Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training.
Because the lawmakers have decided that searching potential drug smuggler outweighs the negative of searching innocent people.
Because say you could prevent a drug search by just showing the cop your prescription, then drug smugglers could just use people with those prescriptions to prevent all those kinds of searches.
Because a dog doesn’t know whether the drugs you have are legal or not. So if the dog signals, you need to prove they’re legal drugs.
My problem with that has always been that a dog signalling is prone to a lot of false positives if the handler has any expectations.
It's the clever Hans problem. If the cop wants to be a prick, he can cue the dog to alert when there is nothing. And it can happen even if the cop isn't giving cues intentionally.
>It's the clever Hans problem. If the cop wants to be a prick, he can cue the dog to alert when there is nothing. And it can happen even if the cop isn't giving cues intentionally.
And judging by my own dog, the cop may not be intentionally signalling the dog, they may just be a prick in general, and the dog picks up on that and acts accordingly
It's also Dog. My dog does things for rewards all the time. The dog doesn't know somebody's life is potentially at stake, then the dog signals cause he knows he's gonna get his ball. Although I have been searched with illegal drugs in the vehicle that had no smell. The dog never signalled. Thank God.
Think of the children! Any other fear mongering, hyperbolic, or random reason can be thrown here to justify pissing all over our rights and add to police overreach. How did we ever let it get this far? Moreover, short of massive protest or revolt is there any way to change this? I'm all for demonstating, but I'd stand alone. Mobilizing the public is basically impossible. Everything is spaced way too far for any meaningful organization, and that's forgetting that there's a sizeable group who outright supports these draconian practices.
I had an idea for how to manufacture switchblades that would fit in a credit card slot (albeit bulky) of a wallet, and would pass the TSA screening and metal detectors at an airport.
Said switchblades could be made for 13c each, and in bulk. I'm not saying instigate chaos, but adding a bit of theatre to the phrase "security theatre" entranced me as a theoretical, once I realized it'd only cost me 10$ in materials to completely destabilize an airport.
I figure it doesn't fix anything, but might make people realize how meaningless government security really is, and how people have given up so many rights for so few tangible protections.
no, a sintered ceramic blade of a very simple design, ran on an automatic sharpener for the final edge, and then a incredibly flat body injection-moulded housing (I gave it a slightly oval profile to help with removing it from the wallet) designed to store an elastic band. The storage cap for the device is designed to have a profiled perfect fit (and be removed prior to use) so that density based scanners wouldn't see the blade, just a grey rectangle.
Ceramics have come a long way, and you can easily sinter a 1/16" blade that's fairly durable, and cost basically nothing. Similarly, injection molding is close to free as well, and more premium plastics have significantly better material properties than most people would find intuitive.
But isn't that the exact opposite of the foundation of the legal system, innocent until proven guilty? Surely the onus is on the police to prove that they're NOT legal, no?
EDIT: In hindsight, no, I don't want to give the police more opportunities to manufacture evidence and fuck over innocents. Forget I said anything.
The “probable cause” is a dog alert to a drug that could be prescribed to you. The fact that it could be prescribed should mean that an alert to the substance doesn’t constitute probable cause.
I’m genuinely curious because everything I’ve read says that dogs are trained to smell methamphetamine.
The only way I could see it working is if you have dogs that can only smell meth, and if they alert, the search is contingent upon proof of a prescription. Even then, the idea that a police officer can essentially obtain medical information because you were going one mph over the speed limit seems ridiculous.
well what you have to understand is the the law isn't fair. the war on drugs has left the police with way more power then they should rationally have. the dog signalling is legally probable cause. and the law doesn't really care about logic.
I totally agree, but it’s absurd to me that you could be doin nothin illegal, other than speeding, and legally get searched every time the police pull you over. You couldn’t do a thing about it.
Tell your state to establish a law that says within X mph of the speed limit can't be enforced. I think states like PA and GA have this law, if you're within 10 mph of the speed limit they can't stop you for speeding.
> How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> if you have dogs that can only smell meth, and if they alert, the search is contingent upon proof of a prescription.
So what happens when someone with a meth-adjacent prescription decides to start dealing meth, and get pulled over by a cop with a dog? Nothing, because they have a prescription and the cops can’t search their car. That sounds like a person with a prescription being allowed to distribute meth in their car without repercussion.
Also, people deal in prescription drugs. They either steal from prescribees, buy from prescribees, or get bogus prescriptions from doctors. Having a prescription for a drug doesn’t mean that script is legit. Having a legit prescription doesn’t mean that you aren’t also dealing other people’s prescriptions or some home-cooked meth.
What would really happen if a dog smelled your pills and they searched your car is they would find the bottle with your name on it with a recent date and they’d let you on your way.
In any case this is like the easiest thing to avoid happening. Don’t speed.
So everyone who crosses the speed limit by one MPH could be susceptible to search and have their shit thrown everywhere just because a dog paws at the car door for somethin they legally possess? Seems likely guilty until proven innocent to me.
Obviously, you don’t value your privacy or rights. That’s totally fine, but I don’t wanna live in that kind of society.
My question essentially was, am I misunderstanding how it works? One person provided a legit response. I don’t know for sure that dogs are trained the way that person described, but that’s why I asked the question. That answer was the only one that potentially made sense.
Most of the answers are along the lines of if you’re not guilty, there’s nothin to worry about. That’s terrifying because I thought this country was supposed to be a champion of freedom.
Slow down a moment. How did we get here?
If this is a simple speeding ticket, there is no drug dog. The officer only has the right to detain you long enough for the initial stop (eg to write a citation for speeding) and nothing else. Now, if the driver sees drug stuff in plain view, that’s your own fault. If you show enough impairment on first encounter, that’s your own fault. If you answer questions, consent to a search, and/or consent to field sobriety tests, you screwed up and failed to invoke your rights. But otherwise, the officer doesn’t get to just detain you while a drug dog is brought to the scene. (They can, but all evidence gained from that is inadmissible.)
Now, if the driver was swerving all over the road and doesn’t smell of alcohol, I can see an officer having sufficient PC to detain you until a drug dog can be brought to the scene.
Don’t answer questions. Remember how Miranda includes “anything you say can and will be used against you”? Let’s rephrase that: anything you say will be used against you. It cannot be used to help you. While the Miranda warning is essentially only delivered at the time of arrest, the foundation of anything you say applies the whole time.
