4 ms·
from the majority: "As Struble later testified, at that point, Rodriguez and Pollman “had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got a
by dsp1234 12y ago
from the majority:
"As Struble later testified, at that
point, Rodriguez and Pollman “had all their documents
back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the
reason[s] for the stop out of the way[,] . . . took care of all the business".
Struble asked
for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle.
Rodriguez said no. Struble then instructed Rodriguez to
turn off the ignition, exit the vehicle, and stand in front of
the patrol car to wait for the second officer.
If the officer had reasonable suspicion to do a dog sniff, then he would not have needed to ask for permission. And the courts have generally concluded that refusing a voluntary search isn't evidence that a crime has been committed.
So the conclusion that the dog search was based on a reasonable suspicion is not backed up by the officer's testimony, or by the officers actions.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> If the officer had reasonable suspicion to do a dog sniff, then he would not have needed to ask for permission. An officer may seek permission for a search that he doesn't require permission; if nothing else, consent secures the evidence produced by a search from exclusion by a court that disagrees with the officer's own view of whether he had the requisite basis for making the search.
- dsp1234 12y agoThat's certainly true. However, that's only part of the equation, as the courts generally look at the totality of the circumstances, which include the officer's testimony (as I mentioned above)