Police can no longer make you wait for drug dogs to arrive during a traffic stop
30 replies, posted
[quote]It’s unconstitutional for police to hold suspects during traffic stops without probable cause, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
The 6-3 decision means that police are no longer allowed to force a stopped driver to wait for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive to inspect the vehicle. Extending the stop by even a few minutes violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures, the court ruled.
"Police may not prolong detention of a car and driver beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said on behalf of the court. [/quote]
[url]http://www.dailydot.com/politics/supreme-court-police-drug-sniffing-dogs/?utm_content=27431816&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook[/url]
Cool :).
Cool but what about when they claim probable cause like a vague marajuhana smell?
[QUOTE=Sableye;50242330]Cool but what about when they claim probable cause?[/QUOTE]
[Quote]It’s unconstitutional for police to hold suspects during traffic stops without probable cause, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.[/quote]
Sounds like they can, in that case. The ruling seems to just he confirming that they actually need a valid and explainable reason to detain you until drug dogs show up.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50242330]Cool but what about when they claim probable cause like a vague marajuhana smell?[/QUOTE]
Although they can still, some courts are pushing against "odor" being grounds for probable cause.
Odor is only allowed for grounds of probable cause, due to the "plain view" exception against warrantless search and seizure. The Plain View exception allows a warrantless search and seizure if criminal activity or criminal paraphernalia are in 'plain view.' What constitutes plain view varies by state. It's often been taken that odor is equitable to view.
Arizona recently overturned odor as not being sufficient for probable cause, while Michigan upheld odor as being sufficient to [I]obtain a search warrant,[/I] but not engage in a warrantless search. In Michigan then for example, it becomes a question of whether or not the officer believes it's worth the time to call in the warrant, then call in the dog, and so on and so on.
This was upheld in Rodriguez v US over a year ago. In fact this article was posted april 21 2015. Old as fuck
I'd laugh if a cop wasted both our time to search my car. All he's gonna find is clean leather and radiology textbooks.
On that thought, anyone with anything to hide had a problem with this. Innocent people couldn't care less other than the wasted time. I just find it weird how whenever a cop says he smells marijuana and searches someone's car, he ends up finding something relating to marijuana anyway even though the driver swears nothing smelled.
It's like being deaf and having sex. You think nobody knows but EVERYONE KNOWS
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50243075]I'd laugh if a cop wasted both our time to search my car. All he's gonna find is clean leather and radiology textbooks.
On that thought, anyone with anything to hide had a problem with this. Innocent people couldn't care less other than the wasted time. I just find it weird how whenever a cop says he smells marijuana and searches someone's car, he ends up finding something relating to marijuana anyway even though the driver swears nothing smelled.
It's like being deaf and having sex. You think nobody knows but EVERYONE KNOWS[/QUOTE]
What? Warrantless searches effect innocent people as well as victimless "criminals", not just the people that are committing real crimes.
Cops use the excuse of odor all the time to bypass the 4th amendment, sometimes they do it even if they don't really smell weed: see [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amns-bzX91U[/url]
The "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" argument is stupid, in my opinion. Rights are supposed to be absolute, otherwise they're just privileges
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50243075]I'd laugh if a cop wasted both our time to search my car. All he's gonna find is clean leather and radiology textbooks.
On that thought, anyone with anything to hide had a problem with this. Innocent people couldn't care less other than the wasted time. I just find it weird how whenever a cop says he smells marijuana and searches someone's car, he ends up finding something relating to marijuana anyway even though the driver swears nothing smelled.
It's like being deaf and having sex. You think nobody knows but EVERYONE KNOWS[/QUOTE]
Police have been known to plant evidence, they've been known to damage cars when performing searches, and it's just a ridiculous situation to begin with if the suspect isn't putting anyone in danger.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50242330]Cool but what about when they claim probable cause like a vague marajuhana smell?[/QUOTE]
Ask them to bring the dog to verify but politely state that you're in a hurry to get going. If they know about this ruling, which all cops should, then they'll either let you go or call in a dog and hope it gets there soon. If they do call for the dog it has to show up in a reasonable amount of time <5 or 10 minutes such that it doesn't impede you. If the dog is late or you are effectively impeded, any evidence found during a search may be inadmissible in court like the meth was in Rodriguez v US.
Never consent to searches or your person or your vehicle, it's common sense
[QUOTE=cody8295;50243268]Never consent to searches or your person or your vehicle, it's common sense[/QUOTE]
But why? I've got nothing illegal or even morally vague in my car and as long as I'm not in a hurry to go somewhere it gives me some time to shoot the shit with cops, who are usually pretty fun to talk to around here.
not sure what youre supposed to do in a case where a cop just blatantly breaks this rule. drive away? getting arrested for evading police?
[QUOTE=TheJoey;50243553]not sure what youre supposed to do in a case where a cop just blatantly breaks this rule. drive away? getting arrested for evading police?[/QUOTE]
Let them break the rule, then go to court amd demonstrate they broke the rule.
