drug dogs
What if police threaten to call the dogs?
Submitted by Steve Silverman on Sun, 02/22/2009 - 22:18Your rights do not disappear if the officer threatens to call in the dogs, so don’t let this all-too-common tactic intimidate you into consenting to search requests.
Usually, the officer won't have a police dog on hand and he needs reasonable suspicion to detain you while waiting for the K-9 unit. Before the dogs arrive, you have the right to determine if you can leave by asking "Officer, am I free to go?" If the officer refuses and detains you until the dogs come, you have the right to remain silent and refuse to consent to any searches.
If a K-9 unit arrives, you have the right the right to refuse to consent to a dog sniff, even if the officer claims you have to. Be aware that unlocking your car at the officer's request or handing the officer your keys is the same as consenting to a search. You always have the right to refuse by stating "Officer, I don't consent to any searches." Repeat, if necessary.
If a judge determines that officer had no justification to detain you until the dog arrived, any evidence discovered by the dog can be thrown out in court.
For Flex's take on the most recent Supreme Court ruling on dog sniffs, click here.
Clip from the DVD, BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
Illinois v. Caballes: Dog Sniffs & You
Submitted by Steve Silverman on Tue, 01/25/2005 - 17:41Illinois v. Caballes
543 U.S. 405 (2005)
In Illinois vs. Caballes, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not need reasonable suspicion to use drug dogs to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop.
This decision stems from the case of Roy Caballes, who was pulled over for speeding and subsequently arrested for marijuana trafficking after a drug dog was brought to the scene and alerted on his vehicle. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that a drug sniff was unreasonable without evidence of a crime other than speeding.
In a 6-2 ruling, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated when police use a dog sniff during the course of a legal traffic stop. Justice Stevens wrote the Opinion of the Court, finding that since dog sniffs only identify the presence of illegal items -- in which citizens have no legitimate privacy interest -- the Fourth Amendment does not apply to their use. Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, pointing to studies showing that drug dogs frequently return false positives (12.5-60% of the time, according to one study).
What this ruling means:
