Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Cops Gone Wild - Not So Clever Hans Edition

AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
edited November 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, a while back, we discussed the issue of the Clever Hans problem with regard to drug dogs.

Turns out, it's worse than we thought.

A recently filed lawsuit asserts that the Nevada Highway Patrol trained its drug dogs to alert on command. If this is true, it throws the credibility of drug dogs out the window.

AngelHedgie on
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
Spoiler:
«13

Posts

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Can the police seize property based on a dog-alert, even if no illegal drugs are ever found?

  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.

    Don't mess with me, lady. I've been drinking with skeletons.
    torches and hammers and metal, oh my
  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Can the police seize property based on a dog-alert, even if no illegal drugs are ever found?

    Ya - dog alerts on car for marijuana because I guy smoked weed in there a couple of hours ago, gives officer p.c. to search the car. In the course of searching the car for drugs and other contraband is found that is not drugs, like..sawed off shotgun or evidence of any other crime, dooder is getting arrested for it.

    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.

    What if I have a cashier's check or something to transfer funds between banks?

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    The question "can you use a dog as a reason to innate a search?" is really unimportant compared to

    "does having a dog sniff you count as a search?"

    I would argue that the presence of a dog trained to sniff out drugs is a search, and should not be legal/constitutional unless the search is already justified.

    BSoB on
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    Someone will make that argument soon but i don't know how well it will do.

    Dog searches aren't considered searches based on plain sight doctrine.

    If an officer is a place he has a right to be and can observe criminal activity with his senses (usually eyes) it's not a search.

    Since Dogs are considered officers and they are detecting contraband with their senses (noses) i doubt this jurisprudence is likely to be overturned.

    Reliability is what allows dog sniffs to grant probable cause and that is a much better avenue for attack because probable cause is supposed to be based on objective facts.

    If the dog's alerts are based on the subjective intentions of the officer handling it, then the objective facts that lead to probable cause are not present.

  • MadpoetMadpoet Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.

    What if I have a cashier's check or something to transfer funds between banks?
    Then you deserve what you get, criminal scum. You probably did SOMETHING illegal to make that much cash.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Let's focus on the topic - that drug dogs are being trained to alert on command, making their use in generating probable cause very questionable.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    well I mean it isn't questionable. it's straight up cops training dogs to bark on command, giving them a reason to search whoever the fuck they want. it ends up not really being all that different from physically planting drugs on someone.

    Don't mess with me, lady. I've been drinking with skeletons.
    torches and hammers and metal, oh my
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I was(and still am) critical of the experiment the OP linked to demonstrate the Clever Hans problem. As to me it's more of an experiment on people aware they are being tested manipulating their answers, then on some evaluation of the dogs alerting or not based on the handlers. Since the study was of the handlers reporting alerts, not a study of did the dog bark or w/e. So it's not really a Clever Hans phenomena so much as a can't trust the cops to be truthful about the dog issue.

    That said, training the dogs to alert is total bullshit, and should get dog alerts as probable cause thrown the fuck out, but probably won't in the United States War on Drugs counter-realty simulation where law enforcement seems to reside.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    well I mean it isn't questionable. it's straight up cops training dogs to bark on command, giving them a reason to search whoever the fuck they want. it ends up not really being all that different from physically planting drugs on someone.

    Not exactly; when you plant drugs on someone you then charge them for having those drugs.

    Training dogs to give false positives is more like going up to someone and going "you're probably high, aren't you? You look high, so i can search you for drugs.". The search doesn't turn up drugs, but you can look for whatever you want and charge accordingly, based on non-existent probable cause.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    well I mean it isn't questionable. it's straight up cops training dogs to bark on command, giving them a reason to search whoever the fuck they want. it ends up not really being all that different from physically planting drugs on someone.

    Not exactly; when you plant drugs on someone you then charge them for having those drugs.

    Training dogs to give false positives is more like going up to someone and going "you're probably high, aren't you? You look high, so i can search you for drugs.". The search doesn't turn up drugs, but you can look for whatever you want and charge accordingly, based on non-existent probable cause.

    The issue is that the evidence is mounting that drug dogs are used not to objectively find drugs, but to "launder" the cop's suspicions into probable cause.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Can the police seize property based on a dog-alert, even if no illegal drugs are ever found?

