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.

 

How I said 'no' to cops searching my car

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
EXACTLY! Thank you for clarifying that




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


WRONG. A police officer may search a vehicle, after developing probable cause, without a warrant.

Carroll Doctrine

The Supreme Court ruled that the mobility of a vehicle makes it impracticable to obtain a search warrant.



If asked if my van can be searched, the answer is always, "No, officer, not without a warrant."

That is an appropriate response because the officer is asking for a CONSENT search and does not have probable cause.


I keep it respectful at all times.

Also a good move.


I too have been threatened with the drug dogs, I say go ahead, just show me the warrant first.

An inappropriate response given the situation. An officer can not hold you longer than the time it would normally take to conduct a traffic stop so the K9 officer can arrive. If the K9 officer arrives in a reasonable amount of time, the K9 can conduct a scan of the air around the vehicle. The courts have upheld that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy to the air around or eminating from their vehicle. If a K9 dog alerts to the presence of contraband, whether that be guns, drugs, explosives or a body, that gives the officer probable cause to search your vehicle.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Legally an officer is not allowed to look for trouble. They can't just assume you are hiding something if they don't know for sure. You do not have to have a warrant to ask to be searched, but if you don't have any. You still have the right to say no, they can threaten you all they want but they can't jump in your car looking for contraband, en.wikibooks.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thedebater
 




It's illegal for a cop to search somebody's car without proper permission

Incorrect. If an officer develops probable cause, he or she may search your vehicle without your permission.



Even if the officer were to smell your weed and ask to search your residents, you may say no, and they have to leave.

Incorrect again. If the officer were to knock on your door, you answer it and the officer smells weed the officer can now secure the residence by using a "protective sweep" and hold all occupants while then writing up a probable cause and obtaining a search warrant. The reason they can secure the residence, but not yet search, is because there is now an exigent circumstance. You know the police are at the door and are aware of the smell of marijuana. The police now have the right to secure the residence so that evidence is not destroyed.

The smell of marijauna gives the officer probable cause. If an officer has probable cause they no longer need your consent to search so you may not say no and they do not have to leave.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by thedebater
 




Legally an officer is not allowed to look for trouble.

Not true.

An officer is allowed to look for trouble. If by trouble you mean be proactive in attempting to locate contraband and charge those that possess it.

The Supreme Court has even upheld that an officer is allowed to make a pretextual traffic stop. Meaning, if the officer suspects someone of carrying contraband (namely drugs), the officer can look for a legal reason to stop the vehicle (meaning a minor traffic violation) with the pretext of looking inside the vehicle using plain view, obtaining a consent search or having a K9 unit scan the vehicle.
Whren V. United States



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


A Drug-Sniffing Coin Would Be Cheaper

As Radley Balko noted this morning, a recent Chicago Tribune investigation found that drug-sniffing dogs used in traffic stops by Illinois police departments were wrong more often than they were right. In 56 percent of the cases where the dogs "alerted" to cars, police found no drugs or drug paraphernalia. The dogs' defenders say they may be detecting traces of drugs that used to be in the cars, but even they concede that is not the whole story. As detailed in the Tribune article, poor training of dogs and their handlers, coupled with cops' unconscious signals to the animals, seems to account for a large portion of these fruitless searches. "The dogs are only as good as the handlers," one expert tells the Tribune. A Republican state legislator (and former prosecutor) who wants to create certification standards for drug-detecting dogs calls them "probable cause with four legs."

reason.com...

Probable Cause: Washington Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Smell in Vehicle Not Enough to Arrest All Occupants

Need I say more? No police offer will ever search my vehicle without first showing me a warrant signed by a Judge.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 




Need I say more? No police offer will ever search my vehicle without first showing me a warrant signed by a Judge.

I can guarantee you if you are pulled over, a police officer requests a drug dog (or any other K9 that is used to detect any other contraband) to the scene, that certified dog scans your vehicle and it alerts to the presence of narcotics (or some other contraband that it is certified in detecting), your vehicle will be searched.

The ability of dogs to effectively detect certain substances has been demonstrated to the courts and is based in science. There has been no seccessful legal challenge to the effectiveness or accuracy of police dogs. This is why the dog alerting to the vehicle gives the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. A reasonable officer can say that there is at least 51% probability that the vehicle contains whatever substance the dog alerted to.

The accuracy of a police dog can not be based solely on if drugs or other contraband is found within the vehicle after the dog alerts. The police dog is only detecting the odor of the substance, for which it is certified, eminating from the vehicle. That means if whatever substance was removed recently, the odor may still be eminating from the vehicle. This does not make the dog unreliable. The dog did exactly what it was trained to do. The dog detected the odor of the substance eminating from the vehicle. The substance simply had already been removed from the vehicle. That means that the person WAS in possession of said substance not that the dog's senses are malfunctioning.

Police dogs are initially trained, tested and certified based on state law standards. The dogs then go through regular re-certification to ensure they are still performing to standard. Any dog that can not pass certification or re-certification is retired. As stated in your article the Supreme Court has reviewed and recognizes the ability of a certified police dog to detect certain substances.



Probable Cause: Washington Supreme Court Rules Marijuana Smell in Vehicle Not Enough to Arrest All Occupants

What are you trying to argue by posting this? I do not think you are fully understanding what this ruling is about if you are trying to relate it to the subject of police dogs. Please clarify exactly what your argument is instead of just posting an article. Did you read the legal review or do you just agree with the headline without fully understanding what the court decided?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join