K9 units

[grishid]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My questions is the following.
Let's say a cop pulls me over for a simple traffic violation. Then asks me if he could search the car and I refuse which means no consent for searches. Then the officer tries to scare me by saying I will call K9 Unit if you do not let me search the car. So I say ok go ahead and call K9 unit.

After a K9 unit arrives, and the dog sniffs around. Now that I do not know how the dog will react if he smells drugs or not since I have never seen one does. Sometimes they might bark, they might do something else or nothing at all or whatever. But the cop says ok the dog just alerted me that you have something in the vehicle.

How would I know if the dog really smelled something illegal or how do I know if the cop is bull****ING just to search my car?

In this case, all searches would be lawful since they could go to court and say the dog allerted me so how would we know if the cop is telling me the truth or not? Because we all know the cop wants to search the car just because he thinks he could find something.

Or after the dog sniffs and the cop says ok the dog alerted me and they condcut a full car search and found nothing illegal. Then what? should we say the dog is useless or the crooked cop made up something just to search the car.

 

[CdwJava]

My questions is the following.
Let's say a cop pulls me over for a simple traffic violation. Then asks me if he could search the car and I refuse which means no consent for searches. Then the officer tries to scare me by saying I will call K9 Unit if you do not let me search the car. So I say ok go ahead and call K9 unit.

Okay.

How would I know if the dog really smelled something illegal or how do I know if the cop is bull****ING just to search my car?

At some point the officer may have to testify as to the search. It may be an issue of training of the dog and what constitutes an "alert."

In this case, all searches would be lawful since they could go to court and say the dog allerted me so how would we know if the cop is telling me the truth or not? Because we all know the cop wants to search the car just because he thinks he could find something.

Because if the dog alerted and then they found nothing, that tends to make the dog less reliable. Future alerts would become less legally reliable and eventually the dog would be rendered useless.

K-9s are expensive tools - too expensive to waste on making illegal claims and risking prison and lawsuits just to find a little dope.

Is it possible that you will have a whole bunch of lying, crooked cops that makeup stuff just to search everyone they stop, but the reality is that just is not likely to happen. Even if the officers were inclined to make it up, it would require too much coordination of stories, and too great a likelihood of getting caught. The risk-reward analysis just is not there.

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My questions is the following.
Let's say a cop pulls me over for a simple traffic violation. Then asks me if he could search the car and I refuse which means no consent for searches. Then the officer tries to scare me by saying I will call K9 Unit if you do not let me search the car. So I say ok go ahead and call K9 unit.
.

you need to refer to the thread where Hoya and I were disagreeing with each other. There is a case referenced concerning this exact situation and the result was: without reasonable suspicion, an extended detention is a violation of your rights and allows for suppression of the evidence discovered. The officers statements amount to coercion and the permission was not freely given.

Of course, the specific facts of each situation must be weighed in making any determination of applicability.

as to the claim the dog was unreliable; Carl explained that.

 

[dave33]

I would have tosay if a dog shows up you're car is getting searched. If they find drugs than the dog "hit" on something and you get charged. If the dog does not than the police walk away and you clean up the saliva. I guess with a ton of money and time and resources you could make an arguement to suppress, but I would not count on it.

 

[CdwJava]

I would have tosay if a dog shows up you're car is getting searched. If they find drugs than the dog "hit" on something and you get charged. If the dog does not than the police walk away and you clean up the saliva. I guess with a ton of money and time and resources you could make an arguement to suppress, but I would not count on it.

If the dog does no alert, then they cannot search the car - ergo, no saliva. To run the dog through the interior of the car, they would need consent. To run the dog around the exterior, they do not need consent.

 

[justalayman]

I would have tosay if a dog shows up you're car is getting searched. If they find drugs than the dog "hit" on something and you get charged. If the dog does not than the police walk away and you clean up the saliva. I guess with a ton of money and time and resources you could make an arguement to suppress, but I would not count on it.

as Carl said; such actions would seriously injure the reliability of the dog in the eyes of the court and could jeopardize not only future cases but any case that dog was previously involved with. I seriously doubt any half legit cop shop would risk that kind of exposure let alone any department that makes any kind of effort to abide by the laws.

Carl, daves claim is that if they get a dog to the scene, your car is getting searched regardless of the dogs actions and the discovery of dope will be used to support a claim by the handler that the dog keyed on something.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, daves claim is that if they get a dog to the scene, your car is getting searched regardless of the dogs actions and the discovery of dope will be used to support a claim by the handler that the dog keyed on something.

It just won't happen that way. If the dog alerts, and they find nothing, it plays against the dog's credibility. A certain amount of that is acceptable, but if the false positive alerts become too high, then the dog's reliability goes out the window and the agency just wasted a lot of money.

