Supreme Court Rules: Traffic stops cannot be extended to bring in K-9 - Polidicks

[quote]The Supreme Court said Tuesday that police may not extend an ordinary traffic stop to seek evidence of crimes unrelated to the offense that prompted officers to pull a vehicle over. The justices voted 6-3 in favor of a driver who was found to have methamphetamine in his car. Dennys Rodriguez was issued a warning for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway and then made to wait less than 10 minutes for officers to walk a drug-sniffing dog around the car. The dog alerted and a search of the vehicle turned up the drugs.[/quote] [quote] Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. [/quote] [url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf[/url] In short: They need reasonable suspicion to have a dog come out and sniff. They just cant go about running a dog on your vehicle without it.

So a dog can't sniff around in a public place now? Not like the cops are forcing their way into the car... THAT would be a violation of the 4th amendment, not having a dog sniff OUTSIDE of your car.

Excellent. Traffic stops are supposed to be about, you know, [I]traffic[/I], or some other specific purpose like serving a warrant or investigating a stolen car. They are not an excuse for police to make you sit at the side of the road while they trawl for any possible excuse to rack up another arrest for the month. Run the information, write your ticket if that's what you want to do, and let them go.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47570320]So a dog can't sniff around in a public place now? Not like the cops are forcing their way into the car... THAT would be a violation of the 4th amendment, not having a dog sniff OUTSIDE of your car.[/QUOTE] The dog is trained to locate an object/toy. This toy is always associated with the smell of illegal drugs, etc., during training. The dog is then sent to look for the "toy" when in reality they are pinpointing illegal drugs. The dog does not have to enter the car to smell them, it just needs to simply be around the vehicle. It also has nothing to do with a dog sniffing in a public place. The dog is doing the job it was trained to do, by command of the officers. What the cops did in this case was just plain wrong. They had no reasonable suspicion the guy had anything illegal. They simply held him up and then trapped him when the dog alerted them. I'm not saying it was okay that he had the drugs, but he should not have been caught that day. It was abuse of power, plain and simple.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47570309][url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf[/url] In short: They need reasonable suspicion to have a dog come out and sniff. They just cant go about running a dog on your vehicle without it.[/QUOTE] Ya but reasonable suspicion can be "I smelt pot as he sped by at 65 mph" Its just a rubber stamp, they haven't addressed and updated what constitutes reasonable suspicion