    Ya - dog alerts on car for marijuana because I guy smoked weed in there a couple of hours ago, gives officer p.c. to search the car. In the course of searching the car for drugs and other contraband is found that is not drugs, like..sawed off shotgun or evidence of any other crime, dooder is getting arrested for it.

    I think the question was more regarding can they seize property that the dog signaled on even if no evidence of any other crime/contraband is found in the ensuing search.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    well I mean it isn't questionable. it's straight up cops training dogs to bark on command, giving them a reason to search whoever the fuck they want. it ends up not really being all that different from physically planting drugs on someone.

    Not exactly; when you plant drugs on someone you then charge them for having those drugs.

    Training dogs to give false positives is more like going up to someone and going "you're probably high, aren't you? You look high, so i can search you for drugs.". The search doesn't turn up drugs, but you can look for whatever you want and charge accordingly, based on non-existent probable cause.

    The issue is that the evidence is mounting that drug dogs are used not to objectively find drugs, but to "launder" the cop's suspicions into probable cause.

    ...isn't that what I just said?

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    well I mean it isn't questionable. it's straight up cops training dogs to bark on command, giving them a reason to search whoever the fuck they want. it ends up not really being all that different from physically planting drugs on someone.

    Not exactly; when you plant drugs on someone you then charge them for having those drugs.

    Training dogs to give false positives is more like going up to someone and going "you're probably high, aren't you? You look high, so i can search you for drugs.". The search doesn't turn up drugs, but you can look for whatever you want and charge accordingly, based on non-existent probable cause.

    The issue is that the evidence is mounting that drug dogs are used not to objectively find drugs, but to "launder" the cop's suspicions into probable cause.

    ...isn't that what I just said?

    The difference is they are using the dog to turn their "hunch" into "fact" so it is perfectly legal.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • DemonzDemonz Registered User
    Here's a funny story to throw into the discussion, Went to Mcdonalds with a couple of my friends late one night, bought my food and went to the farthest side of the parking lot since the night club next to it closed for the night. As i'm going to town on that mcdouble cop pulls up, of course I didn't care. 2 more squad cars show up and park behind me, so my friend starts freaking out since hes already gotten his case closed for something very stupid. Well first officer comes up to car and asks what we doing. Told him I was chowing down on my food and watching my friend play this stupid angry bird game on his Itouch. He tells us that its very suspicious to be in a dark parking lot late at night, apparently only people that are shooting heroine or smoking weed does these kinds of things. He even went into statistics here, stated that 99% of the time people are doing drugs or having sex.
    So he asks for id's and to search my car, I told him of course but your not going to find anything but trash and empty monster cans. Told me don't worry we already called in the dog to make sure of that..... So my friend is freaking out for no absolute reason but its funny to watch a macho man turn to a little girl in a situation like this. After getting patted down 3 more squad cars and the K-9 unit roll on in..... So they bring the dog out and have it search my car. One of the cops kept harassing us saying were most likely up to no good and just seemed to hate being there. Well dog gets out and of course finds nothing. But the cop goes the dog could sense that people smoked in this car before, and we could take you in for that but I won't.... So after we had to write all are info down on this paper and give them a nickname. I asked the officer " Should I feel privileged to be the 1%?"

  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    You were a lot more accomodating to them than I would have been.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.

    I know that this is somewhat off-topic but I cannot resist contesting it. If I understand you correctly, you're talking about civil forfeiture. However, you do have recourse if such proceedings are initiated against your property: namely, you are allowed the opportunity to demonstrate in court that the preponderance of evidence shows that it is rightfully yours. And, sarcasm aside, the only people who actually drive around with $100,000 in cash to whose provenance they cannot attest really are drug runners.

    If the allegations about training dogs to alert on command are true, then it is very deeply disturbing. Hopefully there are massive civil penalties for that sort of thing. I would actually favor criminal penalties as well--if an officer, or group of officers, conspired in that way, then they should face jail time. A properly functioning liberal democracy requires widespread confidence in the rule of law; the officer who manufactures probable cause does more to harm our society than the thief who breaks into a jewelry store at night.

    MrMister on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    You should not have to prove that your cash is yours. The police should have to prove it was linked to a crime that SOMEONE was convicted of.

