Did you say you could "arrest" the driver on a positive alert? Did you mean "detain?" Could there be a prosecution if there were no drugs found? If you made the arrest, and have no evidence following said arrest does the cop just say oops my bad and unarrest the guy? Changes and challenges in State laws are also a problem. Colorado has determined the open-air sniff is a search and requires a warrant and must be based on additional information. Oregon has determined that drug dogs are unreliable and trained to alert no matter what in order to please the handler and get a reward. Which explains the high incidence of alerts without finding contraband.
@@BluetoGold Here are a couple of the articles, it was Utah, not Oregon. Go figure Utah on the cutting edge of reason. For years I thought dogs were alerting too much (especially on shows like Cops and Live PD) and the cops found nothing. The Utah ruling points out that the dogs aren't trained on a double blind study (a scenario where there are no drugs). Also, the handlers may be biased and read any motion by the dog as an alert. Colorado's cases are more based on the fact the marijuana is legal, so a dog alerting may be based on "not a crime". Colorado www.marijuanaandthelaw.com/colorado-pot-sniffing-dogs-probable-cause/ Utah thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-court-rules-every-single-drug-dog-in-entire-state-is-unreliable-will-alert-to-anything/
@@bleebu5448 Ok. That makes sense. The CO case does not mean the dog is a "search" for contraband. However, if the dog is trained to alert to a legal substance, like marijuana, then it would be a search. You seem to really have an interest in this subject and I appreciate the insight. Thank you.
@@BluetoGold Yes, but my point of view is how police are actually trained to skirt civil rights laws, find loopholes, sometimes lie (or fudge as in the 99 Ft turn signal). If a dog alerts 100% of the time, then the cops have an excuse to search 100% of whoever they want to. Which is the point of Utah. As an observer, it seems we train police that the constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, not the law of the land.
I appreciate where you are coming from. But I don't see police officers generally skirting civil rights. The vast majority are ethical and are doing their job the right way. But there are exceptions and I get where you're coming from. Doctors are also not infallible but I don't see protests against the 600k malpractice deaths last year. Still, that's not my problem. I'm focused on making sure police officers ethically and constitutionally police their communities.
Here's one: Fact that defendant was formerly passenger in motor vehicle as to which drug dog alerted, and subsequent search of vehicle found no contraband, was insufficient, without probable cause more particularized to defendant, to conduct warrantless search of defendant's person. State v. Smith, 222 N.C. App. 253, 729 S.E.2d 120, writ denied, review denied sub nom.State v. Hicks, 366 N.C. 410, 735 S.E.2d 190 (2012)
@@BluetoGold I did some further research and located that case as well. Thank you for your reply and the continued education you provide to LE's across the country.
If an officer has probable cause that contraband exists on a person’s person, they can search and retrieve the contraband. Isn’t that the case? What happens next , or before depending on the situation, is a non-custodial arrest which in California is a citation and release from the scene, for misdemeanor drug paraphernalia or simple drug possession.
Anthony, you state that the driver can be searched if they are arrested. Do you mean if they are arrested on the PC of the dog hit alone, even if no drugs are found? Is dog hit alone PC for arrest? In Colorado BTW, thx.
The dog alert, alone, is usually not PC to search any of the occupants. However, if no drugs are found after an alert the driver can usually be searched if the officer articulates why he believes there is a fair probability drugs may be found on their person. Things like abnormal nervousness, deception, inside the vehicle during alert, prior history, and so forth help. But in the end a dog alert, alone, does not provide the PC to search or arrest occupants.
@@OGStrong Sure. Here are two cases. Hope this helps: Dog alerted to car while occupants were outside the vehicle. Alert was on passenger side, where passenger was. Search of driver was not permitted since officers did not articulate PC that driver had narcotics State v. Harris, 280 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) We affirm that a positive canine scan to a vehicle's interior compartment generally, without more, does not rise to probable cause to search all passengers of that vehicle. State v. Wallace, 372 Md. 137, 158, 812 A.2d 291, 304 (2002)
Did you say you could "arrest" the driver on a positive alert? Did you mean "detain?" Could there be a prosecution if there were no drugs found? If you made the arrest, and have no evidence following said arrest does the cop just say oops my bad and unarrest the guy? Changes and challenges in State laws are also a problem. Colorado has determined the open-air sniff is a search and requires a warrant and must be based on additional information. Oregon has determined that drug dogs are unreliable and trained to alert no matter what in order to please the handler and get a reward. Which explains the high incidence of alerts without finding contraband.
