Drug dogs OK with the Supremes

[crimresearch]

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police can have dogs check out motorists' vehicles for drugs even if officers have no particular reason to suspect illegal activity...."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=701&e=2&u=/ap/20050124/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_drug_dogs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Held:
A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jan20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-923.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As long as they stick firmly to the 'during' part, and don't start holding people on zero suspicion until a dog can be found, I don't see where it is much different than the officer smelling dope during a traffic stop.

[username]

As long as they stick firmly to the 'during' part, and don't start holding people on zero suspicion until a dog can be found, I don't see where it is much different than the officer smelling dope during a traffic stop. [/B]

The problem with rulings like this is it further moves the bar to the side of law enforcement rather than people's liberties. I am pretty set against the drug war as we know it as well so this doubly bothers me.

Any cop can pull over anyone at anytime by simply saying the person didn't signal before changing lanes or what have you so the caveat that it can only be done during a proper stop is rather pointless.

That people not under any suspicion can be searched for anything by any means bothers me. Next thing we will have cops set up with their drug dogs at the entrances to pubic events.

How far do liberties need to be eroded for the stupid war on some drugs?

[CBL4]

There are numerous problems.
1) Drug sniffing dogs find legal drugs as well. In my company, a man was "caught" by a drug sniffing dog for his perscription medicine. It became common knowledge that he was being treated for a mental disease. This clearly did not help his career. Would you like to arrested because you put a legal drug in your glove compartment in something other than its original pill case?
2) As username said, the police will abuse the law.
3) If the dog can check your car, why can't the officer just happen to walk by your house to find drugs?
4) The reaction of a police dog is subjective. The next step is the officer to falsely say the dog reacted to drugs. Then the officer can search anybody anytime. I believe the supreme court has also allowed the unexpected fruit of valid searches to be used against people.
5) The dog search is allowed because it is non-intrusive. What does this mean for future technology that can be used to perform non-intrusive searches? Are we going to see police randomly driving down streets with a device that sniffs out drugs, explosive and ammunition? There are devices that can see through walls? Will there be any limits on these?

Random searches adds very little security to society and have the potential to become great invasions of privacy. The police need to have a reason and a search warrant before searching in any method.

CBL

[crimresearch]

There has long been a balancing act between overzealous cops, and individual liberties...this looks like one more correction.

I have no doubt that law enforcement will perceive this ruling as a starting point, and that sooner or later, the USSC will be ruling on another aspect of it.

The War on Drugs on the other hand, like the War on Terror, the War on Poverty, etc., is a political fabrication, and will always be a mess.

[shanek]

So, now, according to the Supreme Court, the police can pull you over, have dogs sniff your car without probable cause, arrest you for refusing to show your papers, and stick even more penalties on top if you ran a TV ad critical of a politician.

Weep for our rights.

I wonder how the Supreme Court apologists are going to justify this? Obviously, we're "not reading it right" or "just don't understand the legalities." What lame excuse are they going to use this time?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by CBL4

4) The reaction of a police dog is subjective. The next step is the officer to falsely say the dog reacted to drugs. Then the officer can search anybody anytime.

My father trained bomb and drug dogs, and trained handlers how to train bomb and drug dogs, for 25 years in the Air Force. I can assure you that the dog's alert is quite unmistakable.

To assert that the officer prompted the dog - somehow made the dog display an alert even though the dog didn't detect anything - is frivolous and furthermore unfalsifiable. First, if there are drugs in the car, what does it mean to claim the officer prompted the dog? The dog detected the drugs, he didn't need prompting. And if there aren't any drugs, then after the search reveals no drugs you're free to go - the dog's alert gives probable cause to search but it's not arrestable all by itself.

I must say that trying to insist a sniffing dog is somehow a violation of your rights is ludicrous. The dog is sniffing the air around you...and I'm sorry, but your reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to odors that emanate from your body or vehicle or house. The odor is evidence that you leave behind, out in public. It's like accidentally leaving a bag of cocaine on your dashboard - or even better, on top of your trunk - when you go into the store. Anybody who walks by can see it - including cops. Same thing with odors. Anybody who walks by breathes in those odors - including dogs trained to react to them specifically. Just because it's evidence that you can't easily prevent from being left behind, doesn't mean it shouldn't count as evidence - if that were the case, DNA obtained from hair follicles on a victim's clothing (for example) cannot fairly be admissible as evidence in court either, because it's fundamentally the same kind of evidence. The cops and their dogs just happen to have the edge over perps on this particular issue. Tough luck.

And I wouldn't be too concerned about the K9 seige anyway. K9s are high-maintenance, and police departments don't exactly have armies of them. Not to mention that K9 units are also still patrol units, and people with metal on their shoulders will not be happy with officers who yank K9 units across town on a whim. You have to be either acting suspiciously, or have given information that doesn't add up, or that makes the dispatcher come back with some bad juju.

