Originally posted by rockyraider
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Vehicle searches
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by CrookedArrow View PostOk I will play. What about an open air search with a K-9?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tony Pic View PostSo 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?
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
-
Originally posted by jshouse View Postwhere 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.
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
-
Originally posted by jshouse View Postwhere 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
-
Originally posted by jshouse View Postwhere 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
-
Originally posted by Lawhunter View PostThats 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
-
Originally posted by Roy Munson View PostThe 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.
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 PostA 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Tony Pic View PostLook up Rodriquez V US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrig..._United_States
I keep up with case law, because I don't want to be part of case law.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tony Pic View PostThat was a violation of your rights. Took too long to get dog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrig..._United_States
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tony Pic View PostSo 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by flyby View PostMight 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.
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
-
Originally posted by flyby View PostMight 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.
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
Comment