K-9 programs are not something you just create by going to Petco and getting a dog. There is a LOT of time and money invested in the dog, the handler, training, and ongoing certification so that the dog can be useful in court. A drug dog that is not reliable is a waste of money. A startup K-9 program runs about $18,000 just to go wheels up. Maintaining it is an expensive proposition. Those agencies that have failed to maintain training and certification - coupled with proper records to show success and failure - have seen their K-9 programs go belly up and their dogs' alerts go out the window as to their reliability for probable cause.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

I didn't think this forum dealt with hypothetical situations. The argument presented is flawed. That is, the OP only offers up one explanation for drugs not being found in the car after it is searched, the cop is crooked. Like further posters have pointed out there are more possibilities that the OP, blinded by his own bias, refused to acknowledge. The result of no drugs being found could be, the cop was mistaken. Police officers are human and as humans we all make mistakes from time to time.

I find his tautology somewhat humorous, when I can decipher his posts.

 

[dave33]

What we are talking about here is the interpretation of a dog's actions. We are also talking about how those actions are reported. If the dog scratches once on the side of you're car rather than two or three times than the search is not allowed? Come on fellas. Maybe a scratch and a yip would justify a search.No?Than what is a "hit"?One paw in front of the other and no sudden moves. If the cops take the time to hang around and are maybe a little annoyed as to the decline of the search than in my humble opinion I would expect a search to be more than likely. If no drugs are found than drugs must have been recently stored in the vicinity.Right Carl? A little humor there but also some seriousness.

 

[dave33]

The credibility of the dog. That's kinda funny too. I'm all smiles.

 

[tranquility]

For a ton of information (including some case law sections) on dog detection evidence see:

Canine Detection Evidence | LLRX.com

 

[justalayman]

What we are talking about here is the interpretation of a dog's actions. We are also talking about how those actions are reported. If the dog scratches once on the side of you're car rather than two or three times than the search is not allowed? Come on fellas. Maybe a scratch and a yip would justify a search.No?Than what is a "hit"?One paw in front of the other and no sudden moves. If the cops take the time to hang around and are maybe a little annoyed as to the decline of the search than in my humble opinion I would expect a search to be more than likely. If no drugs are found than drugs must have been recently stored in the vicinity.Right Carl? A little humor there but also some seriousness.

go back and read Carl's posts. He spoke to the training a couple times and why your situation just isn't reasonable. Basically put, a dog is trained to respond in a particular manner. You may not know what the action to indicate an alert but the handler is. There are times the handler is questioned in court and must explain the alert action and where it is applicable in the case at hand.

as well, if the dog repeatedly is used as a front to search cars without results, that dog really does become a liability. If the dog is shown to be unreliable, every conviction that resulted from previous actions using that dog in that manner are not subject to appeal based on the reliability of the dog.

 

[CdwJava]

What we are talking about here is the interpretation of a dog's actions. We are also talking about how those actions are reported. If the dog scratches once on the side of you're car rather than two or three times than the search is not allowed?

That depends on what the dog is trained to do when he or she alerts to the presence of a particular odor. If the dog makes the proper alert, then a search can be justified.

I cannot speak for all dogs as training varies by trainer. Some sit and bark, others scratch, and there may be others that do something else.

If the cops take the time to hang around and are maybe a little annoyed as to the decline of the search than in my humble opinion I would expect a search to be more than likely.

Having been present when dogs have done a walkaround without an alert, I would have to disagree. Why would I risk prison just to try and make up a reason for a search? What POSSIBLE justification would I have to take such a risk?

Heck, I have been present when we have spent three hours on a search warrant and come up empty. Sometimes it happens. There is always a "next time."

If no drugs are found than drugs must have been recently stored in the vicinity.Right Carl?

Maybe. Maybe not. But, the possibility of residue is why a certain level of false positive alerts are likely to be tolerated. But, if your dog alerts 100 times and drugs, paraphernalia or residue are found only 50% of the time, that dog is likely to be retired as he or she is not going to be considered too reliable.

The credibility of the dog. That's kinda funny too. I'm all smiles.

I'm happy that you're happy. But, reliability is a factor.

 

[cbg]

I know from personal experience that the dog handlers are well able to interpret the dogs' actions correctly, in most if not all cases.

During a period of high alert, we had bomb-sniffing dogs in the train station where my commuter train comes in, and which is also an Amtrak station. One of the dogs was a puppy who was still in training. (I should mention that I attract animals; any of my close friends will tell you that dogs, cats, even horses will come running to see me, and even animals that the owners claim are unfriendly tend to roll over on their backs so I can rub their tummies.) The puppy in training came over and gave me a good sniff all over. The handler laughed and told me that while the dog knew he was supposed to alert him when he smelled explosives, he had not yet learned that he was not supposed to react to anyone else. However, his reactions to explosives were different from his reactions when he just sensed a dog person and wanted to be friendly.

No one arrested me and brought me in on suspicion of terrorism, even if the bomb-sniffing dog did single me out.

 

[CdwJava]

(I should mention that I attract animals; any of my close friends will tell you that dogs, cats, even horses will come running to see me, and even animals that the owners claim are unfriendly tend to roll over on their backs so I can rub their tummies.)

I'm one of you! I think it's because they innately understand that I will pet them all even though I am allergic to them!

Even critters can have a vicious streak!