[Boo]

Where you will see this primarily impact are along border routes and checkpoints. The Border Patrol already routinely has dogs at checkpoints and is reponsible for the majority of the drug busts by being positioned between the major towns and more rural areas where many drugs are manfactured. Illegal immigrants have become an excuse to have the checkpoints.

It is common knowledge in southern New Mexico, which is a high meth manufacturing/use region, that "DUI checkpoints" are more about getting dogs a chance to sniff for drugs and check for insurance and registration than looking for drunk drivers.


My opinion is this is search without cause.


Boo

[crimresearch]

...First, if there are drugs in the car, what does it mean to claim the officer prompted the dog? The dog detected the drugs, he didn't need prompting. And if there aren't any drugs, then after the search reveals no drugs you're free to go - the dog's alert gives probable cause to search but it's not arrestable all by itself.


I trust dogs..I'm not so sure about people....

The dog doesn't testify in court that he alerted, the handler testifies in court that the dog alerted...and there is no standard quantifiable definition of 'alerted' that can be challenged by the defense, such as how many inches the dog's tail moved, etc., unlike breathalyzer or radar operators.
So 'subjective' is a fair criticism of the human factor in the use of dogs.

If you have a less than honorable cop with a dog, you have a cop who can introduce bogus PC...and at that point, who is to say that there won't be drugs in your trunk, even if they weren't there before you were stopped.

It may not happen to everyone, but with increased latitude to search, comes the opportunity for abuse.

Having said that, I still don't have a huge problem with the letter of this ruling...I'm all for the Constitution protecting the rights of even the guilty, but nothing says that crime should be made easier.

[Mycroft]

Whenever I have unused prescription painkillers, instead of throwing them away I like to grind them up and place them in an old salt-shaker. Then if someone annoys me I can sprinkle it on the running boards or bumpers of their vehicle, knowing that if they get near a police drug dog they’re in for an hour or two of trouble. This is especially useful if the person who annoys me is a teenager, as all our local schools participate in the D.A.R.E. program, and Officer Friendly is always around with his drug-sniffing dog to entertain and educate the kiddies.

I also like to take gunpowder from fireworks and sprinkle it on peoples luggage at airports.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Whenever I have unused prescription painkillers, instead of throwing them away I like to grind them up and place them in an old salt-shaker. Then if someone annoys me I can sprinkle it on the running boards or bumpers of their vehicle, knowing that if they get near a police drug dog they’re in for an hour or two of trouble. This is especially useful if the person who annoys me is a teenager, as all our local schools participate in the D.A.R.E. program, and Officer Friendly is always around with his drug-sniffing dog to entertain and educate the kiddies.

I also like to take gunpowder from fireworks and sprinkle it on peoples luggage at airports.

You jest, but didn't one survey of money in circulation turn up detectable levels of cocaine including bills from a police lieutenant's pocket?

[username]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Whenever I have unused prescription painkillers, instead of throwing them away I like to grind them up and place them in an old salt-shaker. Then if someone annoys me I can sprinkle it on the running boards or bumpers of their vehicle, knowing that if they get near a police drug dog they’re in for an hour or two of trouble. This is especially useful if the person who annoys me is a teenager, as all our local schools participate in the D.A.R.E. program, and Officer Friendly is always around with his drug-sniffing dog to entertain and educate the kiddies.

I also like to take gunpowder from fireworks and sprinkle it on peoples luggage at airports.

Jesting aside (assuming you were being facetious), things like this are semi effective forms of resistance. If everyone's money has traces of cocaine on it then the signifigance of one person's money having traces on it is nill.

If everyone's car alerts a drug dog, then it loses it's signifigance.

Of course doing things like this potentially screws over people who don't deserve it, but it can be an effective form of civil 'disobedience'.

Don't like the idea of drug sniffing dogs in your kid's school? Spend $5 for some weed and sprinkle it all over the place including in the school office.

Is there a public event where the police are expected to be using dogs to detect drugs? Show up before the event starts and plant traces all over the place.

For some real fun, rub some pot on your skin and then pass close by to the dog. The dog will alert, you will be searched and nothing found.

Assuming you smoke pot, make sure if your baggie includes seeds that you don't toss them in the trash, stick them in some dirt in public places.

Civil disobedience can be easy, fun and rewarding.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The dog doesn't testify in court that he alerted, the handler testifies in court that the dog alerted...and there is no standard quantifiable definition of 'alerted' that can be challenged by the defense, such as how many inches the dog's tail moved, etc., unlike breathalyzer or radar operators.

Yes, there is such a standard.

Problems like the one you just described have been thought up already by the law enforcement community. To prevent them, a standard of exactly how a dog should behave on an alert was drafted. Further, like Randi's challenge, it had to be a result not subject to interpretation - in other words, the "alert" signal has to be something that the dog would not occasionally do by himself as he's sniffing, so that the handler would not misidentify an alert response. This is, typically, sitting. A dog is led to walk along a line of luggage or the side of a vehicle, constantly sniffing, in a pattern - up and then down, as he works along the line. When the dog alerts, he sits - immediately and deliberately. He does not sniff anymore. He does not wag his tail or move his legs. He does absolutely nothing at all, until the handler commands him to break. This is a behavioral standard that the dog is trained to, and the dog is tested - he must do it the same way, every time, or he is not certified. Period.