Thanks for the feedback. I want to read the CO and OR cases. Can you share those with me?
@@BluetoGold Here are a couple of the articles, it was Utah, not Oregon. Go figure Utah on the cutting edge of reason. For years I thought dogs were alerting too much (especially on shows like Cops and Live PD) and the cops found nothing. The Utah ruling points out that the dogs aren't trained on a double blind study (a scenario where there are no drugs). Also, the handlers may be biased and read any motion by the dog as an alert. Colorado's cases are more based on the fact the marijuana is legal, so a dog alerting may be based on "not a crime".
Colorado
www.marijuanaandthelaw.com/colorado-pot-sniffing-dogs-probable-cause/
Utah
thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-court-rules-every-single-drug-dog-in-entire-state-is-unreliable-will-alert-to-anything/
@@bleebu5448 Ok. That makes sense. The CO case does not mean the dog is a "search" for contraband. However, if the dog is trained to alert to a legal substance, like marijuana, then it would be a search. You seem to really have an interest in this subject and I appreciate the insight. Thank you.
@@BluetoGold Yes, but my point of view is how police are actually trained to skirt civil rights laws, find loopholes, sometimes lie (or fudge as in the 99 Ft turn signal). If a dog alerts 100% of the time, then the cops have an excuse to search 100% of whoever they want to. Which is the point of Utah. As an observer, it seems we train police that the constitution is an obstacle to be overcome, not the law of the land.
I appreciate where you are coming from. But I don't see police officers generally skirting civil rights. The vast majority are ethical and are doing their job the right way. But there are exceptions and I get where you're coming from. Doctors are also not infallible but I don't see protests against the 600k malpractice deaths last year. Still, that's not my problem. I'm focused on making sure police officers ethically and constitutionally police their communities.
Isn't there case law for plain view in a bag? How is that an unlawful search if you see a meth pipe in a bag?
What are the case laws stating the reason for not having the automatic right to search the passengers with a positive k-9 hit?
Here's one:
Fact that defendant was formerly passenger in motor vehicle as to which drug dog alerted, and subsequent search of vehicle found no contraband, was insufficient, without probable cause more particularized to defendant, to conduct warrantless search of defendant's person.
State v. Smith, 222 N.C. App. 253, 729 S.E.2d 120, writ denied, review denied sub nom.State v. Hicks, 366 N.C. 410, 735 S.E.2d 190 (2012)
@@BluetoGold I did some further research and located that case as well. Thank you for your reply and the continued education you provide to LE's across the country.
If an officer has probable cause that contraband exists on a person’s person, they can search and retrieve the contraband. Isn’t that the case? What happens next , or before depending on the situation, is a non-custodial arrest which in California is a citation and release from the scene, for misdemeanor drug paraphernalia or simple drug possession.
It can be confusing. No doubt about it. The cases are all over the place.
C.R.I.M.E. AFOOT IS NEEDED FOR ANY POLICE CONTACT THATS THE LAW SUPREME TO THE LAND . so no PROVABLE CAUSE .
Anthony, you state that the driver can be searched if they are arrested. Do you mean if they are arrested on the PC of the dog hit alone, even if no drugs are found? Is dog hit alone PC for arrest? In Colorado BTW, thx.
The dog alert, alone, is usually not PC to search any of the occupants. However, if no drugs are found after an alert the driver can usually be searched if the officer articulates why he believes there is a fair probability drugs may be found on their person. Things like abnormal nervousness, deception, inside the vehicle during alert, prior history, and so forth help. But in the end a dog alert, alone, does not provide the PC to search or arrest occupants.
Do you have some case law with reference to this?
@@OGStrong Sure. Here are two cases. Hope this helps:
Dog alerted to car while occupants were outside the vehicle. Alert was on passenger side, where passenger was. Search of driver was not permitted since officers did not articulate PC that driver had narcotics
State v. Harris, 280 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008)
We affirm that a positive canine scan to a vehicle's interior compartment generally, without more, does not rise to probable cause to search all passengers of that vehicle.
State v. Wallace, 372 Md. 137, 158, 812 A.2d 291, 304 (2002)
Okay, this one confused me.
This is confusing!