The police have to meticulously log everything they do, so if the officer calls in a pull-over at say, 10:00, and then ten or fifteen minutes later calls in a drug dog, then holds you while the dogs are en route, you have all the evidence you need to show they illegally detained you, regardless of whether or not they found anything incriminating.
The only problem with this is that, now and then, the police willfully falsify records and time logs. I recall one case where, coincidentally, the officer 'just happened' to have a K9 unit on hand for a 'routine' traffic stop on a drug lord the FBI had illegally tipped the police off about.
If you're lucky, you can sue for punitive damages.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;50243618]Let them break the rule, then go to court amd demonstrate they broke the rule.
The police have to meticulously log everything they do, so if the officer calls in a pull-over at say, 10:00, and then ten or fifteen minutes later calls in a drug dog, then holds you while the dogs are en route, you have all the evidence you need to show they illegally detained you, regardless of whether or not they found anything incriminating.
The only problem with this is that, now and then, the police willfully falsify records and time logs. I recall one case where, coincidentally, the officer 'just happened' to have a K9 unit on hand for a 'routine' traffic stop on a drug lord the FBI had illegally tipped the police off about.
If you're lucky, you can sue for punitive damages.[/QUOTE]
You have a better chance of just asking for the supervisor to show up to confirm that he needs probable cause to keep you there. You'll either A) Watch the supervisor give the cop shit the second you aren't looking B) Have better grounds to sue the department for shitty supervisors
[QUOTE=cody8295;50242686]This was upheld in Rodriguez v US over a year ago. In fact this article was posted april 21 2015. Old as fuck[/QUOTE]
AND this only applies to when the stop is already concluded. Just changes how the dog gets there and the officers actions beforehand aka you're not getting your license back while we wait for a dog.
What the officer did was illegal because he was illegally detaining the suspect after he had already concluded his stop.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;50243553]not sure what youre supposed to do in a case where a cop just blatantly breaks this rule. [B]drive away?[/B] getting arrested for evading police?[/QUOTE]
probably not a good idea
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50243075]On that thought, anyone with anything to hide had a problem with this.[/QUOTE]
Can't believe people still use this argument in 2016. By the way when the cops search your car, they will trash it or toss everything outside. They will at times, knife your entire carpet in half in order to lift the carpet to look under it or at times forcibly open and detach your side-door frame. If it doesn't re-attach as it has in the past that's not their problem.
They are not your car cleaners or your personal roadside mechanic.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;50243531]But why? I've got nothing illegal or even morally vague in my car and as long as I'm not in a hurry to go somewhere it gives me some time to shoot the shit with cops, who are usually pretty fun to talk to around here.[/QUOTE]
Do you trust them? In the city where I was raised I heard accounts from people in the police department about other cops planting evidence. It is a real thing that happens, and more often than not they get away with it. Even if they don't falsely accuse you of a crime, you still run the risk of them tearing through your things. They aren't going to put things back where they found them, they don't care. [URL="http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html"]A uniform is a powerful thing[/URL].
The whole situation is fucked up beyond belief - a blatant way of circumventing the method that true justice necessitates. Allowing gaps in procedure such as this would permit parallel construction and other injustices. If you value privacy or freedom, you have to recognize that law enforcement always must have limitations.
[quote]
The 6-3 decision[/quote]
this is what tipped me off that this was a pretty old thing
My brother got pulled over for an illegally modified exhaust(was in the right to be pulled over for that), but then the cop saw a dry leaf and claimed marijuana and demanded to search the car. He found an open bottle of liquor my brother was transporting to a family member and he got a DUI as a result of it because the cop refused to do a breathalyzer test. He couldn't afford to challenge the ticket at the time and as a result his insurance shot up.
Hopefully this ruling will discourage that and give you a way to say no.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50244149]Can't believe people still use this argument in 2016. By the way when the cops search your car, they will trash it or toss everything outside. They will at times, knife your entire carpet in half in order to lift the carpet to look under it or at times forcibly open and detach your side-door frame. If it doesn't re-attach as it has in the past that's not their problem.
They are not your car cleaners or your personal roadside mechanic.[/QUOTE]
I don't even let my own labrador in one of my cars unless I have a sheet down over the back seats. My center console is rather fragile and a huge german shepard tearing through my car. Shit's gonna get broken and they won't be held responsible for damages even in the best case scenarios. This is pretty much a worst nightmare to me short of my car being stolen.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50243739]AND this only applies to when the stop is already concluded. Just changes how the dog gets there and the officers actions beforehand aka you're not getting your license back while we wait for a dog.
What the officer did was illegal because he was illegally detaining the suspect after he had already concluded his stop.[/QUOTE]
What do you think about having the car towed and telling them to pretty much fuck off, leaving and letting them keep your license and registration? I'd rather pay DMV money for replacements than submit to anything tearing through my vehicle. Or was "aka you're not getting your license back while we wait for a dog" how it worked before?