    And no, people do travel with large amounts of cash. People who don't trust banks, for example.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Demonz wrote: »
    Here's a funny story to throw into the discussion, Went to Mcdonalds with a couple of my friends late one night, bought my food and went to the farthest side of the parking lot since the night club next to it closed for the night. As i'm going to town on that mcdouble cop pulls up, of course I didn't care. 2 more squad cars show up and park behind me, so my friend starts freaking out since hes already gotten his case closed for something very stupid. Well first officer comes up to car and asks what we doing. Told him I was chowing down on my food and watching my friend play this stupid angry bird game on his Itouch. He tells us that its very suspicious to be in a dark parking lot late at night, apparently only people that are shooting heroine or smoking weed does these kinds of things. He even went into statistics here, stated that 99% of the time people are doing drugs or having sex.
    So he asks for id's and to search my car, I told him of course but your not going to find anything but trash and empty monster cans. Told me don't worry we already called in the dog to make sure of that..... So my friend is freaking out for no absolute reason but its funny to watch a macho man turn to a little girl in a situation like this. After getting patted down 3 more squad cars and the K-9 unit roll on in..... So they bring the dog out and have it search my car. One of the cops kept harassing us saying were most likely up to no good and just seemed to hate being there. Well dog gets out and of course finds nothing. But the cop goes the dog could sense that people smoked in this car before, and we could take you in for that but I won't.... So after we had to write all are info down on this paper and give them a nickname. I asked the officer " Should I feel privileged to be the 1%?"

    When a cop asks to search, the proper answer is, and will always be," Not without a warrant."

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
    Ragnar Dragonfyre
  • ShivahnShivahn Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    The question "can you use a dog as a reason to innate a search?" is really unimportant compared to

    "does having a dog sniff you count as a search?"

    I would argue that the presence of a dog trained to sniff out drugs is a search, and should not be legal/constitutional unless the search is already justified.

    This has been looked at and it is ruled not a search, based on solid reasoning with what it turns out (obviously due to the thread) are shitty premises.

    The basic idea is that the fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures, but as a dog will only detect drugs*, and not anything else, it's not an unreasonable search because you have no right to privacy with regards to trafficking. Since you have no right to privately traffic drugs, something which indicates only the presence or absence of those drugs is not a search.

    *This is the part that's obviously false.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    So, a while back, we discussed the issue of the Clever Hans problem with regard to drug dogs.

    Turns out, it's worse than we thought.

    A recently filed lawsuit asserts that the Nevada Highway Patrol trained its drug dogs to alert on command. If this is true, it throws the credibility of drug dogs out the window.

    Wait, wait, wait. What? I'm shocked!
    Spoiler:

    Also, obligatory. Watch this if you haven't. Seriously. It's vitally important. If you will ever take my advice on anything, watching this video should be it. I'd really like some other posters to back me up on watching this video being critical.

    enc0re on
    Fallout2manShogun
  • Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    i will back you up on this. that shit is extremely important and everyone should watch it

    Don't mess with me, lady. I've been drinking with skeletons.
    torches and hammers and metal, oh my
  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    So, a while back, we discussed the issue of the Clever Hans problem with regard to drug dogs.

    Turns out, it's worse than we thought.

    A recently filed lawsuit asserts that the Nevada Highway Patrol trained its drug dogs to alert on command. If this is true, it throws the credibility of drug dogs out the window.

    Wait, wait, wait. What? I'm shocked!
    Spoiler:

    Also, obligatory. Watch this if you haven't. Seriously. It's vitally important. If you will ever take my advice on anything, watching this video should be it. I'd really like some other posters to back me up on watching this video being critical.


    I don't think that flies in Canada.

  • TerribleMisathropeTerribleMisathrope 23rd Degree Intiate At The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    So, a while back, we discussed the issue of the Clever Hans problem with regard to drug dogs.

    Turns out, it's worse than we thought.

    A recently filed lawsuit asserts that the Nevada Highway Patrol trained its drug dogs to alert on command. If this is true, it throws the credibility of drug dogs out the window.

    Wait, wait, wait. What? I'm shocked!
    Spoiler:

    Also, obligatory. Watch this if you haven't. Seriously. It's vitally important. If you will ever take my advice on anything, watching this video should be it. I'd really like some other posters to back me up on watching this video being critical.


    I don't think that flies in Canada.
    No 5th amendment? Sounds like Canada sucks ... if that's what you meant.