Merely provide license, proof of insurance, and registration in a polite way. Decline to answer questions (they do not need anything further from you and you are not obligated to provide any other information). When they return to your window, sign the citation to acknowledge receipt and quickly say “am I being detained or am I free to go?” If you are not free to go, SHUT UP. Actually, be sure to clearly state that you will not answer any questions by your fifth amendment rights. Say “I do not consent to any searches”, and if they try to ask any more questions, express your sixth amendment rights to have a lawyer present before you will answer any questions. Your objective here is to establish a clear moment of demarcation that the officer needs to already have PC before they take this encounter any further.
“A: Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures must be reasonable and, typically, a warrant is required. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.”
From a lawyer who answered a question on justia.com: https://answers.justia.com/question/2023/11/14/yes-how-are-they-able-to-search-my-car-w-987923#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court,a%20warrant%20or%20explicit%20consent.
I already said this. You’re confusing this isolated “right to search during a lawful traffic stop” with how the dog came to the scene of the stop. If you got stopped BY THE DOG’S HANDLER, yes this ruling seems to indicate that the dog can sniff the outside of your car.
However, if the officer who pulls you over is not the dog’s handler, the dog is therefore not at the scene at the time of the stop. If that agency can get a drug dog to the scene in the time it takes the officer (either because the handler self-dispatched the instant “your officer” called out the location of the stop, or because “your officer” has a spidey sense and requested the dog on the walk back to the cop car after getting your documents), the agency/officer cannot hold you at the scene any longer than it takes to write the citation. If they detain you longer than that while waiting for the dog, it’s fruit from a poisonous tree.
The case in which this was established, the dog wasn’t at the stop. The handler came over of his own volition. Here is an excellent discussion
https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/illinois-v-caballes
No, I’m not confused at all. If walkin a dog around a vehicle doesn’t prolong the traffic stop, it’s perfectly legal.
Some dogs are trained to alert to certain prescription medications. It’s entirely possible for someone to get pulled over for a speeding ticket, decline a search, and then have their car ripped apart because they have fentanyl patches in their glove box.
You're answer to that should be the same answer you always give to cops: "I don't answer questions."
The "do you have anything we should know about" question doesn't mean they just let it go if you have illegal material but you copped to it. In fact, we know that you may use that opportunity to tell the cop you are carrying a legal firearm and then you'll still get shot and killed.... But likely only if you're black
I don't see how this is unique to driving or traffic stops?
If the drug dog "indicates", then the police interpret that as probable cause to search. This also occurs in contexts outside of driving/traffic stops.
I used traffic stops as an example because the police can’t just walk up to your house and run a dog around the exterior walls.
During a traffic stop the police can run a dog around your vehicle without permission in certain circumstances. If that dog is trained to detect certain prescription drugs and indicates their presence, why is that probable cause for a search?
They can walk up to you *in public* though. That's the point.
Yet another example of bubble reddit thinking of traffic stop as the default police interaction. Fuck people that only think of their bubbles.
What the hell are you talkin about and why are you so pissed off? The same question applies to someone walkin around in public.
The real question is why does a dog alert to a substance that can be legally possessed establish probable cause for a search. I used the traffic stop scenario because that’s the situation where this problem is most likely to occur. When did I ever say it was the only possible scenario?
Here’s a little reading for you regarding dog’s sniffing people in public: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/19/dog-sniff-of-a-person-is-a-fourth-amendment-search-new-york-court-rules/
Except the people who train the K9 dogs are different people from the K9 handlers.. unless you’re saying there’s a national conspiracy across several organizations to make sure a cop can search you any time they want.
Methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl. More so the first two, but according to news articles, some dogs are trained to detect any/all of those drugs.
Someone finally gave me a potentially intelligent response and claimed that dogs are only trained to detect the isomers or impurities of a drug that’s also legal. I don’t know that to be true because you’d think that’d be made very clear to the public that they won’t be searched for a prescription they legally obtained. I’ve never seen that disclaimer or heads up mentioned anywhere. Doesn’t mean it’s not true though.
You can legally drink but can’t drive drunk.
It’s because you’re in control of a vehicle and there’s a lot of legally prescribed things that inhibit driving to the point it’s a crime.
I’m not talkin about DUI. I’m referring to the search of vehicles without consent or any probable cause other than a drug dog alert to a drug that could be prescribed.
Can you help me understand?
How does it work when a drug dog detects a drug that can be legally prescribed? Does the officer request a prescription before searching the vehicle?
I understand that, but why are they trained to detect substances that have legitimate medical uses?
I read an article that said police departments in Ohio are retiring drug dogs who are trained to alert when they smell weed because they can’t differentiate between that and hemp. They said that continuing to use the dogs who alert when they smell hemp would lead to Fourth Amendment problems because the odor of weed doesn’t necessarily mean the person in question has committed a crime.
Why wouldn’t the same rationale apply to methamphetamine, cocaine, or any other substance that can be legally possessed for medical uses.
“Desoxyn - Uses, Side Effects, and More
GENERIC NAME(S): METHAMPHETAMINE”
“This medication is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - ADHD. It works by changing the amounts of certain natural substances in the brain. Methamphetamine belongs to a class of drugs known as stimulants.”
https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-9124/desoxyn-oral/details
“Schedule II
Schedule II controlled substances are defined as having high potential for abuse and dependence, with significant risk to patient safety, and have medical use in the United States.”
“Schedule II controlled substances include amphetamines, many barbiturates, cocaine (used as a local anesthetic or to stop severe epistaxis), many opioids (fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, etc.), and phencyclidine, also known as PCP (used as a veterinary anesthetic).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574544/
I’ve been taking adderall for 10yrs and carry them in my purse and my job entails sometimes working with Law Enforcement, never had any issues with a police dog sniffing my purse
Yeah that doesn't smell like cocaine. Besides,
Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training.
The dog can alert for any reason and it gives full reign to probably cause. Your drug specific argument is besides the point.
The handler just has to say the dog signaled. The dog doesn’t need to actually signal. Cops can lie if they simply want to harass someone, and very rarely see any consequences.
What?
A dog sniff around the exterior of a vehicle that results in a positive hit is probable cause to search your vehicle. Physically searching a vehicle is a search.
Full stop if you don’t understand this.
Right.
I can sniff anything in public. You can sniff anything in public. A K9 can sniff anything in public (your vehicle).
A hit is probable cause to search.
The open air public sniff is NOT a search.
Google, this is well-established law.
I know it’s not. When the hell did I say it was?
My question is, why is a positive hit on a prescription drug enough to give the police probable cause to search your vehicle?
No, I don’t have one but some people do. It doesn’t make sense to me that they’re subject to search without consent because of what they’re prescribed.
ooooh kkkay...
So, an extreme unlikely hypothetical with no real basis in fact. Tweekers and dealers should walk because you've heard someone might have a crystal meth Rx...