After a hit, the handler will command the dog to break, and continue working around the line of luggage or the vehicle. Eventually, the handler brings the dog past the suspect item again, and if the dog alerts again, that is a confirmation that the dog does indeed catch a scent, and it is only then that the item is examined. If bad stuff is found, then the dog is rewarded (a toy or food treat, typically). If nothing is found, the dog is not rewarded.

The alert behavior standard is documented, and all a lawyer needs to do is request a copy of the appropriate file. Things like dashcams can also be obtained by the lawyer. If somebody wants to dispute whether the dog actually alerted or not, all one has to do is look at the documented standard.

[SezMe]

Joshua, as noted, it is not necessarily the dog's behavior which is in question, it is the human's behavior. Supose an officer goes to court and says the dog "indicated" a suitcase and upon further inspection, it was found to contain drugs. How in the world can the defendant question the DOG, not the officer. IOW, the officer can say what ever he wants and the dog is not in a position to refute or support the officer's testimony. Worse, the defendant is unable to refute the officer's testimony.

[Tmy]

Geez. Why dont they just rule that the constitution doesnt apply to automoblies.

Can they hold you while they wait for a police dog? The article i read didnt make that clear.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by SezMe
Joshua, as noted, it is not necessarily the dog's behavior which is in question, it is the human's behavior. Supose an officer goes to court and says the dog "indicated" a suitcase and upon further inspection, it was found to contain drugs. How in the world can the defendant question the DOG, not the officer. IOW, the officer can say what ever he wants and the dog is not in a position to refute or support the officer's testimony. Worse, the defendant is unable to refute the officer's testimony.

I don't understand your example. If there really were drugs in the suitcase, what good would questioning the dog do? Are you alleging that the dog had a false positive on a suitcase that contained drugs? If you are trying to make an example of intrusiveness, then propose a situation where the police say that the dog indicated a suitcase and when the officers opened it they found no drugs but did find illegal weapons which were used as a basis for an arrest.

But in any case, Joshua Korosi's response are accurate and appear to me to be well reasoned. There is no mistaking an indication; dogs are usually trained to sit perfectly still.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SezMe
Joshua, as noted, it is not necessarily the dog's behavior which is in question, it is the human's behavior. Supose an officer goes to court and says the dog "indicated" a suitcase and upon further inspection, it was found to contain drugs. How in the world can the defendant question the DOG, not the officer. IOW, the officer can say what ever he wants and the dog is not in a position to refute or support the officer's testimony. Worse, the defendant is unable to refute the officer's testimony.

Dunno. How many searches would lead to this one case? Is it worth the bother? I somehow cannot see expensive resources (dogs and cops) spent on something that would be so unproductive.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Yes, there is such a standard.

Problems like the one you just described have been thought up already by the law enforcement community. To prevent them, a standard of exactly how a dog should behave on an alert was drafted. Further, like Randi's challenge, it had to be a result not subject to interpretation - in other words, the "alert" signal has to be something that the dog would not occasionally do by himself as he's sniffing, so that the handler would not misidentify an alert response. This is, typically, sitting. A dog is led to walk along a line of luggage or the side of a vehicle, constantly sniffing, in a pattern - up and then down, as he works along the line. When the dog alerts, he sits - immediately and deliberately. He does not sniff anymore. He does not wag his tail or move his legs. He does absolutely nothing at all, until the handler commands him to break. This is a behavioral standard that the dog is trained to, and the dog is tested - he must do it the same way, every time, or he is not certified. Period.

The alert behavior standard is documented, and all a lawyer needs to do is request a copy of the appropriate file. Things like dashcams can also be obtained by the lawyer. If somebody wants to dispute whether the dog actually alerted or not, all one has to do is look at the documented standard.

Really? Then why did one professional law enforcement (not MWD) K9 handler testify under oath that:

"As the dog handler testified, an “alert� is scratching and biting at an object and a “cast� is temporarily stopping, giving part of object minute attention and then continuing with inspection."
United States v Rivas (157 F. 3d 364 (1998) Fifth Circuit

While another's sworn testimony was that an alert was:

"...when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment."
United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit

And yet another LEO handler claims that an alert is when:
"...we were walking back through one of the apartment complex's. "Justice" stopped and threw his head up in the air."
While another officer FROM THE SAME SCHOOL relates that his dog's alert is:
" the dog put his nose on it and scratched."
http://asct-nationalk9.com/generic9.html

And a different LE source claims that an alert is:
"Upon location of one of these (five) controlled substances, (the dog) is trained to bite and paw at the source of the odor."
http://www.k9fleck.org/nlu04.htm

While the current California Law Enforcement standards and training requirements for K9 training states that an alert is ANY "recognized signal from the dog to the handler", and in their documentation on certification lists no record or test of any dogs ability to alert in the sitting still manner you claim is standard throughout law enforcement.