    The One Can't-Do-Without Source Of Underground Metal: http://autothrall.blogspot.com/
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    So, a while back, we discussed the issue of the Clever Hans problem with regard to drug dogs.

    Turns out, it's worse than we thought.

    A recently filed lawsuit asserts that the Nevada Highway Patrol trained its drug dogs to alert on command. If this is true, it throws the credibility of drug dogs out the window.

    Wait, wait, wait. What? I'm shocked!
    Spoiler:

    Also, obligatory. Watch this if you haven't. Seriously. It's vitally important. If you will ever take my advice on anything, watching this video should be it. I'd really like some other posters to back me up on watching this video being critical.


    I don't think that flies in Canada.
    No 5th amendment? Sounds like Canada sucks ... if that's what you meant.

    Canadians are protected from unreasonable search and seizure, and generally our Supreme Court has ruled that the reasonableness is fairly narrow (ie: Travelling with a pound of weed in your luggage it would be unreasonable for the Airport to search your luggage and call the cops, as weed in your luggage does not present a risk to flying.) Canadians are also given the right to remain silent, however, it is an affirmative right, so you cant just say you are asserting your right to remain silent, then start blabbing and have anything you say be considered inadmissable, you have to keep your mouth shut.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Yes, and the lesson of the video is that you should do just that. Shut your mouth. Get your lawyer.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, I'm bringing this thread back on news that the Supreme Court will be hearing a case where the police used a drug dog to justify a search warrant.

    With all these issues with drug dogs, the SCOTUS needs to toss the warrant.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited October 2012
    You were a lot more accomodating to them than I would have been.

    Unless you are someone important's firstborn odds are mouthing off to a cop will get you beaten and possibly a night in jail. I mean really, is it THAT worth it to get to cuss out a man? (Regardless of whether or not he deserves it.)

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
    LovelyMagic Pink
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    You were a lot more accomodating to them than I would have been.

    Unless you are someone important's firstborn odds are mouthing off to a cop will get you beaten and possibly a night in jail. I mean really, is it THAT worth it to get to cuss out a man? (Regardless of whether or not he deserves it.)

    It's not mouthing off to say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?"

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited October 2012
    It's not mouthing off to say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?"

    If they've already called a K9 it doesn't matter. They are allowed to detain you until the dog sniffs your car. Sure you can say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle" but at that point it's largely irrelevant because of the presence of the Dog. Plus if they've called three cars worth of backup and a K9 odds are the cop is just itching for a reason to book you. So saying that not only won't stop them from conducting some form of search it'll likely give them that much more of a reason to try and book you on bullshit charges like disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or interfering with police business.

    When someone says they wouldn't "be that accommodating" it normally translates into "I'm just going to start cussing like a sailor at how you have no right to do the things you are going to do anyway regardless of my protest!" Because in all honesty unless you have a lawyer in person with you then you have about zero authority in the situation. It is now your word against two (or more) cops' word if it even manages to get before a court and that ends up meaning that regardless of what actually happens they can, if they chose, fabricate almost anything necessary to throw you away for 24-48 hours just to "teach you a lesson." The smart thing to do in those situations is just do whatever it takes to get out of that situation nicely, and more often than not that means just complying with stupid, unreasonable demands and choosing words very very carefully.

    All that keeps you out of jail is them deciding that they aren't pissed off enough at you to make shit up, that's really it.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited October 2012
    You were a lot more accomodating to them than I would have been.

    Unless you are someone important's firstborn odds are mouthing off to a cop will get you beaten and possibly a night in jail. I mean really, is it THAT worth it to get to cuss out a man? (Regardless of whether or not he deserves it.)

    It's not mouthing off to say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?"

    Yeah, there's a huge difference between mouthing off and politely telling a cop "No.". Saying "No you can't search my car you fucking pig." definitely isn't going to make the rest of the interaction go smoothly.

    Cops can't search you unless you're A. Under arrest B. They have a warrant or C. You give them permission.

    NEVER give them permission. You make them get the warrant because it puts the whole situation on record. If you voluntarily allow them to search you, you may have just subjected yourself to untraceable abuse. Not only that, but the amount of paperwork involved in actioning a warrant is enough to turn cops away from harassing you simply because they're bored and digging for anything to fuck you with.