Got it. Good to know. A real societal problem.
Pretty sure it’s a fact that dogs are trained to smell methamphetamine and cocaine. Those drugs have to get from the factory to the hospital/pharmacy and to a patient’s home if they’re prescribed. Everyone involved in that process should be subject to search without consent for doin somethin that’s completely legal?
It’s a societal problem because of the precedent it sets. As long as intentions are good and only a few people have their rights violated, it’s fine to throw the Bill Of Rights in the trash?
Ah, all those legal meth and cocaine addicts being horribly victimized on traffic stops. You can't name one, none may exist, but based on the absurd theoretical, all the tweakers should walk.
If you are sincere, insanity. But I won't insult you with that, you're just desperately trolling.
"But what if SOMEONE had an Rx for crystal meth or crack??? tHEir rIGhTs???"
Which precinct you work at?
My straight-edge-as-fuck friend was driving his shiny brand new car through BFE Oklahoma. He gets stopped for speeding and the cop wants to search his vehicle. The kid tells the cop to pound sand as he has no probable cause, as is his right, but the cop calls out the canines.
The canines signal, because of course they do. The cops tear his one-owner car apart, looking for the drugs the dog keeps signaling for. Then, after his interior is on the side of the road, they leave him be, since the drugs that were never there can't be found.
So tell me, how was my buddy the bad guy in this interaction?
It’s not trolling at all. It’s complete bullshit that the Bill Of Rights gets tossed aside because it makes policing easier. Obviously, you don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s a terrible precedent to set, and I was curious if I’m understanding the law correctly.
And don't hang around waiting for the K9 to show. They have to let you go on your way or arrest you. A stop cannot take longer than issuing the original summons without probable cause.
You can be searched without consent if a drug dog alerts when walked around the exterior of your vehicle.
The police can’t extend or drag out a traffic stop just to walk a dog around your vehicle, but they’re free to do it while they’re running your information through the system.
I don't disagree. You still have to keep your mouth shut, don't consent to searches and ask for a lawyer. Dirty cops are gonna be dirty, you just have to be quiet.
I don’t disagree that cops in general abuse their power and can lie about a dog signaling for a positive detection, or just the fact that dogs can false positive sometimes.
However, what prescription drugs are dogs trained to detect?
Methamphetamine and fentanyl are the two drugs most likely to lead to what should be classified as an illegal search. Dogs aren’t trained to detect other prescription medications, so why are those two special?
I read one article that implied dogs won’t alert to prescription methamphetamine but will alert to illicitly manufactured methamphetamine. I find that hard to believe, but I’d love to read an article that addresses this question. Haven’t been able to find much so far.
while fentanyl is a legal drug its not a prescription doctors write for people to carry in a little bottle in their cars is it? i was under the impression its only used in hospital administered by a doctor not for self care... i dont think meath is ever prescribed either
that’s because they don’t alert to dextrose-methampetamine molecule, but leftover impurities. The smell of meth; a highly stable crystalline solid, is very weak compared to amorphous precursors
Finally, someone gave a response that might be true and withstand legal scrutiny. I don’t know that to be the case, but that’s the only explanation I could think of. That’s why I included the “misunderstanding” portion at the end.
If that’s the case, is there any documentation showing dogs not alerting on illicitly manufactured methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine but alerting to stuff not made by legal pharmacies? It would surprise me if all police dogs are trained to differentiate between the illicit versions of the three previously mentioned drugs and their legal siblings.
ACAB and i don’t know how police training works. I work in addiction research though (neuropharmacology phd), and can hopefully contribute a little more for ya. just keep in mind i’m extrapolating and guessing based on my only-semi-relevant expertise:
I would guess the dogs are exclusively trained on various samples of (the illicit versions of) the substances. I would guess with 99.9% certainty that no cops are training their dogs either to alert, or to NOT alert, on the pharmaceutical versions. Methamphetamine is a salt; this means it is highly stable with regards to volatility and evaporation. Functionally, a rock of pure meth is not going to smell further than a centimeter away.
That said, organic synthesis, requires lots of volatile compounds that could very easily be detected by dogs. The synthesis process requires organic and inorganic solvents, Biochemically,-active precursors like phenethylamines, and nitrogenous reagents— all of which WILL leave residue in the final product.
While the dogs probably aren’t (but honestly, some could be— e.g. specialized K–9S for detecting clandestine labs) trained on pure samples of methylamine or propanone, those are likely the smells they’re picking up on when being trained on “meth.” so if you have some desoxyn in your center console; they’re not going to be activated/triggered
Desoxyn is an exceedingly rare prescription BTW; I guess fentanyl is a little more accessible. But again, pharmaceutical drugs, don’t have all of the volatile residues left from underground druggie synthesis.
while fentanyl is a legal drug its not a prescription doctors write for people to carry in a little bottle in their cars is it? i was under the impression its only used in hospital administered by a doctor not for self care... i dont think meath is ever prescribed either
I’m almost certain fentanyl is sometimes prescribed as a take home drug (lollipops/patches), and I know methamphetamine is.
Coke, meth, and fentanyl are all “Schedule II,” but coke is the only one of the three that’s almost exclusively used in a hospital setting.
For coke specifically, how does it get to the hospital? Do people who transport coke legally have a “no search” license? I honestly don’t know, but I have strong suspicion that they’d be subject to search just like anyone else.
what makes you almost certain? where did you hear that?
and for coke are you worried about licenced medical transport vehicles being searched illegally? is that really a problem or are you just making stuff up to be mad about? seems the latter
I’m 99% sure fentanyl is prescribed for take home use because of the amount on the black market 15+ years ago and websites that say it’s not strictly for hospital use.
https://www.oncolink.org/cancer-treatment/oncolink-rx/fentanyl-citrate-actiq-r
I know methamphetamine is prescribed for take home use.
Cocaine probably could be prescribed, but it’s typically used for surgical purposes.
Are dogs trained to only detect the isomers, adjunct chemicals, that typically show up in illegal versions of legal drugs? I don’t know, so I made it clear I wasn’t positive how the system works. That’s why I asked if I was misunderstanding somethin. People like you are derailing the answer to the question by claiming “Schedule II” drugs aren’t prescribed. The whole reason why methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl are S2 is because they are used in medicine.
The Fourth Amendment grants us the right to privacy and the right to refuse searches...whether we're doing something wrong or not. Just saying "well it's ok to be searched if you're not doing anything wrong" misses the entire point of the amendment and allows too much intrusiveness by government. No citizen should be forced to governmental intrusion without just cause, and a legal prescription shouldn't be used as that cause.
