Unconst. search w/ K9 dogs? Forum

[clshopeful]

my main question is: How are K9 searches allowed without consent? I just saw an episode where a man was speeding, and the cop brings a K9 through his car. The man said 'you can't search my car'. I tried looking it up, and I found a case that said K9 searches are allowed without consent. Isn't this just a search without probable cause? and then they find something and arrest them.

Also, I saw a scene where a man was pulled over for making a wrong turn. The cop said ''Can I search you?'' man said No. Cop then said ''Im going to pat you down to make sure you dont have any weapons..." and then the cop feels a baggy, pulls it out, and it's full of weed. Arrested. Isn't this not right?

[WinSome]

I don't think this is a forum for legal questions generally, but if you want the most up to date case on dog sniffs during traffic stops, read this case http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 2_p8k0.pdf
Basically, a dog sniff is not a per se search because the dog is just smelling what is in public. Obviously the dog cannot go into the car or into the house, but it can sniff around outside because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[mornincounselor]

0L here. So this is not and cannot reasonably be construed as advice, legal or otherwise.

The second question is easier. I believe generally there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example the plain sight exception (if a cop pulls you over (legally) and sees drugs on the floor they don't need a warrant to scoop them up) or the hot pursuit exception (if a cop witnesses you robbing a store and chases after you and you run inside your house, the cop can come in without a search warrant to get you). One of these exceptions is the stop and frisk exception. I believe it's origins stem from officer safety. If an officer is stopping you (legally) they have a right to know whether or not you have a weapon on you. So the frisk is supposed to be for locating any weapons. Of course if they find drugs, they find drugs.

The first question is a bit more complicated. I think it has to do with your reasonable expectation of privacy. Some officers travel with trained K-9s. Imagine if you were stopped by one of those cops. The dog would be allowed to roam around the outside of your car because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy to the sights and smells outside of your car. So I believe the throny bit is if you are stopped by some other cop and they want to wait on the side of the road for a K-9 unit to arrive. There, arguably, it is a violation of your rights to be detained for a length of time waiting without probable cause for an arrest.

Not to get all Holmesian on you, but, it is right? Who the hell knows. But, it is the law.

[GoneSouth]

0L here. So this is not and cannot reasonably be construed as advice, legal or otherwise.

The second question is easier. I believe generally there are exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example the plain sight exception (if a cop pulls you over (legally) and sees drugs on the floor they don't need a warrant to scoop them up) or the hot pursuit exception (if a cop witnesses you robbing a store and chases after you and you run inside your house, the cop can come in without a search warrant to get you). One of these exceptions is the stop and frisk exception. I believe it's origins stem from officer safety. If an officer is stopping you (legally) they have a right to know whether or not you have a weapon on you. So the frisk is supposed to be for locating any weapons. Of course if they find drugs, they find drugs.

The first question is a bit more complicated. I think it has to do with your reasonable expectation of privacy. Some officers travel with trained K-9s. Imagine if you were stopped by one of those cops. The dog would be allowed to roam around the outside of your car because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy to the sights and smells outside of your car. So I believe the throny bit is if you are stopped by some other cop and they want to wait on the side of the road for a K-9 unit to arrive. There, arguably, it is a violation of your rights to be detained for a length of time waiting without probable cause for an arrest.

Not to get all Holmesian on you, but, it is right? Who the hell knows. But, it is the law.

This was the most recent SCOTUS case. They said you can't be forced to wait for longer than it would take to write you a ticket

[CaptainLeela]

Welcome to TLS

[A. Nony Mouse]

^yep.

And like people said, a dog sniff isn't considered an invasion of privacy because the dog is just sniffing trace molecules in the air and that's an incredibly minimal infringement on someone's privacy.

It sounds like you were watching a tv show? Technically the dog would have to alert to something in the car from outside the car before the police would be able to take the dog into the car. But if the dog alerts that provides probable cause to enter the car and search.