Need help with K-9 case law

[theonlykid]

What is the name of your state?Pa
I am currently fighting a case where the abilities of a k9 sniff are going to be called into question. I have looked all over the net without much luck. I specfically am in search of a dogs physical limitations and proper/ formal requirements on obtaining a warrant based on a dog alert. ie: how close to the odor do they need to be to give an alert. Is it possable for a dog to smell marijuana from outside a building, when the pott is in a room 70 feet from any entrence behind a lock sealed door that was filtered and vented through the roof? Does a targeted search with a dog need to be justified w/ p. officer prob cause/ reasonable suspicion? Does it matter that the search was outside and not an interior search? do the weather conditions matter? do they need to be listed on the application for the warrant? Does there need to be an extensive history of the dogs past performance ( not just for drugs BUT for simlar searches under the same conditions)? If you have answers to these questions or could point me in the right direction, please be as specfic as possable. please share the info with me, i would be thankful.

 

[gawm]

Have your lawyer ask those questions when he cross examines the dog!

 

[theonlykid]

thanks wiseguy

 

[gawm]

I apologize, I could not help it. I will agree with you that k-9 units are not fool proof but I think it would be in the area of false positive reads. For instance, them indicating there was drugs and then none being found. It's gonna be tough proving they should not of been able to find them when there were some found. Good Luck!

 

[gawm]

Go down to your local library and see if they have these books:

BASIC NARCOTIC DETECTION DOG TRAINING
by Jack Robicheaux, 1990

K9 SCENT DETECTION
by Jan Kaldenbach, 1998

 

[stephenk]

You know the dog is not the sole evidence they have against you. Why were the police in front of your building with the dog in the first place?

 

[theonlykid]

thanks for the book referances

2nd they got there with the dog because someone who knew my name & i had not seen in 2 years, and that was a hello, became an informant. they literally told the cops why dont you follow this guy he is doing**************

 

[EvilWizard]

So are saying:

1. Informant gave you up to police as dealer.

2. Police K-9 unit smelled drugs on you.

3. Police found drugs on you and arrested you.

4. K-9 unit further smelled drugs in a building that you were storing drugs.

5. Police went into bldg and found your drugs.

That pretty much sum it up?

 

[theonlykid]

NO that DOESNT about sum it up. without exposing to many facts about my case this is what happened.
1 someone whom i barely knew got arrested 19 months ago in a pot growing raid
2 this person decided to testify against his codefendants. when the cops pushed for more he said hey why dont you follow xyz i think HE IS BREAKING THE LAW.
3 tHEY WATCHED ME FOR 2 WEEKS. During which they got nothing almost sub nothing. They looked @ everything. eletrical use was ok, location fit in, limited access to the front of the building consistant w/ the area. Upon visual inspection by the police while i had the garage door open they saw a car on a lift, car parts and tools.
4 They at no time ever saw me w/ drugs, selling them, ect....
5 The day before the warrant was signed they claim they ran a dog down the sidewalk on my side of the street, searching for drugs all of the time. they say they went up and down the street and each time the dog hit on my building and no others. The aff. of prob. cause for the warrant application gave no history/backround/training for that type of search
6 then they found pot NOT a meth lab like the snitch said it would be
7 thats how it happened

 

[acmb05]

So

So what you are saying is:

:

1. Informant gave you up to police as dealer.( skip to step 4)

2. Police K-9 unit smelled drugs on you.

3. Police found drugs on you and arrested you.

4. K-9 unit further smelled drugs in a building that you were storing drugs.

5. Police went into bldg and found your drugs.

That pretty much sum it up?

 

[theonlykid]

acmbo5, You got it. I can be long winded, sorry. that would sum it up. serp 1 then skip to 4 and proceed. what diff does it make to the case

 

[acmb05]

It makes no difference

You are still guilty. Hell someone, anyone could have dropped a roach next to your building at one time recently and the dog picked that up. It does not matter because that gave them probable casue to search your building and since they found drugs in it you are busted.

 

[EvilWizard]

I am still at a loss for how many blatantly guilty people come to these forums and post questions like this when in reality they should immediately have retained legal counsel and asked them this.

Should just start answering these posts with a single statement: "Get a Lawyer Now."

 

[smutlydog]

NO that DOESNT about sum it up. without exposing to many facts about my case this is what happened.
1 someone whom i barely knew got arrested 19 months ago in a pot growing raid
2 this person decided to testify against his codefendants. when the cops pushed for more he said hey why dont you follow xyz i think HE IS BREAKING THE LAW.
3 tHEY WATCHED ME FOR 2 WEEKS. During which they got nothing almost sub nothing. They looked @ everything. eletrical use was ok, location fit in, limited access to the front of the building consistant w/ the area. Upon visual inspection by the police while i had the garage door open they saw a car on a lift, car parts and tools.
4 They at no time ever saw me w/ drugs, selling them, ect....
5 The day before the warrant was signed they claim they ran a dog down the sidewalk on my side of the street, searching for drugs all of the time. they say they went up and down the street and each time the dog hit on my building and no others. The aff. of prob. cause for the warrant application gave no history/backround/training for that type of search
6 then they found pot NOT a meth lab like the snitch said it would be
7 thats how it happened

I am assuming we are talking about a MJ crop bust.

Anytime smell and a snitches word is used (rather than an informant making a controlled purchase) to get a search warrant a lawyer can find ways to poke holes in the case.

I was busted in the same manner but without dogs used. They claimed to smell the plants from the door which was false. They were small plants (no buds). An informant told them I had 190 or so MJ plant growing hydrophonically. The truth was it was only 36 plants growing in soil.
While out on bond they came back 2 months later claiming to smell something again from the front door. They obtained another search warrant and found nothing that time. When the grand jury finally looked at the original case they rejected it.

You may need a DEA certified crime lab technician at your motion to suppress hearing. That will cost you.
Also the Supreme Court has had a few things to say about police informants. The information must be specific and accurate. It also can't be second hand information.

The bottom line is that a good lawyer can poke holes in this case. That’s not to say that a judge that narrowly interprets constitution won't hear your case and you end up loosing. It just depends

 

[ENASNI]

Yup

Yup... No matter how we feel about the things people do they are looking for legal advice. I can be judgemental here as well as the next person.

I think one of the things we need to remember is that This is Free legal advice and Smutlydog... though his nomer is ... well... .. reminds us of that.

loopholes loopholes teeny tiny loopholes...

oh that reminds me of that song fishheads fishheads....rolypoly fishheads from SNL...

As gross as it both sound. That is why people are here, not to be judged. As we, (I) intend to do... but to find out about the law. If any have been broken...YES even when the good guys might have broken some to get the bad guys and the bad guy is the OP.

Okay off my soap box... its too high up here and I need to get judgemental soon or I will go nutso... Or maybe I just need more coffee.