    I should also mention that my dad was a police officer for 44 years. Even he told me (when I was younger) to never voluntarily allow them to search me.

    As far as the OP goes, this whole thing sucks because dogs legitimately can track drugs/bombs/"anything". Heck, my Beagle can find his ball if I hide it in a cupboard. This sort of thing could undermine honest K9 officers everywhere.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Cops can't search you unless you're A. Under arrest B. They have a warrant or C. You give them permission.

    What you say is mostly true of residences - if there's a cop at your front door.

    When we're talking about traffic stops, the standards are less strict. This is what I wrote in chat about it:
    Feral wrote: »
    In the US, at the federal level, the police have the right to briefly detain anybody they want at any time and perform a frisk, provided they have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is a party to a crime. This is known as a Terry stop (after the court case Terry v. Ohio) and the bar for "reasonable suspicion" is really quite low.

    Routine traffic stops are effectively Terry stops.

    During the course of a Terry stop, the officer typically has the right to order you out of the car, frisk you, and visually inspect the interior of the vehicle through the windows. He does not have the right to open the trunk or the glove compartment unless you have already opened one of these items (for instance, if you have retrieved your automobile registration from the glove compartment) or manipulate the vehicle in any way.

    If, during the course of a Terry stop, the officer has seen or heard something that gives him probable cause to initiate a search, he may do so without a warrant. Usually this is something like signs of intoxication or aggressive behavior on the part of the driver. This used to include "smelling drugs" but with marijuana decriminalization becoming more popular, some of the more liberal states have ruled that to be insufficient justification under case law. Ideally, to turn a "reasonable suspicion" Terry stop into a "probable cause" warrantless search, you have to do something dumb... though not always, as a cop can always just make something up if he's enough of a dick.

    This is on a federal level. As Thanatos points out, individual states may have case law or legislation that puts further restrictions on what police officers may or may not do.

    IANAL, of course.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • EWomEWom Registered User regular
    I have to agree with the don't talk to cops advice given earlier. Yes complying with their will is "easier", but it's also bullshit.

    Whether they find a life there or not, I think Jupiter should be called an enemy planet.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    EWom wrote: »
    I have to agree with the don't talk to cops advice given earlier. Yes complying with their will is "easier", but it's also bullshit.

    Key to remember: don't consent to the search, but also don't resist. Actively voice that you aren't consenting, but don't interfere.

    Because if they're willing to conduct an illegal search, resisting them is not going to end well for you either way. And you may or may not be correct as concerns their justification, probable cause, etc.

    You basically have to comply, because active resistance will almost certainly lead to additional headaches if you're wrong (and probably even if you're right). But you should also limit your interaction with them to identifying yourself if asked, asking if you're under arrest, and making it clear that you don't consent to any searches.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    You were a lot more accomodating to them than I would have been.

    Unless you are someone important's firstborn odds are mouthing off to a cop will get you beaten and possibly a night in jail. I mean really, is it THAT worth it to get to cuss out a man? (Regardless of whether or not he deserves it.)

    It's not mouthing off to say "No, you do not have permission to search my vehicle. Am I free to leave?"

    Yeah, there's a huge difference between mouthing off and politely telling a cop "No.". Saying "No you can't search my car you fucking pig." definitely isn't going to make the rest of the interaction go smoothly.

    Cops can't search you unless you're A. Under arrest B. They have a warrant or C. You give them permission.

    NEVER give them permission. You make them get the warrant because it puts the whole situation on record. If you voluntarily allow them to search you, you may have just subjected yourself to untraceable abuse. Not only that, but the amount of paperwork involved in actioning a warrant is enough to turn cops away from harassing you simply because they're bored and digging for anything to fuck you with.

    I should also mention that my dad was a police officer for 44 years. Even he told me (when I was younger) to never voluntarily allow them to search me.

    As far as the OP goes, this whole thing sucks because dogs legitimately can track drugs/bombs/"anything". Heck, my Beagle can find his ball if I hide it in a cupboard. This sort of thing could undermine honest K9 officers everywhere.
    It's worth noting that cops can generally search your person and anything within arms reach with very little justification in order to "insure their safety." It's complete fucking bullshit, and you should still say "no" if they ask, but that is not an absolute protection.