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;47570320]So a dog can't sniff around in a public place now? Not like the cops are forcing their way into the car... THAT would be a violation of the 4th amendment, not having a dog sniff OUTSIDE of your car.[/QUOTE] Its not about having permission to search, its about holding someone for an unreasonable amount of time. In the case the officer returned to the vehicle with a warning/ticket which in the courts eyes terminated the stop. Anything afterwards they deemed was an unreasonable prolonging of the stop. Not to mention the officer just wanted to run the dog.. to run the dog. He didnt have a reason behind it.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47570346]Excellent. Traffic stops are supposed to be about, you know, [I]traffic[/I], or some other specific purpose like serving a warrant or investigating a stolen car. They are not an excuse for police to make you sit at the side of the road while they trawl for any possible excuse to rack up another arrest for the month. Run the information, write your ticket if that's what you want to do, and let them go.[/QUOTE] drug legality debate aside, why should a cop [I]NOT[/I] investigate other possible crimes if he/she has reasonable suspicion that the person is doing something illegal? [editline]21st April 2015[/editline] like I mean if the person rolls down their window and the car smells like it contains 10 kilos of dank-as-fuck weed is there some reason a cop shouldn't persue that further?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47570466]Its not about having permission to search, its about holding someone for an unreasonable amount of time. In the case the officer returned to the vehicle with a warning/ticket which in the courts eyes terminated the stop. Anything afterwards they deemed was an unreasonable prolonging of the stop. Not to mention the officer just wanted to run the dog.. to run the dog. He didnt have a reason behind it.[/QUOTE] I got pulled over once for a 'routine traffic stop' and when I went for my wallet In my middle dash, I accidentally showed that there was a small box of nasal decongestant there ; the cop IMMEDIATELY saw this and asked me to get out and put my hands on the vehicle ( I guess he thought I was getting high on it, but I was fucking sick ) I wasn't gonna start showing resistance when I could tell he thought I was a little shit . He lifted my whole body up and put me in the exact positioning he wanted me to be; by this time he had already phoned the canine unit to come and was telling me things like. "You better hope the german shepherd doesn't have fun with your cushions. You have drugs in the car don't you?" Thank god the dog didn't make any noises in my car cause they would have torn the shit out of my interior looking for nothing.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47570545]I got pulled over once for a 'routine traffic stop' and when I went for my wallet In my middle dash, I accidentally showed that there was a small box of nasal decongestant there ; the cop IMMEDIATELY saw this and asked me to get out and put my hands on the vehicle ( I guess he thought I was getting high on it, but I was fucking sick ) I wasn't gonna start showing resistance when I could tell he thought I was a little shit . He lifted my whole body up and put me in the exact positioning he wanted me to be; by this time he had already phoned the canine unit to come and was telling me things like. "You better hope the german shepherd doesn't have fun with your cushions. You have drugs in the car don't you?" Thank god the dog didn't make any noises in my car cause they would have torn the shit out of my interior looking for nothing.[/QUOTE] Where are you located? Anything with Psuedoephedrine in it here in Louisiana is stupidly regulated. I understand why they do it, but they take it to EXTREMES! My dad was prescribed a daily dose of a decongestant by his doctor for the long term. He gets a 30 day supply, once a month, which is the maximum allowed by the state. Still, police come to his house every couple of months to make sure he has them, and not giving them to anyone else. This is common practice in my area. EDIT: By the way, you were illegally detained in your situation. Decongestants by themselves are not illegal, and are not reason to perform a search of a vehicle. You could have simply said no, and asked for a commanding officer.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47570494]like I mean if the person rolls down their window and the car smells like it contains 10 kilos of dank-as-fuck weed is there some reason a cop shouldn't persue that further?[/QUOTE] There is a big difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;47570628]Where are you located? Anything with Psuedoephedrine in it here in Louisiana is stupidly regulated. I understand why they do it, but they take it to EXTREMES! My dad was prescribed a daily dose of a decongestant by his doctor for the long term. He gets a 30 day supply, once a month, which is the maximum allowed by the state. Still, police come to his house every couple of months to make sure he has them, and not giving them to anyone else. This is common practice in my area. EDIT: By the way, you were illegally detained in your situation. Decongestants by themselves are not illegal, and are not reason to perform a search of a vehicle. You could have simply said no, and asked for a commanding officer.[/QUOTE] my brother's on prescription meds and he's searched every time he's pulled over, even though he has his medical card on him, cops don't give a shit about that stuff most of the time

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;47570628]Where are you located? Anything with Psuedoephedrine in it here in Louisiana is stupidly regulated. I understand why they do it, but they take it to EXTREMES! My dad was prescribed a daily dose of a decongestant by his doctor for the long term. He gets a 30 day supply, once a month, which is the maximum allowed by the state. Still, police come to his house every couple of months to make sure he has them, and not giving them to anyone else. This is common practice in my area.[/QUOTE] That's way more extreme that I could have imagined. I'm in good ol' humid Florida; and yeah you're right. I'm pretty sure it was Psuedoephedrine but not a prescription; just a store bought box. The cop started spouting things like "High on psuedofed are we?" and when I tried to explain it was for my actual nose being clogged he wasn't having any of it.

[QUOTE=Kyle v2;47570634]There is a big difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.[/QUOTE] To clarify for everyone: To stop someone: Reasonable Suspicion: I [I]think[/I] a crime has occurred. I should investigate. To arrest someone: Probable Cause: I [I]believe[/I] that a crime has occurred because of the facts from my investigation. To convict someone (civil): Preponderance of Evidence: The defendant has been found liable for 51%+ of whatever occurred. To convict someone (criminal): Beyond a Reasonable doubt: We believe beyond a reasonable doubt (I benchmark this at 95%+ confidence) that you committed this crime.