Also, the United States Police Canine Association gives no standard for an alert, other than:
"Alert" is the term which describes the dog's behavior when the dog detects the odor of drugs which it is trained to identify."
http://www.uspcak9.com/training/introsearchandseizure.shtml

And the New York State Municipal Police Training Council
in their K9 certification testing requirements, instead of using the sitting still alert that you claim is standard, relies on the officer to decide whether or not the dog has alerted:
"h) The handler must verbally notify the examiner to the dog's alert."
http://www.policek9.com/new_york_.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So it seems odd in the face of your claim that there is one single quantifiable standard for the definition of a K9 alert (as stipulated, just as standardized as radar, where 95MPH means 95MPH....not 'passive' or 'initial' or 'aggressive', or 'casting', or so forth...), that so many people in actual law enforcement or the courts don't seem to have used this single alert standard of the dog sitting still.

But please feel free to provide us with a link to a copy of this universal standard...

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I don't understand your example. If there really were drugs in the suitcase, what good would questioning the dog do? Are you alleging that the dog had a false positive on a suitcase that contained drugs? If you are trying to make an example of intrusiveness, then propose a situation where the police say that the dog indicated a suitcase and when the officers opened it they found no drugs but did find illegal weapons which were used as a basis for an arrest.

But in any case, Joshua Korosi's response are accurate and appear to me to be well reasoned. There is no mistaking an indication; dogs are usually trained to sit perfectly still.

OK, I'll ask you for the same documentation, I asked Joshuah for.
I've taken the time and effort to support my point with documentation that scratching, biting, jumping, etc. are all legally allowed definitions of an 'alert'...please be good enough to do the same, and show me your evidence that they are not.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Geez. Why dont they just rule that the constitution doesnt apply to automoblies.

Can they hold you while they wait for a police dog? The article i read didnt make that clear.

TMY you might want to do a little light reading on the Carroll Doctrine...cars are not houses, so the Constitution allows the police to treat them more like exigent circumstances...
in other words, in limited cases, they can proceed without waiting around for a warrant while the vehicle drives away...

The link I provided said dog sniffs 'during' a traffic stop...holding someone for NO reason while a dog is retrieved is still unlikely to fly.
Stalling the ticket writing process for a few minutes would be one thing...telling someone after the ticket is written that they cannot leave until the dog arrives would probably cross the line.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I don't understand your example. If there really were drugs in the suitcase, what good would questioning the dog do? Are you alleging that the dog had a false positive on a suitcase that contained drugs? If you are trying to make an example of intrusiveness, then propose a situation where the police say that the dog indicated a suitcase and when the officers opened it they found no drugs but did find illegal weapons which were used as a basis for an arrest.

But in any case, Joshua Korosi's response are accurate and appear to me to be well reasoned. There is no mistaking an indication; dogs are usually trained to sit perfectly still.

Originally posted by crimresearch
OK, I'll ask you for the same documentation, I asked Joshuah for.
I've taken the time and effort to support my point with documentation that scratching, biting, jumping, etc. are all legally allowed definitions of an 'alert'...please be good enough to do the same, and show me your evidence that they are not.

I was wrong to say that dogs are usually trained to sit as part of an alert. I still maintain that however the dog is trained (to sit or to paw and scratch) an alert is not as subjective as how much did a tail move. A dog trained to show an alert by sitting either sits or does not sit. The dog trained to show an alert by scratching either paws and scratches or does not paw and scratch.

[username]

Originally posted by Ed
Dunno. How many searches would lead to this one case? Is it worth the bother? I somehow cannot see expensive resources (dogs and cops) spent on something that would be so unproductive.

It would make for easy fishing expeditions. Cops go into an area where there is a drug market and start pulling over people who look "suspicious" under whatever pretext. The notion that cops require a reason to pull someone over, particularly in poor areas is naive. The cop says someone didn't signal during a lane change or they swerved a little bit or whatever. You can't challenge the cops assertion in court as you won't ever prevail. It is the word of the cop against you.

Cop approaches the car with the dog and the dog alerts. Maybe the dog alerts, maybe it doesn't. Again, it is the word of the cop against your word.

Cop searches the car.

It is used for intimidation, harassment and to get petty arrests.

This sort of thing was being done before the court decision, it isn't anything new. Now it is just officially/judicially blessed.

Your best defense against this sort of invasion is to make good money and be able to live where cops don't try pulling stunts like this.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I was wrong to say that dogs are usually trained to sit as part of an alert. I still maintain that however the dog is trained (to sit or to paw and scratch) an alert is not as subjective as how much did a tail move. A dog trained to show an alert by sitting either sits or does not sit. The dog trained to show an alert by scratching either paws and scratches or does not paw and scratch.

Thanks.

