5 ms·

Yeah, I had my (completely clean) car searched because "the dog signaled". OK, sure. It would be more honest and to just say cops have the right to search you

• brianwawok 5y ago
  > It would be more honest and to just say cops have the right to search you at will. Except they explicitly do NOT have that power. They found a "trick" to pretend like they are staying within the law, while really not.
  • lovegoblin 5y ago
    Exactly. Hence > It would be more honest
  • RHSeeger 5y ago
    They don't have the "right" to, they have the "ability to do so without repercussions".
  • agency 5y ago
    There is a view, called “legal realism”, that what the courts and law enforcement collectively do _is_ the law itself. The rules as they are written down are useful in predicting or convincing how judges or other actors in the system will act, but that it all they are.
• dghlsakjg 5y ago
  What they should be required to do is keep records on a dog's record of false positives. If a dog fails to perform better than 95% I see no reason to use that as probable cause. Better yet, let's just get rid of pretext stops. Almost all traffic stops could be dealt with by the officer mailing a ticket. Safer for cops, safer for the public, but a lot harder to go fishing for felonies
  • giantg2 5y ago
    They treat K9s almost like officers (eg if you injure or kill one it will be a felony, likely similar to assaulting an officer, but varies by state). They should also then treat them like officers and keep Giglio records (not that they are good at that for human officers...).
    • anigbrowl 5y ago
      Unless you're a cop, in which it's usually just a minor disciplinary infraction.
  • p_j_w 5y ago
    The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that this sort of thing isn't required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris It's going to take actual legislation to get this fixed, which is not something I think we have any reason to be optimistic about.
• tehwebguy 5y ago
  It's true, but it's also true that it's important for people to say "no" and assert their rights. Granting permission to search or willingly waiting for the K9 (assuming it's not already on the scene) eliminates a lot of recourse that people would otherwise have access to in the courts.
  • kelnos 5y ago
    > or willingly waiting for the K9 Is there an option there? When the cop says "we're gonna get a dog to sniff your car", is it actually within your rights to just say "sorry, but I don't feel like waiting for a dog to get here, cya"? Edit: huh, looks like they can't hold you for a K9 unit to arrive, assuming they have otherwise completed the traffic stop (based on the original purpose of the stop) and don't have reasonable suspicion to hold you longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodriguez_v._United_States (In the Rodriguez case, the lower court unfortunately still ruled against Rodriguez because the cop, based on the common understanding at the time, would have reason to believe that prolonging the stop was legal.)
    • d110af5ccf 5y ago
      > is it actually within your rights to just say "sorry, but I don't feel like waiting for a dog to get here, cya"? Rather, just bluntly state that you don't consent to being held and ask if you can legally depart. If they tell you to stay, sort it out in court. Doing anything else seems like a really bad idea to me.