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;47570628] EDIT: By the way, you were illegally detained in your situation. Decongestants by themselves are not illegal, and are not reason to perform a search of a vehicle. You could have simply said no, and asked for a commanding officer.[/QUOTE] I think the bad part is he was chief of police; and I could tell it was him the moment I saw his name badge when he pulled me over.

holy shit I just now realized K-9 is a word play for ca-nine that took me only like [B]15 years[/B] to figure out

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;47570628] EDIT: By the way, you were illegally detained in your situation. Decongestants by themselves are not illegal, and are not reason to perform a search of a vehicle. [b]You could have simply said no, and asked for a commanding officer.[/b][/QUOTE] The thing about doing this is that its the right course of action, but most cops/deputy sheriffs wont give you the time of day, let alone understand your intentions behind not giving your full and unquestioned cooperation. Its always a better idea to just cooperate and be as polite as possible, and if you know youve been wronged in the process, take it to a court.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47570545]I got pulled over once for a 'routine traffic stop' and when I went for my wallet In my middle dash, I accidentally showed that there was a small box of nasal decongestant there ; the cop IMMEDIATELY saw this and asked me to get out and put my hands on the vehicle ( I guess he thought I was getting high on it, but I was fucking sick ) I wasn't gonna start showing resistance when I could tell he thought I was a little shit . He lifted my whole body up and put me in the exact positioning he wanted me to be; by this time he had already phoned the canine unit to come and was telling me things like. "You better hope the german shepherd doesn't have fun with your cushions. You have drugs in the car don't you?" Thank god the dog didn't make any noises in my car cause they would have torn the shit out of my interior looking for nothing.[/QUOTE] Jesus, it shouldn't be legal to threathen like that either

I guess Jay-Z only has 98 problems now. [editline]21st April 2015[/editline] Good news though. K-9 shouldn't be used without reasonable suspicion.

But what if K-9 uses a telescopic eye probe? [img]https://33.media.tumblr.com/181bc8c369da5745c37723682ad20c80/tumblr_mr496nG1ym1r1u2w8o1_250.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47570677]holy shit I just now realized K-9 stands is a word play for ca-nine that took me only like [B]15 years[/B] to figure out[/QUOTE] I only just realized it now with your post.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47570677]holy shit I just now realized K-9 is a word play for ca-nine that took me only like [B]15 years[/B] to figure out[/QUOTE] Which in turn is drawn from [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis"]Canis[/URL], the genus to which dogs belong, and is also the Latin word for "dog". [IMG]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/014/033/knowing.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47570545]I got pulled over once for a 'routine traffic stop' and when I went for my wallet In my middle dash, I accidentally showed that there was a small box of nasal decongestant there ; the cop IMMEDIATELY saw this and asked me to get out and put my hands on the vehicle ( I guess he thought I was getting high on it, but I was fucking sick ) I wasn't gonna start showing resistance when I could tell he thought I was a little shit . He lifted my whole body up and put me in the exact positioning he wanted me to be; by this time he had already phoned the canine unit to come and was telling me things like. "You better hope the german shepherd doesn't have fun with your cushions. You have drugs in the car don't you?" Thank god the dog didn't make any noises in my car cause they would have torn the shit out of my interior looking for nothing.[/QUOTE] Talk to a lawyer, put this dude out of a job.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47570673]To convict someone (civil): Preponderance of Evidence: The defendant has been found liable for 51%+ of whatever occurred.[/QUOTE] Not really - the preponderance of evidence means that the weight of the evidence against the defendant exceeds that for the defendant. They do not have to be liable for any particular percentage; they could be found 20% liable (or equally liable as four other people) and still be convicted as long as the simple majority of the evidence proves it.