[QUOTE=Kylel999;50243075]I'd laugh if a cop wasted both our time to search my car. All he's gonna find is clean leather and radiology textbooks.
On that thought, anyone with anything to hide had a problem with this. Innocent people couldn't care less other than the wasted time. I just find it weird how whenever a cop says he smells marijuana and searches someone's car, he ends up finding something relating to marijuana anyway even though the driver swears nothing smelled.
It's like being deaf and having sex. You think nobody knows but EVERYONE KNOWS[/QUOTE]
Jokes on you because he's on the clock and he's preventing you from doing something you'd rather do.
[QUOTE=slayer3032;50245857]
What do you think about having the car towed and telling them to pretty much fuck off, leaving and letting them keep your license and registration? I'd rather pay DMV money for replacements than submit to anything tearing through my vehicle. Or was "aka you're not getting your license back while we wait for a dog" how it worked before?[/QUOTE]
Take a guess at whats going to take longer: the tow truck or the dog. Regardless the tow truck driver cant just take your vehicle while you're being detained.
This has never been an issue for me, nor will it start now since we dont have drug dogs... only apprehension ones. I dont need a dog around to tell me that I have enough cause to search the vehicle. Frankly if you do need a dog to get cause to search then you're already walking a thin line
[QUOTE=slayer3032;50245857]I don't even let my own labrador in one of my cars unless I have a sheet down over the back seats. My center console is rather fragile and a huge german shepard tearing through my car. Shit's gonna get broken and they won't be held responsible for damages even in the best case scenarios. This is pretty much a worst nightmare to me short of my car being stolen.
What do you think about having the car towed and telling them to pretty much fuck off, leaving and letting them keep your license and registration? I'd rather pay DMV money for replacements than submit to anything tearing through my vehicle. Or was "aka you're not getting your license back while we wait for a dog" how it worked before?[/QUOTE]
You won't trust police to not damage the car, but you'll trust a tow company not to?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50245934]You won't trust police to not damage the car, but you'll trust a tow company not to?[/QUOTE]
Tow companies can be held accountable for damages.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50245799]My brother got pulled over for an illegally modified exhaust(was in the right to be pulled over for that), but then the cop saw a dry leaf and claimed marijuana and demanded to search the car. He found an open bottle of liquor my brother was transporting to a family member and he got a DUI as a result of it because the cop refused to do a breathalyzer test. He couldn't afford to challenge the ticket at the time and as a result his insurance shot up.
Hopefully this ruling will discourage that and give you a way to say no.[/QUOTE]
Why did your brother get a DUI because the cop refused to breathalyze him? That makes no sense. He either breathalyzes him or he blood tests your brother. If he doesn't blood test your brother then there is simply no case. Even if he can't afford to challenge it he can either hire a public defender or even do it himself. Its an open-and-shut case.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50245934]You won't trust police to not damage the car, but you'll trust a tow company not to?[/QUOTE]
I've had a cars towed plenty of times. Just specify a flatbead, unless your vehicle is retarded like a BMW with no jacking, tow or tie down points. There's little chance any damage beyond driving down the road normally would happen.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;50245920]Take a guess at whats going to take longer: the tow truck or the dog. Regardless the tow truck driver cant just take your vehicle while you're being detained.
This has never been an issue for me, nor will it start now since we dont have drug dogs... only apprehension ones. I dont need a dog around to tell me that I have enough cause to search the vehicle. Frankly if you do need a dog to get cause to search then you're already walking a thin line[/QUOTE]
It takes the local cops 8 hours to respond to "non-priority" calls and almost an hour to respond to someone violently beating on the windows and doors of your house. God help you if you get pulled over for the slightest thing such as lack of a front license plate because you'll have 6 patrol cars all show up to dick around and talk about your buddy's beat to shit third gen camaro. The towing companies around here usually show up in 15-20 minutes unless it's a really busy day.
Would them holding onto your license and registration count as being detained? My idea was really more towards some sort of situation where you're not technically being detained. But rather being held sort of by threat of ticket for not having your license and registration in your possession or something like that.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50254039]Why did your brother get a DUI because the cop refused to breathalyze him? That makes no sense. He either breathalyzes him or he blood tests your brother. If he doesn't blood test your brother then there is simply no case. Even if he can't afford to challenge it he can either hire a public defender or even do it himself. Its an open-and-shut case.[/QUOTE]
Actually, refusal of a breathlizer can actually increase your sentencing. Although your chances at winning the DUI are better you'll end up still paying thousands of dollars.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;50261378]Actually, refusal of a breathlizer can actually increase your sentencing. Although your chances at winning the DUI are better you'll end up still paying thousands of dollars.[/QUOTE]
He didn't refuse the breathalyzer. The cop did.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.