4 ms·

"Searching" a car is generally understood to mean looking inside of it. Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower

"Searching" a car is generally understood to mean looking inside of it. Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower bar. IANAL.

titanomachy 3y ago
They did search his car (based on his driving patterns) and found cocaine. The question isn't whether it was legal to observe the driving, but whether it was legal to search the car based on the observed patterns.
- causality0 3y ago
  They pulled him over based on his driving patterns. They searched his car based on a K-9 unit alerting on the vehicle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635
  - pseudo0 3y ago
    Why do we allow K-9s to count as probable cause when they can be roughly as accurate as a coin flip? Eg. U.S. v. Bentley, where the particular dog in question had a documented 40.5% false positive rate in the field.
    - causality0 3y ago
      True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. He was observed based on AI, pulled over based on multiple traffic violations including changing lanes without signaling, illegally passing on the right, and driving 15 mph over the speed limit, then it was searched based on a K-9 alert. Unless the police are simply lying about the traffic violations and have no evidence to back them up, this guy is going back to prison.
      - LocalH 3y ago
        > True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. Then we have a Supreme Court problem.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Good thing I only drive 14 over!
    - titanomachy 3y ago
      > documented 40.5% false positive rate Doesn't that mean that more than half of the people that the dog signaled on were actually found to have drugs? That actually sounds pretty good. I assume it would meet the legal standards of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If I have my documents folded/crumbled up, stuffed into pockets... such that someone standing near me can see them sticking out, do they get to ignore warrant requirements to my person and papers because of that? I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Paper's not magical. If my behavior is sticking out of my pockets for everyone to see, they're not allowed to search through those unless they've got a fucking warrant. The amendment wasn't written with the express (or even covert) purpose of giving them ludicrous excuses to bypass its requirements. Reading it as if it were is wrong and deceitful.
- landemva 3y ago
  The local politicians (city, county) provide the funds. Can you take this up with them at a city council meeting?

"Searching" a car is generally understood to mean looking inside of it. Observing the same car coming and going on public roads seems like it requires a lower bar. IANAL.

titanomachy 3y ago

They did search his car (based on his driving patterns) and found cocaine. The question isn't whether it was legal to observe the driving, but whether it was legal to search the car based on the observed patterns.

causality0 3y ago
They pulled him over based on his driving patterns. They searched his car based on a K-9 unit alerting on the vehicle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221109635
- pseudo0 3y ago
  Why do we allow K-9s to count as probable cause when they can be roughly as accurate as a coin flip? Eg. U.S. v. Bentley, where the particular dog in question had a documented 40.5% false positive rate in the field.
  - causality0 3y ago
    True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. He was observed based on AI, pulled over based on multiple traffic violations including changing lanes without signaling, illegally passing on the right, and driving 15 mph over the speed limit, then it was searched based on a K-9 alert. Unless the police are simply lying about the traffic violations and have no evidence to back them up, this guy is going back to prison.
    - LocalH 3y ago
      > True but irrelevant. According to the Supreme Court K-9 alerts are probable cause. Then we have a Supreme Court problem.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Good thing I only drive 14 over!
  - titanomachy 3y ago
    > documented 40.5% false positive rate Doesn't that mean that more than half of the people that the dog signaled on were actually found to have drugs? That actually sounds pretty good. I assume it would meet the legal standards of "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

If I have my documents folded/crumbled up, stuffed into pockets... such that someone standing near me can see them sticking out, do they get to ignore warrant requirements to my person and papers because of that? I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Paper's not magical. If my behavior is sticking out of my pockets for everyone to see, they're not allowed to search through those unless they've got a fucking warrant. The amendment wasn't written with the express (or even covert) purpose of giving them ludicrous excuses to bypass its requirements. Reading it as if it were is wrong and deceitful.

landemva 3y ago
The local politicians (city, county) provide the funds. Can you take this up with them at a city council meeting?