Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vehicle searches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by rockyraider View Post
    What's your question, I'm not following? What about searching a vehicle, sometimes its lawful, other times its not. Just FYI, having a DL and operating a vehicle on the basis of being a privilege and not a right has nothing to do with vehicle searches and the 4th Amendment.

    If you are asking if we would allow a random search of our vehicle's without probable cause, my answer would be "no". I'm a PO and I would not submit to the search of my vehicle on the side of the road during a typical traffic stop. I have asked for consent to search thousands of vehicles during my career, if someone says no and I have nothing else, I don't take it personally. Its your right as a US citizen.
    Yep. Thread should have ended right here as this post is spot on.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by CrookedArrow View Post
      Ok I will play. What about an open air search with a K-9?
      Thats a completely different issue altogether. You aren't in the same ballpark. Open air does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy whereas a persons vehicle does. There are plenty of SCOTUS cases addressing this. However, an open air search with a K-9 could lead to a search of a vehicle if all steps are done properly. One does not have to consent to a search of their vehicle and a law enforcement officer cannot legally just decide to search it as a method of harassment. He can certainly search it whenever he wants and if he was getting antsy and touching his weapon after I told him no, I wouldn't fight him. I would simply state that I did not consent to his search and anything he found would be subject to being barred from evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Tony Pic View Post
        So your telling me Rodriquez V USA is not real because I gave a wiki page? Really? I doubt their info also occasionally. OK...
        How about this one?

        Did they not go over this at the academy? Reasonable amount of time. 30 mins is too long to wait for a K9.

        Hey I am glad LEO do their jobs and it is a job I do not want. I pray for my son every day he leaves for work with that badge on that he comes home safe. But from my point of view...Rules are rules and laws are laws. Where does one set of laws become MORE righteous that another set of laws? Why would a honest LEO want to trick or lie(its legal) someone out of their rights?
        where did i say it wasnt real? i agree its real, and the suspect waited approx. 7-8mins for the dog to be deployed and alert to the odor of narcotics, according to wiki. is that too long?

        can you really tell me this was handled incorrectly by the officer? the question here, like i said above, is did the officer articulate the reasonable suspicion he developed during the stop well enough to substantiate the search...

        Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
        on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
        to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
        the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
        warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
        walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
        detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
        his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
        search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
        elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
        dog alerted.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by boh347 View Post
          Pfffff let them search my vehicle any day they’ll never find anything there. Now if they ask to search my anus that’s a different story.









          J/k
          That'll cost em a nice seafood dinner.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by jshouse View Post
            where did i say it wasnt real? i agree its real, and the suspect waited approx. 7-8mins for the dog to be deployed and alert to the odor of narcotics, according to wiki. is that too long?

            can you really tell me this was handled incorrectly by the officer? the question here, like i said above, is did the officer articulate the reasonable suspicion he developed during the stop well enough to substantiate the search...

            Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
            on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
            to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
            the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
            warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
            walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
            detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
            his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
            search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
            elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
            dog alerted.
            You did say "no doubt credible wiki link". I took it as if you did not believe. Apologies if I took that wrong.
            I think 7-8 mins is reasonable time, heck even 30 to get the bad guys. But SCOTUS ruled against the officer right? The LEO may not have, as you said articulated the way he should have to substantiate the search.
            I am from a family of LE. Feds to local PD. I have no ill will towards LE, Fly a thin blue line flag at my place in Harper and at my properties in NY. Just used to playing devils advocate at family gatherings. Which how I learned of Rodriquez V USA

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by jshouse View Post
              where did i say it wasnt real? i agree its real, and the suspect waited approx. 7-8mins for the dog to be deployed and alert to the odor of narcotics, according to wiki. is that too long?

              can you really tell me this was handled incorrectly by the officer? the question here, like i said above, is did the officer articulate the reasonable suspicion he developed during the stop well enough to substantiate the search...

              Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
              on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
              to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
              the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
              warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
              walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
              detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
              his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
              search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
              elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
              dog alerted.
              The issue wasn’t the elapsed time. The issue is can an officer continue to detain you after all business concerning the initial stop has been completed and no other reason to detain has arisen.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by elkaholic9292 View Post
                I always understood the law to mean that one doesn’t have the rights on a public road they do in a residence. No warrant needed. It’s public livery and you chose to use.
                wrong, WRONG, WRONG.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by jshouse View Post
                  where did i say it wasnt real? i agree its real, and the suspect waited approx. 7-8mins for the dog to be deployed and alert to the odor of narcotics, according to wiki. is that too long?

                  can you really tell me this was handled incorrectly by the officer? the question here, like i said above, is did the officer articulate the reasonable suspicion he developed during the stop well enough to substantiate the search...

