What is your impression on dog searches for drugs during routine traffic stops?

Question

What are searchable criteria, or probable cause?

Answer 1

Basically, if police can't bring a dog to the scene in the time it takes to run your tags and write a ticket, the use of the dog becomes constitutionally suspect.
Since police cannot detain you for the purpose of investigating an additional crime --
unless they have evidence you've committed one. When cops need consent, and drivers say "no," then there is no basis to search. Without consent, cops need "probable cause" to search.
Some cops ask to search cars for no reason at all during routine traffic stops. They ask to search because they know that most victims do not know that drivers can "just say no" (most drivers know nothing about constitutional rights).
Drivers who do know are often too meek to "just say no." It is unknown how often cops ask for consent to search and how often consent is given under duress or ignorance.
Drivers who do not complain on the roadside will not complain, learn or litigate later.
Some police do that to punish drivers who exercise their Fourth Amendment rights and refuse to consent to search upon request. It is a police-state tactic.

Law enforcement uses drug-detecting dogs as a way to circumvent the Constitution's requirement that a judge issue a warrant, and the police don't want their dogs scrutinized too closely and there is the added concern that some police use the dogs for improper searches by claiming that the dogs alert even when the dogs don't alert.
Cops can create cause by claiming that canines alerted, even if there are no alerts, or canines can be cued.
If a dog is or is not "on the way," some cops add additional lies to make drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay until a dog arrives.
Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket).
Drivers are induced to consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies.
Cops lie about how long it takes to write tickets or to obtain a radio response on tag inquiry.
If a dog is actually en route, then some cops write tickets very slowly, until the dog arrives.
A search is forced against the driver's will.
In January 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois vs. Caballes that a dog sniff during a traffic stop was not a "search." Caballes and similar cases turn canines into props for lies. When dogs are used as props for lies, it doesn't matter whether dogs are well-trained.
If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record that as an error. If cross-examined later, they will testify that the dog detected lingering odors of contraband that were recently present.
Cops will testify that dogs never make mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband.
No one can question a dog about whether the cop is lying or mistaken, and it is usually a waste of time to ask a cop the same types of questions.
Many errors by drug dogs cause lawyers to wonder if police carry drugs to plant scents so that drug dogs will alert.
Random drug checkpoints have already been found unconstitutional by the Court.
Dogs are perfect pets for perjury. If contraband is found then the arrest will probably stand. If nothing is found, the driver leaves shaken, but I know of no case where the driver even complained or sued.
Drug dogs turn simple traffic stops into fishing expeditions for drug busts. Driver's are asked for consent to search without any suspicion at all. When drivers refuse consent, an officer threatens to bring a dog in order to intimidate drivers into consenting to avoid a wait.
Persistent refusal prompts cops to radio for a dog, and then claim that the dog alerted.
Drug dogs do not want disapproval from their police handlers. Dogs play the game, and will try to guess and read cues, because they are searching for approval, not for drugs.
Let's liberate drug dogs. Return them to protecting people from violence and theft, which is also the only proper purpose of law enforcement. Dogs should be man's best friend, not man's persecutor.
Drug dogs are natural libertarians.

http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmot1.html

Answer 2

No, an officer cannot search your car simply because you have a prior drug charge. He can search your car if (1) you allow him to do so; (2) he has probable cause that there is a weapon, contraband, or evidence of a crime; (3) you have been arrested; or (4) your car is being towed or impounded. Having a prior drug offense, without more is not probable cause that you currently have any drugs in the car, so the answer is no, he cannot search. That being said, if you have a prior drug conviction AND there is something else indicating recent drug use, that may be sufficient probable cause.

Answer 3

They are a violation of the 4th Amendment to The Constitution which says quite clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Answer 4

an officer can hold a vehicle for a dog to make a run around at any time for almost any reason.

if the dog alerts anywhere on the car, that is the probable cause they need to search and the only thing they need.

as for any other kind of search, pending on what the officer can pull, they will create probabl cause from nothing so that they can search.

Answer 5

Well, if the search dog reacts outside the car, there would certainly be probable cause for a search.

Answer 6

A search of your vehicle is not legal (with or without a dog) unless they have reason to search. If their is paraphenelia laying on the seat and they can see it in plain view, they now have probably cause.

If they smell pot, then bring the dog out, you are screwed.

Answer 7

All the cop has to do is suspect there are drugs and if you won't consent to a search he can have a canine smell the outside of a car and if he smells them then you are toast.

Answer 8

Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed, not probable cause.

However, I think it's BS. Frankly, too many of the cops on patrol nowadays are, well, stupid.

Also, I do not believe that those responsible for enforcing the criminal law should be the same people enforcing motor vehicle law. There should be 2 seperate enforcement agencies.

Answer 9

Since I'm not a junkie I don't have to worry about it. If some K9 officer wants to let his dog run through my car, go for it.

Answer 10

traffic stops?

then the person was shown to be driving in a matter that was deemed unsafe, or unaware of people/cars around them; that leads an officer to believe that he/she is under the influence.