I was just hammering on the sitting behavior to show that the possibility exists for the courts to take the handler's word that an alert did occur, which is still more subjective than a lot of evidence standards...
I wouldn't be surprised if we could track a specific 'less than honorable' officer that we wouldn't find that the exact behavior that constitutes an 'alert' changes from incident to incident.

An officer taking shortcuts with say, DUI evidence, would have a much harder time persuading a court that their mere observations suppported a search, without using very specific and verifiable numbers, or items from a standardized check list, etc.

It is a small distinction, but still one of the criticisms about dog use that should be considered.

[Mason]

I had it happen to me a few months back. I was pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt, and after sitting for quite some time waiting for the cop to write my ticket, a k-9 unit shows up. I was ordered from my car and they ran the dog through my car.

No reason for suspicion, no alert from the dog. I was directed from my car, and then the dog was brought directly from the cop's car to my car and was guided into the vehicle. It wasn't simply sitting by my window making an "alert" motion. It was sitting in the cop's cruiser until they brought it out for the search.

This is standard proceedure for the police, a routine taught in the acadamy (at least, the acadamy my brother-in-law-to-be went to).

How is this not a violation of personal rights? Randomly tearing your car apart on a whim, with no reason or suspicion required seems (to me) way beyond reasonable levels of privilages law-enforcement agents should have.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Really? Then why did one professional law enforcement (not MWD) K9 handler testify under oath that:

Notice that I used the word typically when referring to sitting - you even quoted it. Sitting is considered a passive response, and yes, some schools may train aggressive responses like pawing. However, this does not change the message of my post, which outlined the facts that 1) the alert is a behavior that the dog only displays when he detects drugs, 2) the dog must use the exact same behavior every time in order to be certified, and 3) the alert behavior is documented, so anybody (including your lawyer) can follow the paper trail and find out whether what a handler determined as an alert actually was so, since although "alert behavior" may very between schools, every dog from a particular school will have been trained to alert the same way.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Mason
Randomly tearing your car apart on a whim, with no reason or suspicion required seems (to me) way beyond reasonable levels of privilages law-enforcement agents should have.

If the car was damaged, you should have filed an insurance claim, and the department would've had to pay for it, especially if the dog didn't find anything.

[crimresearch]

First, I gave documentation showing 2 dogs from the same school, who alerted in 2 entirely different manners. So your new claim that this doesn't happen, is pretty much DOA.

And second, your earlier claim that there was a single alert standard was in direct response to my:
"and there is no standard quantifiable definition of 'alerted' that can be challenged by the defense, such as how many inches the dog's tail moved, etc., unlike breathalyzer or radar operators. "

Your reply of:

"Yes, there is such a standard.

Problems like the one you just described have been thought up already by the law enforcement community. To prevent them, a standard of exactly how a dog should behave on an alert was drafted."

is the one we are still waiting for you to back up with links to a copy of that standard (much as we are still waiting for your documentation in the school thread).

The fact that you are attempting to deflect attention from your failure to document your claims by changing the subject to a point where you contradicted yourself serves no useful pupose.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about the arcana of law enforcement standards, but if you can't back up your mistaken beliefs, you shouldn't resort to deceptive debate tactics.

[CBL4]

but your reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to odors that emanate from your body or vehicle or house. As techology improves, the government will have the ability to learn more and more about you w/o entering the house. If odor is allowed, what is not?

The police want you but have no evidence. They use the new "air sniffer", infrared detectors, extremely effective sound technology and ultra wide band technology (this exists) that allow people to see through walls.

Police officers note:
1) Suspect claims to be a vegetarian but sniffer indicated he ordered pizza with peperoni. The $20 bill he paid with definitely had the aroma of cocaine.
2) Watched the Playboy channel.
3) The UWB viewer showed that two people in the house had sex. The smaller person (presumably his mistress since his wife is out of town) was on top. Apparently the suspect suffers from premature ejaculation because the sex only lasted 1 minute. Woman complains this is a common occurence.
4) Man promises to leave wife after kids graduate.
5) At 11:35PM the UWB viewer indicated that the man poured from a bottle into into two glasses. The super sniffer detected aroma of Jim Bean.
6) We arrested the man for contributing to the deliquency of a minor because Jane Doe is only 20 year old.
7) No warrant was necessary because police never entered the house unitl evidence of crime in process.

CBL

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by CBL4
As techology improves, the government will have the ability to learn more and more about you w/o entering the house. If odor is allowed, what is not?

The police want you but have no evidence. They use the new "air sniffer", infrared detectors, extremely effective sound technology and ultra wide band technology (this exists) that allow people to see through walls.