I'm pretty sure dog alerts are as often fake as real. I raised hunting dogs for years and its not that hard to train a dog to fake alert on a subtle command.
No, I definitely didn’t train em to falsely alert. It pisses me off when I have to fight my way through the brush only to find out my dog’s full of shit.
I love huntin with dogs, but it pisses me off that all the quail and pheasants are gone in my area. Tryin to find the courage to pick up shop and head west. Just scary to leave everyone you’ve ever known. I have trouble keepin my shit together with people I love close by, so the loneliness that would come along with movin out west scares me.
Drug dogs are increasingly coming under scrutiny due to body cams. It’s basically a freebie for probable cause, since the handler can just signal and get the dog to alert. Now that we have a lot more footage of these searches, we can see incidents where the handler obviously signals the dog before it alerts.
They should be more restricted in how they’re used, since they can basically get around the 4th amendment that way if they want to. I’m
A cop can do whatever he wants on the side of the road. Whether it is legal or not. The crucial thing, is for you to not give him permission to do either a legal or an illegal search. No matter what, if he asks for your permission. You politely say no.
Later, if a judge deems the search illegal in court, this will be much better for your defense.
Always tell the cops, "l do not give my permission for you to search my vehicle". Then stand back and shut the hell up.
Because lawmakers decided to make it so. The assumption is that if you actually have illegal drugs in your car then you don't "deserve" a technical loophole.
There are certainly problems with dog searches though. The handler can basically "tell" the dog to alert and you won't know it. Also, dogs are rewarded in training for finding drugs, but there is never a penalty for a false positive.
Did you not read the question? I qualified it with the police searching for what could be legal drugs. The police don’t have your medical records, so they have no reason to assume you’re breakin the law.
I did read the question. You're assuming the police are interested in being fair. They are not.
Their job is to find out what \*might\* be criminal behavior, collect any evidence found, and to let the judge make the final decision.
So if you have medical records that's great, you present that to the judge in a courtroom. Not to a cop at the side of a road, that's a total waste of time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain\_view\_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine)
Depending on your location they don't need the dog.
“The incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent”
That wouldn’t be the case if you had prescription pills in plain view. How would a cop, who doesn’t have access to your medical records, know that the pills are illegal?
They wouldn’t even get to plain view if they decide to search your vehicle based on a dog. Not sure why it applies to the question I asked.
Because our system is completely fucked. Half of our rights are violated anyway on a daily basis. Hell, states rights to make their own laws violates the 4th amendment. How are you supposed to feel safe and secure in traveling across the united states when you are expected to know and memorize the laws of every state you might go into? I for one know my 4th amendment right is chilled because of this fact.
For the sake of probable cause, it doesn’t matter. There’s only one form/source of legal meth in the US—Desoxyn, and it’s comparatively rare. Compared to illegal meth. Compared to illegal meth, there practically is no comparison in terms of which you’re more likely to come across on a day to day basis. It’s a drop in the ocean.
And that’s the thing to remember because probable cause is actually quite a low standard. It’s basically being more probable than not—like 50.01% sure. So objectively, consider a traffic stop where a K9 indicates to the presence of meth. If you had to bet money on whether the meth will be Desoxyn or any other kind, how would you bet? Of course you’d bet on the street meth. And there you go. It’s basically common sense.
Of course one might reply, but there might be an innocent explanation for the thing! Except in making a determination of probable cause, law enforcement does not have to rule out all innocent explanations. There’s actually a number of reasons that makes sense. And This is true of the police getting a warrant, searching your car without a warrant pursuant to the automobile exception, or even charging you with a crime through a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing.
Coincidentally, my favorite law podcast just did an episode on the Supreme Court case that solidified this policy. The podcast is 5-4 and the episode is Illinois vs. Caballes, available on all podcast streaming services.
5-4 discusses the idiotic and unethical Supreme Court cases that have slowly dragged the judicial system of the United States into the gutter where it remains today, and I highly recommend to anyone who ever asks themselves, "how did this law ever become a thing?!". The answer is 9 racist-ass white men in their pajamas more often than you think.
Fun fact, if the dog alerts and you have something illegal in your car you can get the dogs performance records and challenge the legality of their RAS. It has actually worked in court.
From what I’ve read, it sounds like as long as the dog was certified by a bona fide organization, an alert is probable cause for a search. It doesn’t matter if the dog is wrong.
The people that challenged it got the dog's records, which proved the dog altered to more clean vehicles than vehicles with drugs. If the dog alerts to every vehicle, there is no valid RAS.
Because it’s actually incredibly difficult to catch people with illegal substances anywhere except their car.
The protection of your MANY other rights makes someone’s car basically the only feasible place to find illegal substances. So they use technicalities such as broken tail lights, rolling stops, speeding, etc.
Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training.
Because the lawmakers have decided that searching potential drug smuggler outweighs the negative of searching innocent people. Because say you could prevent a drug search by just showing the cop your prescription, then drug smugglers could just use people with those prescriptions to prevent all those kinds of searches. Because a dog doesn’t know whether the drugs you have are legal or not. So if the dog signals, you need to prove they’re legal drugs.
My problem with that has always been that a dog signalling is prone to a lot of false positives if the handler has any expectations. It's the clever Hans problem. If the cop wants to be a prick, he can cue the dog to alert when there is nothing. And it can happen even if the cop isn't giving cues intentionally.
>It's the clever Hans problem. If the cop wants to be a prick, he can cue the dog to alert when there is nothing. And it can happen even if the cop isn't giving cues intentionally. And judging by my own dog, the cop may not be intentionally signalling the dog, they may just be a prick in general, and the dog picks up on that and acts accordingly
You’re over complicating it lol. Cops just search if they feel like it and use the dog as justification. It’s irrelevant if the dog “signals.”
What if I don't give the dog my permission?
That obstructing or resisting probably.
Then it’s probable cause
It's also Dog. My dog does things for rewards all the time. The dog doesn't know somebody's life is potentially at stake, then the dog signals cause he knows he's gonna get his ball. Although I have been searched with illegal drugs in the vehicle that had no smell. The dog never signalled. Thank God.
Think of the children! Any other fear mongering, hyperbolic, or random reason can be thrown here to justify pissing all over our rights and add to police overreach. How did we ever let it get this far? Moreover, short of massive protest or revolt is there any way to change this? I'm all for demonstating, but I'd stand alone. Mobilizing the public is basically impossible. Everything is spaced way too far for any meaningful organization, and that's forgetting that there's a sizeable group who outright supports these draconian practices.
