stops.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:51 am

police have the right to pull anyone over, if you have drugs your rights well, i don't think are considered. are you taking drugs and are you afraid of being pulled over? the police are to protect us, their decisions should not be questioned, you may get away with it one time but eventually they wil GET U...

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:28 am

if my K-9 hits on your car that IS probable cause for a search. :driving: and before this ruling i always had the option to ask you to remain on scene while i called for a K-9. (you were not forced to do so)....so, Argonaut, where in florida are you?

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:42 am

This should be ruled illegal search, IMO...so what's next? If a dog happens to be walking down the street by my house and starts barking, I get arrested? Nope...this slope is way too slippery to even go anywhere near. If this keeps up, pretty soon Big Brother is watching us exercise through our TV sets (read Orwell's "1984" if you don't get the reference).

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:47 am

if there is nothing to hide a search is welcomed! people do not respect the police, yes they can be a-holes but let them look? it ends up being more an "issue" than the issue really is? what the hell?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:50 am

lady cop wrote: if my K-9 hits on your car that IS probable cause for a search.

Hm. K-9. 3 characters, same as "dog". Two syllables, instead of one. Why K-9?

If one of these police dogs damages the car, is the police service liable for damages?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:51 am

Paula wrote: if there is nothing to hide a search is welcomed!

Ah, yes. Hm.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:03 am

I say check me out....be my guest...just don't cuff or shoot me..thats all!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:19 am

Erinna1112 wrote: This should be ruled illegal search, IMO...so what's next? If a dog happens to be walking down the street by my house and starts barking, I get arrested? Nope...this slope is way too slippery to even go anywhere near. If this keeps up, pretty soon Big Brother is watching us exercise through our TV sets (read Orwell's "1984" if you don't get the reference).
problem: driving is a privilege, not a right. fifth amendment rights are shaky at best under that circumstance. it's not your person that is being searched, but a vehicle, governed by vehicle codes, that don't apply to your domicile. i've never been cited for a broken turn signal on my house.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:21 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Hm. K-9. 3 characters, same as "dog". Two syllables, instead of one. Why K-9?
i've most often seen it as K9, rather than K-9. it's cute, and sounds official. dog sounds less official.

If one of these police dogs damages the car, is the police service liable for damages?
if they don't find anything, you could probably get a settlement. however, drug/contraband/explosive-sniffing dogs are exceedingly well trained. the likelyhood of one damaging one's car is effectively nil.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:24 pm

anastrophe wrote: problem: driving is a privilege, not a right. fifth amendment rights are shaky at best under that circumstance. it's not your person that is being searched, but a vehicle, governed by vehicle codes, that don't apply to your domicile. i've never been cited for a broken turn signal on my house.
spot on as usual Anastrophe....so you don't live in an RV i take it?

...and i just put the dash in K9 for no particular reason. our puppies wear a badge on their collars, they are one of us :-4 . and they don't damage anything, they alert or not. that's all. i am talking about bomb and drug sniffing, not the ones we use to control subjects. they can do some damage, but not to one's property.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:32 pm

Usually I am against most things that could potentially be construed as an infringement on our right to privacy. This, however, shows the exception to the rule. I have some knowledge of how these dogs are trained, and the requirements of their jobs. If a K9 hits on your car, there is no doubt whatsoever that you are carrying something illegal. What it is depends on what the dog is trained to hit on. Certain K9's are trained for certain scents. The dogs are carefully chosen, and trained to be perfect. If they aren't perfect, they don't become an officer. The dog I used to own I had to give up and knew she would make a good leader dog. I donated her to Leader Dogs for the Blind, where she did very well up to a point where she wouldn't be distracted from a certain toy. They tried to overcome this, and her behavior could not be modified. From Leader Dogs, she went on to enter training as a U.S. customs border patrol K9. This was what she was meant to do, and she took to her training like a duck to water. She was perfect for this role, and is now a bomb/drug sniffer for U.S. customs. These dogs are flawless. You get a K9's attention, you are doing something wrong.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:48 pm

Anytime someone says "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about," I cringe. This is NOT ok. I don't break the law, yet the police don't enter my house without a warrant. I don't send email that I shouldn't, yet I resist the idea that the FBI can look at what I send without my permission. If I get stopped and a police officer asks if he can look through the car, I generally don't allow it. I don't have any contraband in the car. But it's the principle of the thing.

The erosions of our freedoms are subtle - they have to be. But every time we roll over and let an infringement like this happen, it makes it that much easier for the next time.

Where does it stop? Where do we put our collective foot down and say, "ENOUGH"? How far into our lives does the government get go before we begin to protect what is ours by right? I say it stops now, or it will never be stopped.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:57 pm

You won't get much argument from me that our rights are being "subtly eroded". I agree totally. And the "if you're not doing anything wrong don't worry" theory is a bunch of crap also. I don't believe there is a plan in place for ALL cops to have dogs present at ALL traffic stops, but I get your point. I would not allow a search to take place either, based solely on the principle of the thing. Just because, since it's my call, then no, you can't go through my car. Unfortunately, a lot of cops that I know would take that as a sign that something is being hidden from them. (That's not a blanket statement, that's cops I know.) I guess my point is that I would trust the nose of a K9 to be more fair than a lot of the cops I know. I'm trying not to offend LadyCop, here, because I know there are good cops out there.