Police officers note:
1) Suspect claims to be a vegetarian but sniffer indicated he ordered pizza with peperoni. The $20 bill he paid with definitely had the aroma of cocaine.
2) Watched the Playboy channel.
3) The UWB viewer showed that two people in the house had sex. The smaller person (presumably his mistress since his wife is out of town) was on top. Apparently the suspect suffers from premature ejaculation because the sex only lasted 1 minute. Woman complains this is a common occurence.
4) Man promises to leave wife after kids graduate.
5) At 11:35PM the UWB viewer indicated that the man poured from a bottle into into two glasses. The super sniffer detected aroma of Jim Bean.
6) We arrested the man for contributing to the deliquency of a minor because Jane Doe is only 20 year old.
7) No warrant was necessary because police never entered the house unitl evidence of crime in process.

CBL

When telephones were a new idea, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was ridiculous to think that you had an expectation of privacy while sending your voice outside of your house on wires.

Much later, they pretty much flip flopped on that exact point.

As thermal imaging, odor sensing, and other technologies become more commonplace and more sophisticated, it wouldn't surprise me to see the Court rule that molecules which can be detected from outside the premises are up for grabs.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by crimresearch
First, I gave documentation showing 2 dogs from the same school, who alerted in 2 entirely different manners. So your new claim that this doesn't happen, is pretty much DOA.

I assume you're referring to this:

And yet another LEO handler claims that an alert is when:
"...we were walking back through one of the apartment complex's. "Justice" stopped and threw his head up in the air."
While another officer FROM THE SAME SCHOOL relates that his dog's alert is:
" the dog put his nose on it and scratched."
http://asct-nationalk9.com/generic9.html


Actually, you've left out some context. Let's add some:

On 3/25/03 my K9 "Justice" and I were running a training track layed by another handler, in the city. Once we were finished we were walking back through one of the apartment complex's. "Justice" stopped and threw his head up in the air. He was deffinatly in odor. As we walked closer to the apartments, we all got a big wiff of burning marijuana. "Justice ran over to the screen window and started scratching.

The officer said that he could tell Justice smelled something when the dog threw his head up in the air - as they were walking through an apartment complex - rather vague, location-wise, but he did not specifically refer the action as an "alert". On the other hand they knew exactly which apartment to enter after Justice went right up to a screen window and "started scratching". The officer then explained to the resident that the dog had alerted to his apartment. So obviously the officer is referring to Justice's scratching at a particular screen window as the alert. This is consistent with the second handler's description. Not that it matters, because the page in question is a list of tips and stories from several officers in many jurisdictions, and although the site is that of a K9 training school, there's nothing on the page ("Some of OUR dogs at work!" for instance) to imply that the school only posts submissions from officers whose dogs graduated from that particular school.



Originally posted by crimresearch
And second, your earlier claim that there was a single alert standard was in direct response to my:
"and there is no standard quantifiable definition of 'alerted' that can be challenged by the defense, such as how many inches the dog's tail moved, etc., unlike breathalyzer or radar operators. "

Your reply of:

"Yes, there is such a standard.

Problems like the one you just described have been thought up already by the law enforcement community. To prevent them, a standard of exactly how a dog should behave on an alert was drafted."

is the one we are still waiting for you to back up with links to a copy of that standard (much as we are still waiting for your documentation in the school thread).

The fact that you are attempting to deflect attention from your failure to document your claims by changing the subject to a point where you contradicted yourself serves no useful pupose.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about the arcana of law enforcement standards, but if you can't back up your mistaken beliefs, you shouldn't resort to deceptive debate tactics.

OK, an amendment - each school has a standard that can be quantified and challenged by the defense.

[crimresearch]

Joshuah, when 1,000 different police officers testify that a car was speeding at 95MPH, they all mean exactly the same thing.

There isn't one definition of 95MPH for sedans inside a city, and another definition of 95MPH for trucks that are on the interstate, and yet another definition for convertibles on a country road.

There aren't different standards of 95MPH for a motorcycle officer who was trained on a Kustom TalonII radar in Kansas, and another for a traffic officer who was trained on Applied Concepts Lidar in Florida, and yet a third for a trooper who was trained on Vascar Plus in Virginia.

The same sort of universally accepted quantifiable standard exists for BAC testimony... '.08' doesn't mean one thing in one case, and something else the next day.

But in the specific case of drug dog testimony, the courts have accepted the handler's use of the term 'alert', which in one case means one thing, and in another case describes something entirely different.

So my basic premise, which was that the definition of 'alert', and by extension, the testimony of handlers, is more subjective than definitions and testimony used in speeding or DUI cases, stands.

There is no comparable standard.

When they replace malinois with a machine, that subjectivity will be greatly reduced.

Until then, 'subjective' remains a fair criticism.

[NoZed Avenger]

I am a bit tired, so won't go into this in any detail.

I also am not going to talk about my personal or legal opinion on this case.

I have not read the opinion itself, but suspect strongly that the Court is imply applying a decision authored by Justice Stevens in 1984: UNITED STATES v. JACOBSEN, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).

In that case, the Court ruled that a drug-sniffing dog is not a search for 4th Amendment purposes because the -only- information provided is the presence or absence of drugs - and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that knowledge.