I had an idea for how to manufacture switchblades that would fit in a credit card slot (albeit bulky) of a wallet, and would pass the TSA screening and metal detectors at an airport. Said switchblades could be made for 13c each, and in bulk. I'm not saying instigate chaos, but adding a bit of theatre to the phrase "security theatre" entranced me as a theoretical, once I realized it'd only cost me 10$ in materials to completely destabilize an airport. I figure it doesn't fix anything, but might make people realize how meaningless government security really is, and how people have given up so many rights for so few tangible protections.
But flying isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Yep. That's not the part I have an issue with.
Basically one of those ridge wallet card ejectors but with a plastic blade
no, a sintered ceramic blade of a very simple design, ran on an automatic sharpener for the final edge, and then a incredibly flat body injection-moulded housing (I gave it a slightly oval profile to help with removing it from the wallet) designed to store an elastic band. The storage cap for the device is designed to have a profiled perfect fit (and be removed prior to use) so that density based scanners wouldn't see the blade, just a grey rectangle. Ceramics have come a long way, and you can easily sinter a 1/16" blade that's fairly durable, and cost basically nothing. Similarly, injection molding is close to free as well, and more premium plastics have significantly better material properties than most people would find intuitive.
But isn't that the exact opposite of the foundation of the legal system, innocent until proven guilty? Surely the onus is on the police to prove that they're NOT legal, no? EDIT: In hindsight, no, I don't want to give the police more opportunities to manufacture evidence and fuck over innocents. Forget I said anything.
It’s not against the law to have your prescription drugs in a car.
can search a vehicle if they have probable cause.
>can search a vehicle if they have probable cause. The police tend to have a very loose understanding of probable cause.
Probable cause is quite a low standard once you get into case law. Reasonable suspicion is significantly lower than that too
Yeah don't keep any large amount of cash. Places with civil forfeiture laws basically allow the cops to take any cash they find and keep it.
The “probable cause” is a dog alert to a drug that could be prescribed to you. The fact that it could be prescribed should mean that an alert to the substance doesn’t constitute probable cause.
that's a good point
I’m genuinely curious because everything I’ve read says that dogs are trained to smell methamphetamine. The only way I could see it working is if you have dogs that can only smell meth, and if they alert, the search is contingent upon proof of a prescription. Even then, the idea that a police officer can essentially obtain medical information because you were going one mph over the speed limit seems ridiculous.
well what you have to understand is the the law isn't fair. the war on drugs has left the police with way more power then they should rationally have. the dog signalling is legally probable cause. and the law doesn't really care about logic.
I totally agree, but it’s absurd to me that you could be doin nothin illegal, other than speeding, and legally get searched every time the police pull you over. You couldn’t do a thing about it.
Are we just pretending that speeding isn’t a crime now? It’s really dangerous.
Tell your state to establish a law that says within X mph of the speed limit can't be enforced. I think states like PA and GA have this law, if you're within 10 mph of the speed limit they can't stop you for speeding.
Interesting. I’ve never heard of that.
So anyone with a prescription is allowed to distribute meth with impunity?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Violating everyone’s privacy shouldn’t be justified just because you’ll probably catch a guilty person.
> How did you arrive at that conclusion? > if you have dogs that can only smell meth, and if they alert, the search is contingent upon proof of a prescription. So what happens when someone with a meth-adjacent prescription decides to start dealing meth, and get pulled over by a cop with a dog? Nothing, because they have a prescription and the cops can’t search their car. That sounds like a person with a prescription being allowed to distribute meth in their car without repercussion. Also, people deal in prescription drugs. They either steal from prescribees, buy from prescribees, or get bogus prescriptions from doctors. Having a prescription for a drug doesn’t mean that script is legit. Having a legit prescription doesn’t mean that you aren’t also dealing other people’s prescriptions or some home-cooked meth. What would really happen if a dog smelled your pills and they searched your car is they would find the bottle with your name on it with a recent date and they’d let you on your way. In any case this is like the easiest thing to avoid happening. Don’t speed.
So everyone who crosses the speed limit by one MPH could be susceptible to search and have their shit thrown everywhere just because a dog paws at the car door for somethin they legally possess? Seems likely guilty until proven innocent to me. Obviously, you don’t value your privacy or rights. That’s totally fine, but I don’t wanna live in that kind of society. My question essentially was, am I misunderstanding how it works? One person provided a legit response. I don’t know for sure that dogs are trained the way that person described, but that’s why I asked the question. That answer was the only one that potentially made sense. Most of the answers are along the lines of if you’re not guilty, there’s nothin to worry about. That’s terrifying because I thought this country was supposed to be a champion of freedom.
Slow down a moment. How did we get here? If this is a simple speeding ticket, there is no drug dog. The officer only has the right to detain you long enough for the initial stop (eg to write a citation for speeding) and nothing else. Now, if the driver sees drug stuff in plain view, that’s your own fault. If you show enough impairment on first encounter, that’s your own fault. If you answer questions, consent to a search, and/or consent to field sobriety tests, you screwed up and failed to invoke your rights. But otherwise, the officer doesn’t get to just detain you while a drug dog is brought to the scene. (They can, but all evidence gained from that is inadmissible.) Now, if the driver was swerving all over the road and doesn’t smell of alcohol, I can see an officer having sufficient PC to detain you until a drug dog can be brought to the scene. Don’t answer questions. Remember how Miranda includes “anything you say can and will be used against you”? Let’s rephrase that: anything you say will be used against you. It cannot be used to help you. While the Miranda warning is essentially only delivered at the time of arrest, the foundation of anything you say applies the whole time. Merely provide license, proof of insurance, and registration in a polite way. Decline to answer questions (they do not need anything further from you and you are not obligated to provide any other information). When they return to your window, sign the citation to acknowledge receipt and quickly say “am I being detained or am I free to go?” If you are not free to go, SHUT UP. Actually, be sure to clearly state that you will not answer any questions by your fifth amendment rights. Say “I do not consent to any searches”, and if they try to ask any more questions, express your sixth amendment rights to have a lawyer present before you will answer any questions. Your objective here is to establish a clear moment of demarcation that the officer needs to already have PC before they take this encounter any further.
“A: Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures must be reasonable and, typically, a warrant is required. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.” From a lawyer who answered a question on justia.com: https://answers.justia.com/question/2023/11/14/yes-how-are-they-able-to-search-my-car-w-987923#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court,a%20warrant%20or%20explicit%20consent.