I'm just a fan of K9's, for the service they provide, and I guess I'm one of those weird people who trusts dogs more than a lot of people! That's weird, huh?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:09 pm

i am not the least bit offended, i am fully cognizant of the rights of citizens....however, if i want to search your car and you refuse me, i will find a legal reason to detain you until a dog arrives. not something i would do arbitrarily, usually based on an educated surmise and whatever i have observed that aroused my suspicions. and if there is anything in plain view, i don't need permission to seize or search.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:18 pm

lady cop wrote: i am not the least bit offended, i am fully cognizant of the rights of citizens....however, if i want to search your car and you refuse me, i will find a legal reason to detain you until a dog arrives. not something i would do arbitrarily, usually based on an educated surmise and whatever i have observed that aroused my suspicions. and if there is anything in plain view, i don't need permission to seize or search.But see? There you go. LadyCop would stop you, ask for permission to search, and then detain you until a dog arrives. And that's fine, both of us are within our rights. But LC...When you bring the dog and find nothing in my car, what happens then? I'm truly curious, not being snotty. Not having been asked for permission to search when I have been pulled over, I don't know what would happen next. You are saying that you would only call for a dog if, in the course of you talking to the person you pulled over, your cop radar went up?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:30 pm

if i did everything within the law, and did not abuse you in any way, then it would be "bye, have a nice day" that's it.

if my "radar" went off yes i would call for a dog. i don't just do that for fun on routine traffic stops. my "radar" is usually pretty good. for example...a carload of nuns or a carload of people behaving like morons and reeking of dope, or arms covered with needle tracks ...it's a judgement call.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:33 pm

"Cop radar"...ha. I like that.

I, too, understand that there are good cops out there. Probably a large majority of the cops out there are good ones, because, face it, most cops aren't getting rich from cop salary. I truly believe that most police officers go into the job with the intent of making their jurisdiction (town, county, state, whatever) a safer, better place. That's not at issue.

I also understand that if I get pulled over (a rare occasion, as I am generally law-abiding) the officer will at least glance into the back seat, and whatever he can see from there is fair game. He'll probably ask me if I have any guns or alcohol in the car. I don't own a gun; if I did and it was there, I would tell the truth. The only time I've ever travelled with alcohol in my vehicle was bringing some sort of bottle (UNOPENED!!) home from whatever store I purchased it at. In this instance, I would tell the truth as well. Anyone who deliberately lies to a cop is just STUPID, in my book. As is anyone who deliberately sets out to antagonize someone who carries a gun. DUMB.

This does not, however, negate my right to protest unlawful search. If someone shows me a law that applies to my state that says a police officer has the right to toss my vehicle at a routine traffic stop for no other reason than the fact that he wants to, then I'll obey it. As I understand it, at this point I have the right to refuse such a search. It's the principle - if there is no reason to suspect I am committing a crime, then the officer has no right to treat me as if I were. And as long as I am within my rights, the officer is outside of his to assume differently. Pretty soon we're going to start arresting people for things they "might" do. Makes me want to take my child and go live at the top of a mountain somewhere. Either that, or protest at the top of my lungs until someone else gets it.

It's a slippery slope. Once we start down it...it is nearly impossible to stop.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:47 pm

Again, I agree with everything you're saying. Believe me, I'm your typical pro-choice, pro-gun, give me liberty or give me death citizen. The government DOES have too much power to interfere in our personal lives. I'm waiting patiently for LC's response to what happens next. :yh_wait

The term "innocent until proven guilty" is, IMO, pretty much a joke, designed to give people a false sense of security and faith in our judicial system. (THERE'S a topic for a whole other thread!) I believe that cops are usually suspicious of everyone, because SO many people are dumb and do lie to them. If I choose not to allow a search of my car because I can, NOT because I have something to hide, and I am detained until a dog can be brought in, isn't that saying, "OK, we THINK you are guilty of something, so we're going to make you wait here till we can prove it."? Am I contradicting myself here? Because I want to be clear. If a dog is brought to my car on a routine traffic stop, he will not hit on it, because there's nothing in my car for him to alert on. But I trust the dog to be accurate in instances where there IS something to alert to. Does this make any sense at all?

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:57 pm

i did respond in post #18.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:06 pm

lady cop wrote: if i did everything within the law, and did not abuse you in any way, then it would be "bye, have a nice day" that's it.

if my "radar" went off yes i would call for a dog. i don't just do that for fun on routine traffic stops. my "radar" is usually pretty good. for example...a carload of nuns or a carload of people behaving like morons and reeking of dope, or arms covered with needle tracks ...it's a judgement call.
Sorry LC! How'd I miss that?