The recent thermal imaging case is distinguished because the imaging software gives more details about the interior of the building, including private information about the interior that -is- protected. If the device just said “yes� or “no� accurately to the presence of drug-making equipment, but gave no other data, it might pass muster under this standard, too.

N/A

[crimresearch]

They mentioned Jacobsen as a given, and also Kyllo, and the expectation of privacy issues in prior drug dog cases, but said:

"The question on which we granted certiorari, 541 U. S. 972 (2004), is narrow: “Whether the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.�"

and held that:

"In this case, the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of re-spondent’s car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent’s privacy expectations
does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable
infringement."

which to me is saying it wasn't a search requiring PC or warrant, etc. because the evidence was detectable outside of the defendant's property.

So the police don't need any more basis to act if the dog smells drugs, than if the smell was so strong that the officer could easily smell dope during a routine traffic stop.

Having a more sensitive nose doesn't generate a new standard, since the odor molecules exist outside of the car.

[Ladewig]

I consider training dogs to sit to be the best alert signal.

Bomb-sniffing dogs might detonate a device if they scratched too hard and drug-sniffing dogs would be in a world of pain if the broke open a bag of cocaine they were scratching at.


. . . . . . . . .

I clearly have no evidence for this opinion, but I believe that police dog handlers are less likely to falsely accuse someone of criminal activity than the average walk-the-beat cop. If they generate too many false positives, then upper management may decide to either get rid of the dog program or move the particular officer to a less desireable position.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I don't understand your example. If there really were drugs in the suitcase, what good would questioning the dog do? Are you alleging that the dog had a false positive on a suitcase that contained drugs? If you are trying to make an example of intrusiveness, then propose a situation where the police say that the dog indicated a suitcase and when the officers opened it they found no drugs but did find illegal weapons which were used as a basis for an arrest.

So you don't have to scroll back, here is my example:
Joshua, as noted, it is not necessarily the dog's behavior which is in question, it is the human's behavior. Supose an officer goes to court and says the dog "indicated" a suitcase and upon further inspection, it was found to contain drugs. How in the world can the defendant question the DOG, not the officer. IOW, the officer can say what ever he wants and the dog is not in a position to refute or support the officer's testimony. Worse, the defendant is unable to refute the officer's testimony.
My point does not depend on whether there are drugs present or not. The idea is that the officer can testify that the dog "indicated" even if the dog didn't. In that case, the defendant can't interrogate the dog to get independent corroboration or denial. IOW, it gives a cop an opportunity to conduct a search on a basis (a dog) which cannot be refuted.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by crimresearch

But in the specific case of drug dog testimony, the courts have accepted the handler's use of the term 'alert', which in one case means one thing, and in another case describes something entirely different.

So my basic premise, which was that the definition of 'alert', and by extension, the testimony of handlers, is more subjective than definitions and testimony used in speeding or DUI cases, stands.


The standard may not extend outside a particular department's jurisdiction. But this does not matter. What matters is that the dog-in-question's alert behavior is consistent and identifiable. You're right as far as that in one case in New York City and another case in Detroit, the type of behavior classified as an "alert" may be different. But what legally matters is that in one case where "Rambo" is used and another case where "Rambo" is used, "Rambo" exhibited the exact same behavior which was identifiable as an alert. Furthermore, there is a paper trail by which the defense can determine and challenge whether what a handler describes as "Rambo"s alert is actually how "Rambo" was trained to respond. Still further, "Rambo"s certification accuracy percentage and false positive rate can also be examined, since these are also matters of record (although they wouldn't help much if Rambo alerted and drugs were found where he alerted). And lastly, one can challenge a particular type of "alert" behavior if it is something that a dog could reasonably be expected to do during a sweep even in the absense of a drug trace. For example, let's assume "Justice"s alert really was simply raising his head (it would be kind of hard to train a dog that way, but let's pretend). This can be challenged by a lawyer in court, because it is too ambiguous. A dog doing a sweep needs to raise his head to sniff higher-level objects. How does one determine whether Justice was raising his head to sniff high or raising his head to alert? On the other hand, if the defense finds out that Justice was trained to scratch, but the handler insists that the raising of the head was an "alert", the handler's testimony loses credibility and may even be held inadmissible. Any evidence collected as a result of a search based on the action falsely identified specifically as an 'alert" is also inadmissible, and the defendant walks.

That the actual "alert behavior" differs matters as much as police car color schemes from community to community. But just as the car (whatever color it is) must be clearly identifiable as that community's police car, the alert behavior (whatever it is) must be clearly identifiable as that dog's reaction to detecting a drug and nothing else, in the context of a drug search.

[crimresearch]

"Still further, "Rambo"s certification accuracy percentage and false positive rate can also be examined, since these are also matters of record (although they wouldn't help much if Rambo alerted and drugs were found where he alerted)."


It is a side issue, but before you wrap yourself too tightly in the mantle of drug dog reliability, you might want to do a little light reading...
May I suggest Robert C. Bird's, 'An Examination of the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog'?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by crimresearch

It is a side issue, but before you wrap yourself too tightly in the mantle of drug dog reliability, you might want to do a little light reading...
May I suggest Robert C. Bird's, 'An Examination of the Training and Reliability of the Narcotics Detection Dog'?

