5 ms·
Drug dogs only provide probable cause for drug searches. They arent suppoaed to extend to other crimes. Just as if the dog alerts on private property and a warr
by giantg2 2y ago
Drug dogs only provide probable cause for drug searches. They arent suppoaed to extend to other crimes. Just as if the dog alerts on private property and a warrant is then needed, it only provides probable cause for a drug search (or related offense).
On another note, in many states the dogs can't be trained on marijuana as it has legal purposes (medicinal or recreational). If coming from a state where it is legal, it still shouldn't provide probable cause as the sniffable residue could be from previous legal use.
So in my view, the drug dog liability is low (biggest threat being planted evidence, but that could happen anyways), and being reined in further. Yes, the made-up probable cause is more likely. That's why I was wondering.
- advael 2y agoThe entire existence of a class of contraband that cops can claim to be searching for at any time is a massive loophole in the fourth amendment, and as such, the drug prohibition wave of the mid-20th century was instrumental in turning the US (and for that matter a majority of developed countries) into police states
- giantg2 2y agoThat's the thing - it's not considered a search. That's how they get away with it. The sniffing has to happen in public (or with a warrant) and is considered in plain smell (same as an officer smelling alcohol on your breath in a car). Then the dog provides probable cause for the real search. Well, really everything has become heavily criminalized in the 20th century. Especially as things that aren't outright outlawed are regulated to the extreme. Drugs, alcohol, guns, knives, etc. Some things have gotten more open, but virtually everything has gotten more complicated and easy to get tripped up on technicalities.
- mapt 2y agoThe officer "smelling alcohol on your breath" is infamously applied to any situation where the officer lacks probable cause. It cannot be verified in a criminal case or in litigation, the officer is simply presumed to be telling the truth, and if proven to be lying is never, ever imprisoned for perjury. It may as well be "The officer saw you drinking in a vision"
- advael 2y agoIn an environment where police officers are effectively immune from any consequences of any actions, which appears to be almost true - barring widespread media coverage and consistent pressure from essentially a majority of US adults for multiple months at a time - the actual nature of the pretense used to take the officer's word for things is pretty immaterial
- mapt 2y agoSmell is one thing that you can't fix with body cameras even in theory.
- advael 2y agoThe theory-practice gap is so wide as to make the theoretical maxima essentially fantasy with body cameras that are proprietary and owned and operated by the same police departments they are supposed to be an accountability mechanism for
- giantg2 2y agoIn theory you could, but that requires something like a small scale mass spectrometer to feed recordings into the camera log. So in practice, not realistic... yet.
- giantg2 2y agoThis is only partially true (on several of the statements). The plain smell test has this problem in general. So does any witness testimony. In the case of driving, they will issue sobriety tests and a blood test. But part of these searches is different because of the way driving is treated as a privilege and the conditions you agree too in requesting a license. These subsequent tests will verify the officer's statements. The admissibility of evidence from searches based on this sort of "mistake" is up to the court to determine if it was in good faith. As for the lying... there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. Very few people in general are prosecuted for perjury because it requires proving that they willfully provided false testimony. This is very evident in the way protection from abuse orders are misused in many divorces and the requestor is almost never charged. However, police are (in theory) held to a higher standard with the use of Giglio/Brady lists. These list only need to show that the officer is repeatedly unreliable, not actually lying. In practice, these might not be very effective because it's up to prosecutors to maintain these lists. They only have incentive to add officers if they lose too many cases for the prosecution.
- wakawaka28 2y agoIt is still a federal crime to use marijuana, even in states where it is legal under state law. Also, if you are in a car, they just have to suspect you were driving while under the influence of marijuana and it becomes probable cause again. But it is unlikely that residue alone constitutes sufficient evidence of a crime, because they would never bother to investigate someone smoking a joint so severely anyway. I believe you are also wrong about the limited scope of a search. If additional crimes are uncovered during a legitimate search, they absolutely can charge you with it and use the evidence they found. Think about what you're saying. If they find pools of blood in your trunk while looking for drugs, they will definitely admit that as evidence against you and cause to search all your property.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoUnless they are federal police, they have no authority to enforce federal law.
- wakawaka28 2y agoI agree with you in general but police can do a lot of things on suspicion of a crime. They may have to let you go eventually, but don't overestimate your position. You could be tied up for months straightening out issues with false accusations.
- lazyasciiart 2y agoYes, major caveat that they don’t need authority to do anything in practice.
- JAlexoid 2y agoPolice officers in US can enforce a federal law, local police officers are just not obligated to.
- giantg2 2y agoDo you have evidence of this? They can hold you for federal authorities, but they have no jurisdiction to write a federal citation or summons.