I know for a fact that "cop radar" is usually VERY accurate. I'm not trying to dismiss the accuracy at all! Cops have always been and will always be lied to, and they can see it a mile away. And I don't doubt your judgement, either. Believe me, I have much respect for you, your job, and your ability. I was just curious as to what would happen, and now I know! Is it SOP to ask to search a car if your radar dosen't go off? Kind of a "random checkpoint" thing? Again, just curious.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:09 pm

lady cop wrote: if i did everything within the law, and did not abuse you in any way, then it would be "bye, have a nice day" that's it.

if my "radar" went off yes i would call for a dog. i don't just do that for fun on routine traffic stops. my "radar" is usually pretty good. for example...a carload of nuns or a carload of people behaving like morons and reeking of dope, or arms covered with needle tracks ...it's a judgement call.
And you're trained to hone that instinct. I get it. And it's a good thing.

My point is, the line needs to be firm, it needs to be defined, and it needs to be respected. And it needs to stay where it is.

Anyone who's familiar with the works of the author from whom I take my signature quote will understand where I'm coming from. I'm an objectivist. If anyone wants more info, it should probably happen in another thread - don't want to hijack this one.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:12 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: Anyone who's familiar with the works of the author from whom I take my signature quote will understand where I'm coming from. I'm an objectivist. If anyone wants more info, it should probably happen in another thread - don't want to hijack this one.
Erinna: COME ON DOWN!!!! You're the next contestant on "Start That Thread"!!!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:13 pm

Erinna1112 wrote: My point is, the line needs to be firm, it needs to be defined, and it needs to be respected. And it needs to stay where it is.

Absolutely.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:20 pm

you know it is perfectly ok to challenge the law, police, anything you object to...i don't take offense and try to answer people respectfully. i let it be known on this, and other boards, i am a cop, and i am prepared to take the heat! i think sometimes it helps some people to see us as human beings and not all a bunch of jackboots. on another board, where anything goes, one man was absolutely incensed at the police, hated us, the usual, was very abusive ...after about 6 pages of measured replies to him, he really turned around. some people just don't "know" a real cop. :yh_pig

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:26 pm

lady cop wrote: you know it is perfectly ok to challenge the law, police, anything you object to...i don't take offense and try to answer people respectfully. i let it be known on this, and other boards, i am a cop, and i am prepared to take the heat! i think sometimes it helps some people to see us as human beings and not all a bunch of jackboots. on another board, where anything goes, one man was absolutely incensed at the police, hated us, the usual, was very abusive ...after about 6 pages of measured replies to him, he really turned around. some people just don't "know" a real cop. :yh_pig
I think the main reason so many people hate cops, is because of the bad things you hear. You don't hear on a daily basis all the good cops do, because it's expected of them. When you hear about the rare corrupt ones, anything in blue is the enemy.

Even with my stupid and wild youth where I have had the unpleasant experience of being on the wrong end of a set of handcuffs, I still maintain that. The bad publicity cops get outweighs the good that the large majority of them do.

Der Wulf · Post by **Der Wulf** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:15 pm

I can't stand it any longer, K9 or K-9 is an acronym for CANINE, or in original "police speak" canine unit. Damn good cops, expensive to buy, but cheap to keep. :-6

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:49 pm

Der Wulf wrote: Damn good cops, expensive to buy, but cheap to keep.

as opposed to me, very expensive to keep

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:14 am

lady cop wrote: (police dogs) don't damage anything

OK, it was the "hitting on" reference that was confusing. I had visions of these dogs being thrown into cars.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:21 am

Erinna1112 wrote: (erosion of civil rights and liberties) It's a slippery slope. Once we start down it...it is nearly impossible to stop.

We're a long way down it. I would substitute "unstoppable" for "nearly impossible to stop".

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:44 am

lady cop wrote: as opposed to me, very expensive to keep

ROFL!! I get weird looks when I start laughing like this at my desk for no apparent reason

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:48 am

argonaut wrote: I am somewhere in Tampa. I have nothing to hide you could put ten dogs on me and it would be a waist of their time. I am just saying that lets say somebody is pulled over for speeding, give them a ticket that fine; but if no suspicion of drugs have been raised I do not believe a dog should be sniffing around peoples cars just because the ticketing officer has the dog on hand.
i certainly didn't imply you had something to hide.

... a dog sniffing around the exterior of a car is not intrusive or invasive. it isn't just drugs that are a concern, bomb-making materials are as well. as i said before, it's my judgement call. too bad some dog didn't sniff around timothy mcveigh's rental truck.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:15 am

argonaut wrote: I am somewhere in Tampa. I have nothing to hide you could put ten dogs on me and it would be a waist of their time. I am just saying that lets say somebody is pulled over for speeding, give them a ticket that fine; but if no suspicion of drugs have been raised I do not believe a dog should be sniffing around peoples cars just because the ticketing officer has the dog on hand.

That is what the dog is trained for, if the dog is there, well thats too bad, they can't keep them in the vehicle at all times. How stupid, you don't what people are up to these days, some towel head could have bomb on him? think positive, we live in the greatest country in the world. Bye.