Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court ruling on K9s

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court ruling on K9s

    Quick question guys, regarding this new ruling by the Supreme Court...


    The Court has ruled that a traffic stop may not be extended beyond the completion of its original purpose, just to get a K9 to sniff the car. (Because it has nothing to do with traffic safety at that point)

    So, does that mean that an officer can't probe a driver for any possible drugs in the vehicle if it's a simple broken taillight stop? (Maybe the driver is leaving a drug-prone location)


    Maybe it's because I've got a nasty migraine today, but my mind isn't wrapping itself around this ruling correctly.



    http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...o-bring-in-K-9
    Last edited by Sooner2000; 04-21-2015, 12:05 PM.

  • #2
    Source? This sounds interesting....and all my searches came up with variations on Florida v. Harris
    REINSTATE THE TRIG
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603
    Your logic defies logic
    Originally posted by Rudy8116
    Blah blah blah, cops don't need camo, something something something, why do police need armored vehicles, angry rant angry rant angry rant let's take them all away, angry masturbation.
    Originally posted by Michigan
    Arresting someone is fun, but playing with my pecker is still more fun.
    Originally posted by TheTick
    A pallet of Cheetos and pictures of my cock are inbound.
    Originally posted by TheTick
    This gangsta *** mother ****er was twisting trees with dank nuggs while in his crib.
    Originally posted by 02paul09
    Being a cop these days in an officer safety issue

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BiteThePullet View Post
      Source? This sounds interesting....and all my searches came up with variations on Florida v. Harris
      The front page of O.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by just joe View Post
        The front page of O.com
        http://www.officer.com/news/11927252...-traffic-stops

        Got it.

        Sure seems like Sooner is correct......
        Last edited by BiteThePullet; 04-21-2015, 12:15 PM.
        REINSTATE THE TRIG
        Originally posted by Iowa #1603
        Your logic defies logic
        Originally posted by Rudy8116
        Blah blah blah, cops don't need camo, something something something, why do police need armored vehicles, angry rant angry rant angry rant let's take them all away, angry masturbation.
        Originally posted by Michigan
        Arresting someone is fun, but playing with my pecker is still more fun.
        Originally posted by TheTick
        A pallet of Cheetos and pictures of my cock are inbound.
        Originally posted by TheTick
        This gangsta *** mother ****er was twisting trees with dank nuggs while in his crib.
        Originally posted by 02paul09
        Being a cop these days in an officer safety issue

        Comment


        • #5
          There is no reason you can't ask those question while the driver is gathering their documents to present to you and/or you are waiting for your enquiries to come back because asking questions at those times does not prolong the stop.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BiteThePullet View Post

            Sure seems like Spooner is correct......
            I hear da' trig galloping this way soon.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by that's my hand View Post
              I hear da' trig galloping this way soon.
              Fixed, apologies Sooner..... I am half asleep and trying to listen to my professor talk about prison populations. Speaking of, I have an off-topic rant thread to make.....
              REINSTATE THE TRIG
              Originally posted by Iowa #1603
              Your logic defies logic
              Originally posted by Rudy8116
              Blah blah blah, cops don't need camo, something something something, why do police need armored vehicles, angry rant angry rant angry rant let's take them all away, angry masturbation.
              Originally posted by Michigan
              Arresting someone is fun, but playing with my pecker is still more fun.
              Originally posted by TheTick
              A pallet of Cheetos and pictures of my cock are inbound.
              Originally posted by TheTick
              This gangsta *** mother ****er was twisting trees with dank nuggs while in his crib.
              Originally posted by 02paul09
              Being a cop these days in an officer safety issue

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks, Just Joe.

                That makes sense!

                Comment


                • #9
                  As I understand it you can't prolong the stop to develop reasonable suspicion... which is pretty much how I was taught it anyway.
                  "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                  "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My problem with that article is that it didn't list the officer's cause for suspecting that the driver was carrying drugs. I question whether this case would effect situations where the officer can articulate good cause for believing the driver is carrying.
                    This Space For Rent

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sooner2000 View Post

                      So, does that mean that an officer can't probe a driver for any possible drugs in the vehicle if it's a simple broken taillight stop? (Maybe the driver is leaving a drug-prone location)
                      At the end of the article it says this:
                      Rodriguez won at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, but he may not be free of legal trouble. It is possible that the police had a reasonable basis, independent of the traffic stop, to suspect that Rodriguez was engaged in drug dealing, Ginsburg said. Lower courts now will consider that issue.
                      I'm still confused though as well about that.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here is the ruling for your reading pleasure http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-9972_p8k0.pdf

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TiredPete View Post
                          Here is the ruling for your reading pleasure http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-9972_p8k0.pdf
                          Thanks, TP.

                          I don't see any justification for the K9 search other than the guy refusing to give consent. I think if the officer had articulated a reason to believe that the defendant was engaged in drug activity beyond the refusal to consent the decision would have gone the other way.
                          This Space For Rent

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This pretty much sums it up right here....no RAS...

                            He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground, among others, that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff.
                            After receiving evidence, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge found no probable cause to search the vehicle independent of the dog alert. App. 100 (apart from “information given by the dog,” “Officer Struble had [no]thing other than a rather large hunch”). He further found that no reasonable suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the written warning.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Steve856
                              Forgive my ignorance, but are police officers really expected to interpret Supreme Court holdings? Don't police officers and police departments have services of qualified legal counsel who is able to tell the officers what the ruling actually means?
                              Some agencies do, some don't. The local city attorney, county attorney (or whatever they are called) MIGHT at some point in time give guidance to the street cops but for the most part COPS tend to learn how to read court decisions

                              The bottom line is cops get a lot of "legal" training and really need to be able to understand a lot of complicated matters

                              Originally posted by Steve856

                              Further, to answer Miller11x's question: what a journalist thinks that a court holding means is about accurate as what a journalist thinks about police work. I would not rely on anything that a lay journalist writes about legal issues.
                              Don't be so condescending-----------------other people besides attorneys know how to read and interpret rulings
                              Last edited by Iowa #1603; 04-21-2015, 02:12 PM.
                              Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3472 users online. 233 members and 3239 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X