It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police no longer need probable cause

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   
New rulings by the Supreme Court eliminates 'probable cause' from one of the requisites of having your car searched and seized. Apparently, all they need is a dog.
 



www.alternet.org
Here's how it works: An officer pulls you over because you're driving a bit too fast or a bit too slow, or because you have a broken tail light, or because you're not wearing your seat belt, or because you forgot to put your new registration sticker on your license plate. He is soon joined by another officer with a drug-sniffing dog, which "alerts" when it gets near your trunk.

Or so the officers say. You have no idea what this particular dog does when it smells contraband, and the dog isn't talking. But now the police can look in your trunk. A minor traffic stop is thus transformed into an embarrassing, invasive, intimidating, time-consuming search for illegal drugs.

The Supreme Court recently gave its approval to this sort of stop-and-switch in a case involving a man named Roy Caballes, who was pulled over on Interstate 80 by an Illinois state trooper for driving six miles an hour faster than the speed limit. Caballes happened to have 282 pounds of marijuana in his trunk, but even those of us who are not pot smugglers should worry that the Court saw nothing wrong with the circumstances that led to his arrest.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


My point of view is simple. If we simply eliminate canines, then we would not have this problem. Later on in the article it states that dogs identify false positives around 60% of the time. The elimination of probable cause in favour of a dog’s snout is an obvious invasion of privacy. It seems as if participants of the NWO have expanded to the animal kingdom. All the more reason to bonsai your pets.

[edit on 2/1/2005 by Simulacra]




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
60% of the time huh?
thats kinda crazy if true... great pets bad dogs?

although i'd like to see that 60% compared to how often a real cops perception of a situation led him wrong, perhaps the dog is a better cop :-P



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I think your source is incorrect and biased, possibly an article written by someone who had a bad experience with the cops. We have very strict policies and protocols in place to minimize invasion of privacy and false arrests. Granted, there are bad cops out there (both human and canine), but you need to know that thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours worth of training are invested before a dog or a human cop are even permitted to make their first drug interdiction stop. A drug interdiction stop is not simply conducted by one cop saying "I think there's dope in that car and I'm going to mess with these people." It is called a "totality of circumstances" and each stop is a slow, meticulous compilation of our observations of the actions of the occupants of the suspect vehicle, smells, answers to direct questions and environmental conditions (i.e. if you're driving a $50.000 Hummer in a bad neighborhood at 3am). I can understand your feelings about invasion of privacy and harassment, but rest assured that all possible precautions are taken to prevent abuse of authority. I have eleven years of law enforcement experience and I specialize in gangs and drug interdiction. I personally have used a dog only once and the dog did not trigger on anything. Every other time I have used only my training, experience and asking a few questions, resulting in hundreds of drug arrests and all were convicted. Being hassled by the cops is a necessary evil and if you're doing nothing wrong, you should let the cops search your car and thank them for protecting your family from criminals.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
so basically you are saying that we should all be white skinned drive nice cars and not drive or live in bad neighborhoods, or if we do then we should keep reasonable hours? ie...a curfew? That in doing all of this we will avoid the police who "meticulously" choose who they pull over, all i have to say is "YEAH RIGHT" and are you naive? or what?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I am simply saying that we have rules like every other profession. I cannot speak for those who make the rules or those who break the rules, I can only give you an explanation of how things are supposed to work. We are all human (well, most of us) and we make mistakes-even cops. For anyone who truly hates cops, I cannot change their mind with anything I say, I am simply trying to explain how things are SUPPOSED to work. Likewise, I don't judge others so don't judge me. Maybe if you spent a few nights with me chasing the "nightcrawlers", you might begin to understand. Until then, I guess people like you will continue to hate people like me-until you need my help anyway.............and then???????????????????