One person is at fault more than the other- which in the simplest of cases can be easily said to be 51% minimum. I didnt want to get into complicated cases where the automaker could be held 20%, driver A 30%, driver B 40%, and the state 10%... Just kept it simple. Person A v Person B [editline]21st April 2015[/editline] but yes youre right

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47570309][url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf[/url] In short: They need reasonable suspicion to have a dog come out and sniff. They just cant go about running a dog on your vehicle without it.[/QUOTE] Unless you're on private residence and the owner of the residence or property agrees to let them sniff cars in the lot.

[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47570663]That's way more extreme that I could have imagined. I'm in good ol' humid Florida; and yeah you're right. I'm pretty sure it was Psuedoephedrine but not a prescription; just a store bought box. The cop started spouting things like "High on psuedofed are we?" and when I tried to explain it was for my actual nose being clogged he wasn't having any of it.[/QUOTE] My dad buys Claritin D, which is still over the counter like what you had. Doctors often prescribe over-the-counter drugs like that. Here whenever you have to buy it, it's behind the counter, you have to scan your license, then sign an agreement/warning. [editline]23rd April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=3picFail;47571222]The thing about doing this is that its the right course of action, but most cops/deputy sheriffs wont give you the time of day, let alone understand your intentions behind not giving your full and unquestioned cooperation. Its always a better idea to just cooperate and be as polite as possible, and if you know youve been wronged in the process, take it to a court.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree. You have absolute no reason to cooperate when you are not in the wrong. I was in a traffic stop situation where I was being wrongly held. Long story short a motorcycle cop crossed a double yellow to pass someone and almost hit me head on when I turned out of my driveway. He refused to let me leave, and he tried ticketing me for failure to stop before entering the highway and careless operation. I refused to cooperate, and I demanded to speak to a commanding officer. Another lady at a house across the street saw the whole thing, and when the commanding officer got there she came over and told him the same story I did. The officer who stopped me got his ass chewed out on the spot. I found out later on that he ended up getting fired because of previous problems he had caused. Simply speaking, if you know you are in the right, do not give in no matter what happens. If you do give in, you are setting yourself up for a long and costly battle, even if you are in the right. By not giving in, 9/10 you will avoid the battle altogether. If a cop tries to search your vehicle because he/she saw a box of medicine that you can buy over-the-counter, he/she is damn right in the wrong. You can't hold a person for having something that is not illegal.

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;47582489]Simply speaking, if you know you are in the right, do not give in no matter what happens. If you do give in, you are setting yourself up for a long and costly battle, even if you are in the right. By not giving in, 9/10 you will avoid the battle altogether.[/QUOTE] If you are in the right, sure, you can hope they'll call their supervisor and you have a witness nearby willing to give a report. That's far less common than you'd think, though. Most of the time, you're just writing yourself more tickets and giving the cop a reason to attend your court hearing just to kick you in the ass for wasting their time.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47583666]If you are in the right, sure, you can hope they'll call their supervisor and you have a witness nearby willing to give a report. That's far less common than you'd think, though. Most of the time, you're just writing yourself more tickets and giving the cop a reason to attend your court hearing just to kick you in the ass for wasting their time.[/QUOTE] Maybe those people who have 360 degree camera coverage around their cars are onto something.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47589247]Maybe those people who have 360 degree camera coverage around their cars are onto something.[/QUOTE] I've convinced 3 friends to buy dashcams. I have two. Haven't needed to use them for anything serious (it's only been about 4 months) but one of those friends got into a nasty accident and the footage saved him from being found at fault (the bitch pulled out in front of him and claimed he was speeding and turned out from behind a blind corner).

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47595683]I've convinced 3 friends to buy dashcams. I have two. Haven't needed to use them for anything serious (it's only been about 4 months) but one of those friends got into a nasty accident and the footage saved him from being found at fault (the bitch pulled out in front of him and claimed he was speeding and turned out from behind a blind corner).[/QUOTE] How much does a dashcam setup go for?