  • CangoFettCangoFett Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    An officer doesn't need teach a k9 to respond to a verbal command and fake finding something. He can do that himself. Its just as easy to say, "I can smell the odor of marijuana" as it is to say, "My dog is signaling he detects the odor of narcotics" However, most cops aren't going to make up excuses to search a car when they dont have probable cause that there is something illegal in there.


    Thanatos, pat downs and searches have different meanings. A cop can pretty much do a pat down whenever they feel like, though some courts are starting to say, "hey, you need something better than 'for my safety,' what was unsafe?"

    In a legal search the cop can flat out search anything. Remove shoes, socks, look through cars/bags. In a pat down, its an exterior only thing, where someone could reasonably have immediate access to a weapon. This includes unlocked/unsecured containers such as back packs. A locked container such as a locked suitcase is different, and would requires a warrant unless there was an arrest made. If they can immediately identify something as illegal from a pat down, (ie a concealed weapon, or even drugs in a pocket) they can turn it into a search. Cops can manipulate the clothing (squeeze/twist) they are patting down, but not the items in the clothing.

    Video taping is always a good idea. If it is a clearly illegal search, and you have video of the search, the situation before during and after, and you stating you do not consent, anything found as part of the illegal search should be inadmissible


    As far as "Never talk to the cops," I have to disagree. If you're gonna hold fast on that position, prepare for cops to be suspicious of you, because thats what it is. Not because exercising your rights is wrong, but exercising them to that degree is uncommon. If a cop sees something that is uncommon for that area, hes going to investigate, to talk to a person. Even if there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, the cop is still going to do his job and probe for whats going on. A drivers license that the cop can run, and see that this guy is a law abiding citizen who isnt wanted for any crimes does a lot to ease the mind. A guy going, "I dont have to tell you what im doing here, I dont have to present ID" is suspicious as hell, though not inherently illegal, and its going to throw up every red flag the cop has. This leads to the bullshit stuff of, "you spit on the sidewalk, so im giving you a ticket, so now you HAVE to give me some id"

    Obvious disclaimer: I am not a lawyer who has spent years going to school and arguing cases for the 4th amendment. Its also 5am.

    CangoFett on
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    CangoFett wrote: »
    An officer doesn't need teach a k9 to respond to a verbal command and fake finding something. He can do that himself. Its just as easy to say, "I can smell the odor of marijuana" as it is to say, "My dog is signaling he detects the odor of narcotics" However, most cops aren't going to make up excuses to search a car when they dont have probable cause that there is something illegal in there.


    Thanatos, pat downs and searches have different meanings. A cop can pretty much do a pat down whenever they feel like, though some courts are starting to say, "hey, you need something better than 'for my safety,' what was unsafe?"

    In a legal search the cop can flat out search anything. Remove shoes, socks, look through cars/bags. In a pat down, its an exterior only thing, where someone could reasonably have immediate access to a weapon. This includes unlocked/unsecured containers such as back packs. A locked container such as a locked suitcase is different, and would requires a warrant unless there was an arrest made. If they can immediately identify something as illegal from a pat down, (ie a concealed weapon, or even drugs in a pocket) they can turn it into a search. Cops can manipulate the clothing (squeeze/twist) they are patting down, but not the items in the clothing.

    Video taping is always a good idea. If it is a clearly illegal search, and you have video of the search, the situation before during and after, and you stating you do not consent, anything found as part of the illegal search should be inadmissible


    As far as "Never talk to the cops," I have to disagree. If you're gonna hold fast on that position, prepare for cops to be suspicious of you, because thats what it is. Not because exercising your rights is wrong, but exercising them to that degree is uncommon. If a cop sees something that is uncommon for that area, hes going to investigate, to talk to a person. Even if there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, the cop is still going to do his job and probe for whats going on. A drivers license that the cop can run, and see that this guy is a law abiding citizen who isnt wanted for any crimes does a lot to ease the mind. A guy going, "I dont have to tell you what im doing here, I dont have to present ID" is suspicious as hell, though not inherently illegal, and its going to throw up every red flag the cop has. This leads to the bullshit stuff of, "you spit on the sidewalk, so im giving you a ticket, so now you HAVE to give me some id"

    Obvious disclaimer: I am not a lawyer who has spent years going to school and arguing cases for the 4th amendment. Its also 5am.

    "I just went to 7-11."

    Now they find someone claiming you were at McDonalds across town.