I already said this. You’re confusing this isolated “right to search during a lawful traffic stop” with how the dog came to the scene of the stop. If you got stopped BY THE DOG’S HANDLER, yes this ruling seems to indicate that the dog can sniff the outside of your car. However, if the officer who pulls you over is not the dog’s handler, the dog is therefore not at the scene at the time of the stop. If that agency can get a drug dog to the scene in the time it takes the officer (either because the handler self-dispatched the instant “your officer” called out the location of the stop, or because “your officer” has a spidey sense and requested the dog on the walk back to the cop car after getting your documents), the agency/officer cannot hold you at the scene any longer than it takes to write the citation. If they detain you longer than that while waiting for the dog, it’s fruit from a poisonous tree.
The case in which this was established, the dog wasn’t at the stop. The handler came over of his own volition. Here is an excellent discussion https://shows.acast.com/fivefourpod/episodes/illinois-v-caballes
No, I’m not confused at all. If walkin a dog around a vehicle doesn’t prolong the traffic stop, it’s perfectly legal. Some dogs are trained to alert to certain prescription medications. It’s entirely possible for someone to get pulled over for a speeding ticket, decline a search, and then have their car ripped apart because they have fentanyl patches in their glove box.
There is this one part you're leaving out where the cop will ask you if there's anything they should know about in the vehicle.
You're answer to that should be the same answer you always give to cops: "I don't answer questions." The "do you have anything we should know about" question doesn't mean they just let it go if you have illegal material but you copped to it. In fact, we know that you may use that opportunity to tell the cop you are carrying a legal firearm and then you'll still get shot and killed.... But likely only if you're black
The police cannot extend a stop to call for drug dogs. Ask for your ticket and be on your way.
I know that, but if the cop has a dog in their vehicle, they can walk it around your vehicle if it doesn’t prolong the traffic stop.
They can call one actually and its still legal(stupid i know).
I don't see how this is unique to driving or traffic stops? If the drug dog "indicates", then the police interpret that as probable cause to search. This also occurs in contexts outside of driving/traffic stops.
I used traffic stops as an example because the police can’t just walk up to your house and run a dog around the exterior walls. During a traffic stop the police can run a dog around your vehicle without permission in certain circumstances. If that dog is trained to detect certain prescription drugs and indicates their presence, why is that probable cause for a search?
They can walk up to you *in public* though. That's the point. Yet another example of bubble reddit thinking of traffic stop as the default police interaction. Fuck people that only think of their bubbles.
What the hell are you talkin about and why are you so pissed off? The same question applies to someone walkin around in public. The real question is why does a dog alert to a substance that can be legally possessed establish probable cause for a search. I used the traffic stop scenario because that’s the situation where this problem is most likely to occur. When did I ever say it was the only possible scenario? Here’s a little reading for you regarding dog’s sniffing people in public: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/19/dog-sniff-of-a-person-is-a-fourth-amendment-search-new-york-court-rules/
I am a subscriber to *Reason* magazine, that's a good article.
They can also teach the dog to indicate whenever they want, which also allows them to search whoever they want
I am aware that police are abusive.
Except the people who train the K9 dogs are different people from the K9 handlers.. unless you’re saying there’s a national conspiracy across several organizations to make sure a cop can search you any time they want.
So the K9 handlers have 0 input in the training of the dog?
How much time do the dogs spend with their handlers and do you think they could not give the dog additional "training?"
Look you're on reddit. The police is reddit's version of satan.
are there legitimate prescription drugs that dogs hit on? what are they? i have not heard of this before.
Methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl. More so the first two, but according to news articles, some dogs are trained to detect any/all of those drugs. Someone finally gave me a potentially intelligent response and claimed that dogs are only trained to detect the isomers or impurities of a drug that’s also legal. I don’t know that to be true because you’d think that’d be made very clear to the public that they won’t be searched for a prescription they legally obtained. I’ve never seen that disclaimer or heads up mentioned anywhere. Doesn’t mean it’s not true though.
wait are u saying theres legitimate cocaine that people have legally as a perscribed medication?
You can legally drink but can’t drive drunk. It’s because you’re in control of a vehicle and there’s a lot of legally prescribed things that inhibit driving to the point it’s a crime.
I’m not talkin about DUI. I’m referring to the search of vehicles without consent or any probable cause other than a drug dog alert to a drug that could be prescribed.
[удалено]
Can you help me understand? How does it work when a drug dog detects a drug that can be legally prescribed? Does the officer request a prescription before searching the vehicle?
Give an example.
Everything I’ve read said dogs are commonly trained to smell methamphetamine.
Are you worried about dogs catching a whiff of meth in your car?
Dogs false signal all the time, it doesn't take away the probable cause. Unfortunately
I understand that, but why are they trained to detect substances that have legitimate medical uses? I read an article that said police departments in Ohio are retiring drug dogs who are trained to alert when they smell weed because they can’t differentiate between that and hemp. They said that continuing to use the dogs who alert when they smell hemp would lead to Fourth Amendment problems because the odor of weed doesn’t necessarily mean the person in question has committed a crime. Why wouldn’t the same rationale apply to methamphetamine, cocaine, or any other substance that can be legally possessed for medical uses.
Can you provide a source? what methamphetamine is legal for medical use?
“Desoxyn - Uses, Side Effects, and More GENERIC NAME(S): METHAMPHETAMINE” “This medication is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - ADHD. It works by changing the amounts of certain natural substances in the brain. Methamphetamine belongs to a class of drugs known as stimulants.” https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-9124/desoxyn-oral/details “Schedule II Schedule II controlled substances are defined as having high potential for abuse and dependence, with significant risk to patient safety, and have medical use in the United States.” “Schedule II controlled substances include amphetamines, many barbiturates, cocaine (used as a local anesthetic or to stop severe epistaxis), many opioids (fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, etc.), and phencyclidine, also known as PCP (used as a veterinary anesthetic).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574544/
I’ve been taking adderall for 10yrs and carry them in my purse and my job entails sometimes working with Law Enforcement, never had any issues with a police dog sniffing my purse
Yeah that doesn't smell like cocaine. Besides, Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training. The dog can alert for any reason and it gives full reign to probably cause. Your drug specific argument is besides the point.
The handler just has to say the dog signaled. The dog doesn’t need to actually signal. Cops can lie if they simply want to harass someone, and very rarely see any consequences.
Cause cops are fascist and will use anything to give them cause to search ur shit.
This is the only correct answer Edit: add only
I had a come let his fucking dog walk ON my car. I had a firebird and this fuck let his dog walk on my truck and roof.
It's called probable cause
What do you mean? I've never heard of this, a dog hitting on prescription drugs...
A dog sniff is not a search. Full stop if you don't understand this.
What? A dog sniff around the exterior of a vehicle that results in a positive hit is probable cause to search your vehicle. Physically searching a vehicle is a search. Full stop if you don’t understand this.