                  Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
                  on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
                  to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
                  the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
                  warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
                  walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
                  detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
                  his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
                  search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
                  elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
                  dog alerted.
                  A LEO dosen't have to have "permission" to walk his K-9 around a vehicle, don't know why he asked, or waited for the other officer.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Lawhunter View Post
                    Thats a completely different issue altogether. You aren't in the same ballpark. Open air does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy whereas a persons vehicle does. There are plenty of SCOTUS cases addressing this. However, an open air search with a K-9 could lead to a search of a vehicle if all steps are done properly. One does not have to consent to a search of their vehicle and a law enforcement officer cannot legally just decide to search it as a method of harassment. He can certainly search it whenever he wants and if he was getting antsy and touching his weapon after I told him no, I wouldn't fight him. I would simply state that I did not consent to his search and anything he found would be subject to being barred from evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
                    I missed the part where the person was being harrassed by the nice officer?

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                      The issue wasn’t the elapsed time. The issue is can an officer continue to detain you after all business concerning the initial stop has been completed and no other reason to detain has arisen.
                      I agree, that's why I said the officer didn't do a good enough job of articulating his reasonable suspicion, or reason to further detain. If I searched a car it was because I had accumulated several items of suspicion during the course if my routine stop and could articulate them into my report as to why I wanted to search the car.

                      Also, I did not have to tell the suspect what these items were and often would not. Which could explain SOME of the "I got searched for no reason" stories.

                      Originally posted by DTala View Post
                      A LEO dosen't have to have "permission" to walk his K-9 around a vehicle, don't know why he asked, or waited for the other officer.
                      Agree he doesn't have to ask, but like my earlier example, I got caught running my dog by myself and had to watch 1 suspect escape because I couldn't leave the other suspect with the car and the dope.

                      It's also not safe at all to be running your dog and watching for an alert and making sure you are both out of traffic all while the suspect is standing in the ditch somewhere unsupervised. Always have a cover there to run your dog.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by Tony Pic View Post
                        I know all about Rodriguez. All my free air sniffs are done during the course of the traffic stop without extending it for the K9 sniff, unless there's RS or PC to extend.

                        I keep up with case law, because I don't want to be part of case law.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Tony Pic View Post
                          That was a violation of your rights. Took too long to get dog.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrig..._United_States
                          Might want to retract this statement. Rodriguez didn't occur until 2015. Prior to that case law said that detaining beyond the traffic stop for a short period of time to walk a dog around the car was not a problem. Additionally, if RS then no time limit as long as actively pursuing investigation (trying to get a dog). Need timeline and more details to come to your decision.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by Tony Pic View Post
                            So your telling me Rodriquez V USA is not real because I gave a wiki page? Really? I doubt their info also occasionally. OK...
                            How about this one?

                            Did they not go over this at the academy? Reasonable amount of time. 30 mins is too long to wait for a K9.

                            Hey I am glad LEO do their jobs and it is a job I do not want. I pray for my son every day he leaves for work with that badge on that he comes home safe. But from my point of view...Rules are rules and laws are laws. Where does one set of laws become MORE righteous that another set of laws? Why would a honest LEO want to trick or lie(its legal) someone out of their rights?
                            I'm telling you Rodriguez case was 3 years ago, he's telling you he hasn't had a dog in 3 years, so obviously Rodriguez didn't apply when he last had a dog. I also just told you that prior to Rodriguez the courts allowed a short delay to walk the dog, saying it wasn't a problem. There is plenty of case law saying that if RS is developed there is essentially NO TIME limit as long as the officer is diligently attempting to achieve his purpose. Several cases that have concluded that if RS sometime even 3+ hours is acceptable.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by flyby View Post
                              Might want to retract this statement. Rodriguez didn't occur until 2015. Prior to that case law said that detaining beyond the traffic stop for a short period of time to walk a dog around the car was not a problem. Additionally, if RS then no time limit as long as actively pursuing investigation (trying to get a dog). Need timeline and more details to come to your decision.
                              That is what i was getting at, they (the court) always told us as long as the traffic stop was valid and once I got the call I made every effort to respond promptly, it didn't matter how long it took.

                              It was also up to the supervisor as to whether he would approve calling me and/or waiting if I wasn't readily available.
                              Last edited by jshouse; 05-16-2018, 09:36 AM.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by flyby View Post
                                Might want to retract this statement. Rodriguez didn't occur until 2015. Prior to that case law said that detaining beyond the traffic stop for a short period of time to walk a dog around the car was not a problem. Additionally, if RS then no time limit as long as actively pursuing investigation (trying to get a dog). Need timeline and more details to come to your decision.
                                Retracted because of time line You are correct.
                                Thank you for all you do. Seriously. Don't know how you cops do it with all the outhouse lawyers. I'm from a family full of LEO, from Feds to local PD. I have learned a lot just sitting at the table listening. I hope some walk away from this thread with correct knowledge of the topic and continue being useful, productive members of society.
                                Be safe Flyby and all LE.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X