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
So if a cop makes a valid traffic stop and a drug sniffing / bomb detecting dog alerts the officers, they shoule ignore it?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
No. But training, experience and basic human "gut feelings" will out-do a dog any day. Is anyone READING what I'm writing or just trying to light another joint?????????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 2/1/2005 by blueknight]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueknight
No. But training, experience and basic human "gut feelings" will out-do a dog any day. Is anyone READING what I'm writing or just trying to light another joint?????????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 2/1/2005 by blueknight]


cops smoke dope, too.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueknight
No. But training, experience and basic human "gut feelings" will out-do a dog any day. Is anyone READING what I'm writing or just trying to light another joint?????????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 2/1/2005 by blueknight]


You ought to be more worried about those idiots all hoped up on coke driving 95 MPH in 35 MPH zone, or the dumbarses drinking and driving. I have never known anyone who smoked a joint to do anything but drive to damn slow. I guess you could give them a ticket for that though.

With that being said, cops have a hard enough job as it is dealing with the garbage of society. Cops are doing a job, just like Jimmy at the diner or Janet at the coffee shop. I know that all and all, they are there to protect me and my family when protection is needed. I teach my daughter to respect police officers. She calls them "Real Life Superhero's Dad!"

My point is, these guys get enough grief as it is with out us bitching at them all the time about invading my privacy. If protecting my family means you need to search my car for pot, then fine, search for it. Just dont take me to jail for that roach in the ashtray


[edit on 2/1/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I saw a demonstration were a cop hid a baggie that at one time a little bit of pot in it on a firetruck. He then brang his dog in and walked the dog around the firetruck and the dog found the baggie in a side compartment on the first walk around. I was very impressed withthe dogs ability to smell weed. If I could smell that good I would walk around the wood in the middle of September and find some bud myself.

If you have weed on you in your vehicle and a dog comes around you are busted. I hear that if you want to prevent a dog from sniffing your stash that putting the weed in a sealed glass jar works.

Were I used to live several years ago it was routine for the cops to bring a canine unit out for every traffic stop to run em around your vehicle looking for weed.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueknight
Is anyone READING what I'm writing or just trying to light another joint

In fact I was not reading your post, I was also not responding to it. I was responding to the original article.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I do thank you for sharing, this is old news. Cops have been doing this for sometime. It just happen to go in front of judge now.

Its like this cop pulls you over, asks to search, you say no, he calls for the dog.

Just be sure to ride clean.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
First of all, "Reason," the source of the article, is a libertarian publication, closely associated with the Cato Institute. It used to be a great magazine until it changed editors and now it is somewhat less so, in my opinion. Second, libertarians hate regulation of any kind. Third, my reading of the article is not that the court ruled that cops don't need probable cause, but that an alert from a drug dog is probable cause.

No one expects a dog to be infallible and yes there are cops who will try to abuse the rights given by the court, but I think that we can all rest assured that if you don't put drugs in your car, an army of dogs won't cause you any more grief than a prolonged traffic stop.

Remember that in the case cited, the individual showed several recognized signs of suspicion that the police have learned to observe, especially along well-known drug smuggling routes.


[edit on 05/2/1 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
.
The courts have always recoginized the "sniff test." If a dog alerts during his "sniff test," then the officer may search the vehicle for narcotics. This is nothing new. The ruling of the United States Supreme Court merely reaffairms this.





posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
speaking as a former k9 trainer and law enforcement officer.....this sets a precident....the excuse to have k9's more involved in all searches. a well trained and maintained k9 is very difficult to hide whatever it is looking for...but, it is the follow up training..or the lack there of...simple, common mistakes will ruin a dog. that said...dog do get confused, and most commonly, they get overworked....then they give false positives....nothing is infallible...

so you get stopped..where is the next k9 unit...how long will they keep you in investagative detention??? 3, 5, 10 ,20 minutes?? how much more $$ will the police want in order to get more k9 units? it is not cheap to traina dog and handler.

what keeps the police from walking a dog down the street?? or at building entrences?? bus-stopps???.....well???? how about in stores or businesses???? are freedom and privacy that much a privledge that is givien to you, that you have no real right to privacy, that if you are not doing anything wrong that it shouldn't matter when or where you are searched...or to what degree........ that you can/should be searched at any interaction with the police?? or for that matter, anyplace out side of your residence??? remember.."it is for your families saftey and your own"



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I agree with the precedent being set... that is my concern...
dogs are not perfect, and i have already had a dog give a false positive on my vehicle while it was parked at school years ago...
they found a can of scotchguard fabric cleaner (for detailing) and said..."well that must have been what set him off" yeah right... if that is so, then a multitude of other legal things would set a dog off...