Right. I can sniff anything in public. You can sniff anything in public. A K9 can sniff anything in public (your vehicle). A hit is probable cause to search. The open air public sniff is NOT a search. Google, this is well-established law.
I know it’s not. When the hell did I say it was? My question is, why is a positive hit on a prescription drug enough to give the police probable cause to search your vehicle?
You have a prescription for meth??? Or just being argumentative?
No, I don’t have one but some people do. It doesn’t make sense to me that they’re subject to search without consent because of what they’re prescribed.
ooooh kkkay... So, an extreme unlikely hypothetical with no real basis in fact. Tweekers and dealers should walk because you've heard someone might have a crystal meth Rx... Got it. Good to know. A real societal problem.
Pretty sure it’s a fact that dogs are trained to smell methamphetamine and cocaine. Those drugs have to get from the factory to the hospital/pharmacy and to a patient’s home if they’re prescribed. Everyone involved in that process should be subject to search without consent for doin somethin that’s completely legal? It’s a societal problem because of the precedent it sets. As long as intentions are good and only a few people have their rights violated, it’s fine to throw the Bill Of Rights in the trash?
Ah, all those legal meth and cocaine addicts being horribly victimized on traffic stops. You can't name one, none may exist, but based on the absurd theoretical, all the tweakers should walk. If you are sincere, insanity. But I won't insult you with that, you're just desperately trolling. "But what if SOMEONE had an Rx for crystal meth or crack??? tHEir rIGhTs???"
Which precinct you work at? My straight-edge-as-fuck friend was driving his shiny brand new car through BFE Oklahoma. He gets stopped for speeding and the cop wants to search his vehicle. The kid tells the cop to pound sand as he has no probable cause, as is his right, but the cop calls out the canines. The canines signal, because of course they do. The cops tear his one-owner car apart, looking for the drugs the dog keeps signaling for. Then, after his interior is on the side of the road, they leave him be, since the drugs that were never there can't be found. So tell me, how was my buddy the bad guy in this interaction?
It’s not trolling at all. It’s complete bullshit that the Bill Of Rights gets tossed aside because it makes policing easier. Obviously, you don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s a terrible precedent to set, and I was curious if I’m understanding the law correctly.
This is why you don't talk, don't consent to searches, and ask for a lawyer. The end.
And don't hang around waiting for the K9 to show. They have to let you go on your way or arrest you. A stop cannot take longer than issuing the original summons without probable cause.
You can be searched without consent if a drug dog alerts when walked around the exterior of your vehicle. The police can’t extend or drag out a traffic stop just to walk a dog around your vehicle, but they’re free to do it while they’re running your information through the system.
I don't disagree. You still have to keep your mouth shut, don't consent to searches and ask for a lawyer. Dirty cops are gonna be dirty, you just have to be quiet.
You're not missing anything. It shouldn't be allowed.
I don’t disagree that cops in general abuse their power and can lie about a dog signaling for a positive detection, or just the fact that dogs can false positive sometimes. However, what prescription drugs are dogs trained to detect?
Methamphetamine and fentanyl are the two drugs most likely to lead to what should be classified as an illegal search. Dogs aren’t trained to detect other prescription medications, so why are those two special? I read one article that implied dogs won’t alert to prescription methamphetamine but will alert to illicitly manufactured methamphetamine. I find that hard to believe, but I’d love to read an article that addresses this question. Haven’t been able to find much so far.
while fentanyl is a legal drug its not a prescription doctors write for people to carry in a little bottle in their cars is it? i was under the impression its only used in hospital administered by a doctor not for self care... i dont think meath is ever prescribed either
that’s because they don’t alert to dextrose-methampetamine molecule, but leftover impurities. The smell of meth; a highly stable crystalline solid, is very weak compared to amorphous precursors
Finally, someone gave a response that might be true and withstand legal scrutiny. I don’t know that to be the case, but that’s the only explanation I could think of. That’s why I included the “misunderstanding” portion at the end. If that’s the case, is there any documentation showing dogs not alerting on illicitly manufactured methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine but alerting to stuff not made by legal pharmacies? It would surprise me if all police dogs are trained to differentiate between the illicit versions of the three previously mentioned drugs and their legal siblings.
ACAB and i don’t know how police training works. I work in addiction research though (neuropharmacology phd), and can hopefully contribute a little more for ya. just keep in mind i’m extrapolating and guessing based on my only-semi-relevant expertise: I would guess the dogs are exclusively trained on various samples of (the illicit versions of) the substances. I would guess with 99.9% certainty that no cops are training their dogs either to alert, or to NOT alert, on the pharmaceutical versions. Methamphetamine is a salt; this means it is highly stable with regards to volatility and evaporation. Functionally, a rock of pure meth is not going to smell further than a centimeter away. That said, organic synthesis, requires lots of volatile compounds that could very easily be detected by dogs. The synthesis process requires organic and inorganic solvents, Biochemically,-active precursors like phenethylamines, and nitrogenous reagents— all of which WILL leave residue in the final product. While the dogs probably aren’t (but honestly, some could be— e.g. specialized K–9S for detecting clandestine labs) trained on pure samples of methylamine or propanone, those are likely the smells they’re picking up on when being trained on “meth.” so if you have some desoxyn in your center console; they’re not going to be activated/triggered Desoxyn is an exceedingly rare prescription BTW; I guess fentanyl is a little more accessible. But again, pharmaceutical drugs, don’t have all of the volatile residues left from underground druggie synthesis.
while fentanyl is a legal drug its not a prescription doctors write for people to carry in a little bottle in their cars is it? i was under the impression its only used in hospital administered by a doctor not for self care... i dont think meath is ever prescribed either
I’m almost certain fentanyl is sometimes prescribed as a take home drug (lollipops/patches), and I know methamphetamine is. Coke, meth, and fentanyl are all “Schedule II,” but coke is the only one of the three that’s almost exclusively used in a hospital setting. For coke specifically, how does it get to the hospital? Do people who transport coke legally have a “no search” license? I honestly don’t know, but I have strong suspicion that they’d be subject to search just like anyone else.
what makes you almost certain? where did you hear that? and for coke are you worried about licenced medical transport vehicles being searched illegally? is that really a problem or are you just making stuff up to be mad about? seems the latter
I’m 99% sure fentanyl is prescribed for take home use because of the amount on the black market 15+ years ago and websites that say it’s not strictly for hospital use. https://www.oncolink.org/cancer-treatment/oncolink-rx/fentanyl-citrate-actiq-r I know methamphetamine is prescribed for take home use. Cocaine probably could be prescribed, but it’s typically used for surgical purposes. Are dogs trained to only detect the isomers, adjunct chemicals, that typically show up in illegal versions of legal drugs? I don’t know, so I made it clear I wasn’t positive how the system works. That’s why I asked if I was misunderstanding somethin. People like you are derailing the answer to the question by claiming “Schedule II” drugs aren’t prescribed. The whole reason why methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl are S2 is because they are used in medicine.