Sounds like the kind of book a bookstore wouldn't keep a particularly large number of in stock, so I might not be able to get a hold of it in a hurry. Have you gotten all the way through it?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I consider training dogs to sit to be the best alert signal.

Bomb-sniffing dogs might detonate a device if they scratched too hard and drug-sniffing dogs would be in a world of pain if the broke open a bag of cocaine they were scratching at.



I forgot to mention that dogs trained to scratch and paw have had false positives when confronted with suspects who recently played with female dogs in heat.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I consider training dogs to sit to be the best alert signal.

Bomb-sniffing dogs might detonate a device if they scratched too hard and drug-sniffing dogs would be in a world of pain if the broke open a bag of cocaine they were scratching at.

The Air Force, although it may retain third-party-trained dogs already trained to alert aggressively (with scratching, etc), trains all it's own new dogs to passive alert for that reason. I'm fairly certain the Army does as well.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The Air Force, although it may retain third-party-trained dogs already trained to alert aggressively (with scratching, etc), trains all it's own new dogs to passive alert for that reason. I'm fairly certain the Army does as well.

The Navy trains their MWDs to go get a Marine to scratch at the object.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I must say that trying to insist a sniffing dog is somehow a violation of your rights is ludicrous. The dog is sniffing the air around you...and I'm sorry, but your reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to odors that emanate from your body or vehicle or house. The odor is evidence that you leave behind, out in public.

Ahh, but you see, the supreme court already ruled that using high tech equipment (say, IR scanners, etc.) to passively scan your house was in fact illegal because it violated the spirit of the law where the government can't intrued on your private, concealed property.

I would argue this is along the same lines, and that the SC has goofed in this case.

But mercifully, your fears are unfounded. What remains to be seen is where the line will be drawn between a high tech biological sensor and a high tech electromechanical sensor.

[crimresearch]

You could argue that, but you would be ignoring the body of legal decisions allowing plain view, plain feel, and plain smell as exceptions to the warrant requirement.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Beerina
Ahh, but you see, the supreme court already ruled that using high tech equipment (say, IR scanners, etc.) to passively scan your house was in fact illegal because it violated the spirit of the law where the government can't intrued on your private, concealed property.

Let me preface my question by saying that I am not legal expert. Haven't court decisions in the past said that what applies to you when you are out in public is not the same as what applies when you are in your home?

[crimresearch]

"...Haven't court decisions in the past said that what applies to you when you are out in public is not the same as what applies when you are in your home?"

Not so much...the original protection of the 4th amendment makes that distinction.

"...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

There are cases defining exactly when something (like an open field) falls under the scope of 'effects', as well as laying out exceptions to the need for a warrant.

The question here is what happens when you remain in your home, but evidence of your crime travels or is otherwise detectable outside, as an odor, a sighting, or an electronic transmission.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Beerina
Ahh, but you see, the supreme court already ruled that using high tech equipment (say, IR scanners, etc.) to passively scan your house was in fact illegal because it violated the spirit of the law where the government can't intrued on your private, concealed property.

I would argue this is along the same lines, and that the SC has goofed in this case.

But mercifully, your fears are unfounded. What remains to be seen is where the line will be drawn between a high tech biological sensor and a high tech electromechanical sensor.

From my reading the Court distinguished the "scanner cases" from a case where a dog sniffs a car during a traffic stop on two grounds.

First, and more explicit, the Court suggested that in the scanner case, even if the scan is performed flawlessly, there will be personal information other than presesnce of contraband revealed. In the dog case, absent incorrect application of protocol there will be no personal information revealed.

The Court made a point that there was no evidence on the record to suggest the presence of a significant error rate in the usage of dogs.

Second, and less explicit, is that even if there is an error rate the expectation of privacy interest in question (an automobile) is held to be a lesser interest than that involving a residence or one's own person.

The plain sight/ plain feel doctrines support this reading. For a plain feel/sight exception to a warrant to apply, the officer must both be otherwise legally entitiled to be present (or in the plain feel context legally entitled to perform a pat-down search) in the location where the contraband is seen, and the officer must know that the item in question is contraband (or evidence of a crime).

So, under these doctrines, since the officer is legally present, there is no loss of privacy in the "search," as the officer is seeing nothing he would see anyway. Since the officer must be certain of the status of the item of contraband, there is little gray area as the officer via plain sight cannot act on mere suspicion.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Let me preface my question by saying that I am not legal expert. Haven't court decisions in the past said that what applies to you when you are out in public is not the same as what applies when you are in your home?

More or less correct.

Application of Fourth Amendment right depends on whether a person has a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy."

Generally speaking, this is at its greatest level in a private residence. Fourth Amendment protection is not a binary choice, yes or no. The level varies depending on the expectation of privacy and the circumstances.