The officer from before made a good point, that most police/HPs will not abuse this power, and would not think to even run a sniff check, unless other suspicious activity occompanied it...BUT... that will change in as years go by... the spirit of the law will be forgotten, and the precidents will rule... and it will become the standard operating procedure...

Personally, I don't relish the thought of being one of those poor dudes with everything they own strewn across the highway, while a dog disperses fur over every surface of his van... only to find a scotchguard fabric cleaner can...
I kinda doubt they help pack it all back up... (I have seen more and more of those "dudes" on every roadtrip the last few years)



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
.
Is everyone aware that about 80% of US bills have traces of coc aine on them?
www.snopes.com... aine.asp
Isn't it likely that a dog may detect this on anyone carrying some cash?

Drugs should be legalized for adults.
Its called capitalism. Its your body to do with as you please.

Spend those wasted tax dollars on fighting genuine crime and terrorism.
Invading people's privacy for an arbitrary crime is unAmerican.

Why are alcohol and nicotine legal and pot and coc aine not?
Hypocracy, cultural bias, and nothing else.

pot is practically non-toxic, alcohol is highly toxic.
Nicotine is about as addictive as coc aine.

When will sanity be the order of the day instead of ignorance and bias?
People should be responsible for their objective actions, not enslaved to the cultural biases of others.
.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Keep in mind that the United States Supreme Court simply establishes the lowest possible standard. The individual states can act on these laws and set a higher standard. For example, In the state of Colorado consent to search must be obtained by the driver before the cops can even walk a dog around the car.

Another interesting fact about our twisted system: In the state of Nebraska the maximum penalty for a minor in possession of ALCOHOL is $500 fine, six months probation and community service. The same minor found in possession of less than one ounce of MARIJUANA faces a waiverable $100 fine and it is considered an infraction. (which means an MIP for alcohol stays on your record forever, while an MIP for MJ drops off your record when you turn eighteen). Besides that, any teen you talk to in Nebraska will tell you it's much easier to buy MJ than beer! It's a proven fact that alcohol is much more addictive and dangerous-what's wrong with this picture? Your views??????????????

[edit on 2/4/2005 by blueknight]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I have moved around a lot and seen many cities where drug dealing goes on out in the open like its not even a crime and police cars just keep driveing it seems to me that somone hauling drugs would be able to chart a safe course thru these places and not even have to worry about it lol



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Well you seem to be a very educated and enlightened police officer...

It is true that MJ is much easier to get ANYWHERE in the US.
but that doesnt mean it should be...
it is for reasons such as this that i would like to see it legallized. It would releave a lot of work load for the justice system, as well as make it so much harder for young kids to get ahold of...
once it is regulated and taxed, everyone would see that it is not the evil thing they assume... but leting youngins get ahold of it is a problem...
to young to know better, they might let it be a true keystone drug, and try other things... (otherwise, i feel the "keystone"drug thing is a propagandized excuse)
the whole criminal prosecution of MJ smokers makes me sick... when i see they are letting my thief crank monkey neighbor loose in 30 days from a 90 day sentence, so that he can rip stuff out of my garage again... and throwing MJ smokers in jail at all... it makes me wonder what they are trying to do...

I do not fear a MJ addict breakiing into my garage and stealing my stuff... they wouldn't...
Now a crank monkey thief... that has already stolen from me... that is a problem...

BTW... i have a separated garage...
can i shoot him if i catch him out there? (clean kill, no chance of lawsuit later)
I refer to the "make my day" law of Oklahoma... that states if they stealing from you on your property... they are formally a target...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join