    Now you just interfered in a police investigation for "real" (legally) and they are going to put you in court and get you sentenced.

    Congrats for talking to the police!

    Edit: I do not know about the ID thing, I assume that it falls under the same realm of if a cop asks you to do a specific action, like lie down on the sidewalk, you do it even if it is illegal and can get compensated afterwards if it was.

    Void Slayer on
    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    In a lot of places they can seize whatever they want. I think in Texas if you have more than like a hundred grand in cash, the police can just summarily take it and you have no recourse to get it back. Because apparently drug dealers are the only people who have a lot of cash on them, so if you have a lot of cash you're obviously a drug dealer.

    What if I have a cashier's check or something to transfer funds between banks?

    In theory you'd be ok since a cashiers check isn't a suitcase full of cash and has a paper trail behind it that's going to be readily accessible if necessary.

    In reality? Who the fuck knows.

    sigtk.jpg
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2012
    CangoFett wrote: »
    An officer doesn't need teach a k9 to respond to a verbal command and fake finding something. He can do that himself. Its just as easy to say, "I can smell the odor of marijuana" as it is to say, "My dog is signaling he detects the odor of narcotics" However, most cops aren't going to make up excuses to search a car when they dont have probable cause that there is something illegal in there.


    Thanatos, pat downs and searches have different meanings. A cop can pretty much do a pat down whenever they feel like, though some courts are starting to say, "hey, you need something better than 'for my safety,' what was unsafe?"

    In a legal search the cop can flat out search anything. Remove shoes, socks, look through cars/bags. In a pat down, its an exterior only thing, where someone could reasonably have immediate access to a weapon. This includes unlocked/unsecured containers such as back packs. A locked container such as a locked suitcase is different, and would requires a warrant unless there was an arrest made. If they can immediately identify something as illegal from a pat down, (ie a concealed weapon, or even drugs in a pocket) they can turn it into a search. Cops can manipulate the clothing (squeeze/twist) they are patting down, but not the items in the clothing.

    Video taping is always a good idea. If it is a clearly illegal search, and you have video of the search, the situation before during and after, and you stating you do not consent, anything found as part of the illegal search should be inadmissible


    As far as "Never talk to the cops," I have to disagree. If you're gonna hold fast on that position, prepare for cops to be suspicious of you, because thats what it is. Not because exercising your rights is wrong, but exercising them to that degree is uncommon. If a cop sees something that is uncommon for that area, hes going to investigate, to talk to a person. Even if there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, the cop is still going to do his job and probe for whats going on. A drivers license that the cop can run, and see that this guy is a law abiding citizen who isnt wanted for any crimes does a lot to ease the mind. A guy going, "I dont have to tell you what im doing here, I dont have to present ID" is suspicious as hell, though not inherently illegal, and its going to throw up every red flag the cop has. This leads to the bullshit stuff of, "you spit on the sidewalk, so im giving you a ticket, so now you HAVE to give me some id"

    Obvious disclaimer: I am not a lawyer who has spent years going to school and arguing cases for the 4th amendment. Its also 5am.

    "I just went to 7-11."

    Now they find someone claiming you were at McDonalds across town.

    Now you just interfered in a police investigation for "real" (legally) and they are going to put you in court and get you sentenced.

    Congrats for talking to the police!

    Edit: I do not know about the ID thing, I assume that it falls under the same realm of if a cop asks you to do a specific action, like lie down on the sidewalk, you do it even if it is illegal and can get compensated afterwards if it was.

    Identification and presentation to an officer at request varies widely from state to state. Some states: -you dont have to respond
    -you have to verbally identify yourself
    -you do not have to hand it over unless its reasonably believed that you are/were/about to operate a motor vehicle
    -say you have to hand your id over at request.
    The laws on this can be super vague, and of course unless you are driving, state law is not going to require you carry papers on you (whoops maybe not if in AZ and not white....), there are cases where people are arrested mistakenly all the time becuase they refuse to show ID when asked(and aren't required to).

    Your best bet is not to talk to an officer and ask if you are free to leave. It is rare but police officers do run into people that value their privacy and understand that and let it go. If you run into one who doesn't, theres already nothing you could of possibly said to help yourself. Attitude is not going to get you nowhere with the bad cops, and with the "good" cops you are just making their day worse.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.