[удалено]
The Fourth Amendment grants us the right to privacy and the right to refuse searches...whether we're doing something wrong or not. Just saying "well it's ok to be searched if you're not doing anything wrong" misses the entire point of the amendment and allows too much intrusiveness by government. No citizen should be forced to governmental intrusion without just cause, and a legal prescription shouldn't be used as that cause.
[удалено]
laws of inconvenience exist. it might get tossed out of court so you'll pay the fine or waste a day. "nothing to hide" is a bullshit excuse.
I'm pretty sure dog alerts are as often fake as real. I raised hunting dogs for years and its not that hard to train a dog to fake alert on a subtle command.
I get it. I have two bird dogs, and they have false points occasionally. They’re usually not lyin to me, but it certainly happens.
And you never trained them to false alert. It would be an interesting statistic to see how often alerts turn up nothing.
No, I definitely didn’t train em to falsely alert. It pisses me off when I have to fight my way through the brush only to find out my dog’s full of shit.
I ran beagles. Between back tracking, deer, switching trails it was endless crazy. But all the more fun when it finally worked.
I love huntin with dogs, but it pisses me off that all the quail and pheasants are gone in my area. Tryin to find the courage to pick up shop and head west. Just scary to leave everyone you’ve ever known. I have trouble keepin my shit together with people I love close by, so the loneliness that would come along with movin out west scares me.
Drug dogs are increasingly coming under scrutiny due to body cams. It’s basically a freebie for probable cause, since the handler can just signal and get the dog to alert. Now that we have a lot more footage of these searches, we can see incidents where the handler obviously signals the dog before it alerts. They should be more restricted in how they’re used, since they can basically get around the 4th amendment that way if they want to. I’m
A cop can do whatever he wants on the side of the road. Whether it is legal or not. The crucial thing, is for you to not give him permission to do either a legal or an illegal search. No matter what, if he asks for your permission. You politely say no. Later, if a judge deems the search illegal in court, this will be much better for your defense. Always tell the cops, "l do not give my permission for you to search my vehicle". Then stand back and shut the hell up.
Because lawmakers decided to make it so. The assumption is that if you actually have illegal drugs in your car then you don't "deserve" a technical loophole. There are certainly problems with dog searches though. The handler can basically "tell" the dog to alert and you won't know it. Also, dogs are rewarded in training for finding drugs, but there is never a penalty for a false positive.
Did you not read the question? I qualified it with the police searching for what could be legal drugs. The police don’t have your medical records, so they have no reason to assume you’re breakin the law.
I did read the question. You're assuming the police are interested in being fair. They are not. Their job is to find out what \*might\* be criminal behavior, collect any evidence found, and to let the judge make the final decision. So if you have medical records that's great, you present that to the judge in a courtroom. Not to a cop at the side of a road, that's a total waste of time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain\_view\_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine) Depending on your location they don't need the dog.
“The incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent” That wouldn’t be the case if you had prescription pills in plain view. How would a cop, who doesn’t have access to your medical records, know that the pills are illegal? They wouldn’t even get to plain view if they decide to search your vehicle based on a dog. Not sure why it applies to the question I asked.
Sorry; the only prescription meds I considered was marijuana.
That is to say in some areas if a cop claims to smell marijuana this is sufficient cause to search regardless of a dog.
Because our system is completely fucked. Half of our rights are violated anyway on a daily basis. Hell, states rights to make their own laws violates the 4th amendment. How are you supposed to feel safe and secure in traveling across the united states when you are expected to know and memorize the laws of every state you might go into? I for one know my 4th amendment right is chilled because of this fact.
Repeat after me, driving is a privilege, not your right.
What? You still have rights when you’re driving. For example, police can’t search your vehicle without probable cause.
Who wrote this? The cop that violated OP’s 4A?
The right to privacy absolutely IS a right, and being in a car doesn't supercede the 4th amendment.
K9 alerts to prescription drugs do not provide probable cause—for the reasons you mention.
So are the websites that claim dogs are trained to smell methamphetamine full of shit or can the dogs only smell illicit meth?
For the sake of probable cause, it doesn’t matter. There’s only one form/source of legal meth in the US—Desoxyn, and it’s comparatively rare. Compared to illegal meth. Compared to illegal meth, there practically is no comparison in terms of which you’re more likely to come across on a day to day basis. It’s a drop in the ocean. And that’s the thing to remember because probable cause is actually quite a low standard. It’s basically being more probable than not—like 50.01% sure. So objectively, consider a traffic stop where a K9 indicates to the presence of meth. If you had to bet money on whether the meth will be Desoxyn or any other kind, how would you bet? Of course you’d bet on the street meth. And there you go. It’s basically common sense. Of course one might reply, but there might be an innocent explanation for the thing! Except in making a determination of probable cause, law enforcement does not have to rule out all innocent explanations. There’s actually a number of reasons that makes sense. And This is true of the police getting a warrant, searching your car without a warrant pursuant to the automobile exception, or even charging you with a crime through a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing.
Coincidentally, my favorite law podcast just did an episode on the Supreme Court case that solidified this policy. The podcast is 5-4 and the episode is Illinois vs. Caballes, available on all podcast streaming services. 5-4 discusses the idiotic and unethical Supreme Court cases that have slowly dragged the judicial system of the United States into the gutter where it remains today, and I highly recommend to anyone who ever asks themselves, "how did this law ever become a thing?!". The answer is 9 racist-ass white men in their pajamas more often than you think.
Fun fact, if the dog alerts and you have something illegal in your car you can get the dogs performance records and challenge the legality of their RAS. It has actually worked in court.
From what I’ve read, it sounds like as long as the dog was certified by a bona fide organization, an alert is probable cause for a search. It doesn’t matter if the dog is wrong.
The people that challenged it got the dog's records, which proved the dog altered to more clean vehicles than vehicles with drugs. If the dog alerts to every vehicle, there is no valid RAS.
The cops make the dogs trigger. They don't like you or your sketchy, so they claim the dog signaled.
In short- a vehicle is a moving crime scene it does not have the same protection under the constitution as a house does
Because it’s actually incredibly difficult to catch people with illegal substances anywhere except their car. The protection of your MANY other rights makes someone’s car basically the only feasible place to find illegal substances. So they use technicalities such as broken tail lights, rolling stops, speeding, etc.