The Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.
While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.
Fascinating case. I’ll be keen to follow this one.
I agree with the conclusion of the article. The Supreme Court should overrule the lower court who said what the police did was constitutional.
Anyone would sympathize with the wife and cops who took the handguns clearly to protect the guy from himself. But lying about his consent was not the way to handle this.
The SC should overrule the lower court and uphold the 4th Amendment and the cops should get a slap on the wrist. They did the right thing and for the right reason but that’s the wrong way and a dangerous precedent.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... rrant/amp/
Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
“Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
cavaliereagle
- Central Eagles. Richland Northeast
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:34 am
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
On the subject of illegal searches. You know how cops will stop a vehicle and request permission to search it. If refused, they can have the dog walk around the perimeter of the vehicle. If the dog alerts, they then have probable cause for a search. I've always felt this should be illegal. The dog is considered to be a police officer. Dogs search with their nose. So, in my opinion, it's still a search of the vehicle. What are your thoughts on this? Am I missing something as to why this is allowed?
CENTRAL EAGLES...MAKE PLAYS NOT EXCUSES.
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
Actually I don't have a problem with the dogs. But then again I'm not ever transporting drugs or explosives.
As I understand it, if an officer sees something illegal in your car like an open container or a pistol or drug paraphenalia then he has probable cause and can search it. Maybe I'm wrong. If an officer stops a car and sees a child tied up in the backseat, I'm pretty sure that the driver is not going to be able to plead the 4th amendment. But still, the officer is outside the car and only using his eyes to establish probable cause.
I see no reason why a dog cannot use it's nose as long as it is outside the car and sniffing. One sense is that of sight, the other sense is that of smell.
I would say that if anyone has something in their car that they want to hide from the dogs then they should have it stored so that the a dog can't smell it. Then there is no problem. Same thing with kidnapping. Just make sure the person tied up in the backseat is out of sight. Probably tape over the mouth is a good idea too.
As I understand it, if an officer sees something illegal in your car like an open container or a pistol or drug paraphenalia then he has probable cause and can search it. Maybe I'm wrong. If an officer stops a car and sees a child tied up in the backseat, I'm pretty sure that the driver is not going to be able to plead the 4th amendment. But still, the officer is outside the car and only using his eyes to establish probable cause.
I see no reason why a dog cannot use it's nose as long as it is outside the car and sniffing. One sense is that of sight, the other sense is that of smell.
I would say that if anyone has something in their car that they want to hide from the dogs then they should have it stored so that the a dog can't smell it. Then there is no problem. Same thing with kidnapping. Just make sure the person tied up in the backseat is out of sight. Probably tape over the mouth is a good idea too.
“Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
cavaliereagle
- Central Eagles. Richland Northeast
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:34 am
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
Sounds like surrendering rights to me.DeCav wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:11 pmActually I don't have a problem with the dogs. But then again I'm not ever transporting drugs or explosives.
As I understand it, if an officer sees something illegal in your car like an open container or a pistol or drug paraphenalia then he has probable cause and can search it. Maybe I'm wrong. If an officer stops a car and sees a child tied up in the backseat, I'm pretty sure that the driver is not going to be able to plead the 4th amendment. But still, the officer is outside the car and only using his eyes to establish probable cause.
I see no reason why a dog cannot use it's nose as long as it is outside the car and sniffing. One sense is that of sight, the other sense is that of smell.
I would say that if anyone has something in their car that they want to hide from the dogs then they should have it stored so that the a dog can't smell it. Then there is no problem. Same thing with kidnapping. Just make sure the person tied up in the backseat is out of sight. Probably tape over the mouth is a good idea too.
CENTRAL EAGLES...MAKE PLAYS NOT EXCUSES.
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
Another patient for hospital security to detain until the ER Doctor decides to commit him or not. Not knowing the patient's intent, they usually commit them for further treatment, which means the patient gets transferred to a psychiatric facility.DeCav wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:17 pmThe Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on a case that presents this issue: Caniglia v. Strom. In this case, Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.
Dillon Wildcats 08’ 09’ 12’ 13’ 14’ 15’ 17’ State Champions
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
I believe something must be possessed in order to be surrendered. As you say, this is a policy that seems to already exist.cavaliereagle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:02 amSounds like surrendering rights to me.DeCav wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:11 pmActually I don't have a problem with the dogs. But then again I'm not ever transporting drugs or explosives.
As I understand it, if an officer sees something illegal in your car like an open container or a pistol or drug paraphenalia then he has probable cause and can search it. Maybe I'm wrong. If an officer stops a car and sees a child tied up in the backseat, I'm pretty sure that the driver is not going to be able to plead the 4th amendment. But still, the officer is outside the car and only using his eyes to establish probable cause.
I see no reason why a dog cannot use it's nose as long as it is outside the car and sniffing. One sense is that of sight, the other sense is that of smell.
I would say that if anyone has something in their car that they want to hide from the dogs then they should have it stored so that the a dog can't smell it. Then there is no problem. Same thing with kidnapping. Just make sure the person tied up in the backseat is out of sight. Probably tape over the mouth is a good idea too.
Do you disagree about a person visibly tied up inside a car?
“Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
It would seem your fears are unfounded. Using a police dog to sniff around you car is considered a search which is against the constitution without probable cause. Remember though that an officer can ask you anytime if he can conduct a search. It’s your prerogative to deny his request. If you consent that’s on you.
Obviously this won’t prevent a bad or uninformed officer from violating your 4th Amendment right. But with body cams on officers, your knowledge of your 4th Amendment rights, and of course a decent lawyer, you should be able to have any evidence seized considered inadmissible and the case thrown out if you can demonstrate that you gave the officer no probable cause to use a dog. Basically, keep your shit tight and legally you’ll be protected.
Keep in mind though that is the officer smells drugs such as weed then that’s considered probable cause. It definitely pays to look up what your rights are before you wind up in jeopardy.
Also, I’ve been considering lately that the word “rights” is thrown around an awful lot. I prefer to think of our rights as responsibilities...
Does the police officer require my consent to search?
Police need reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to pull you over in the first place. Then, in order to search the car, they need probable cause that you have committed some crime other than the traffic violation. So unless an officer already has probable cause, they need your permission to search your vehicle, or to allow a drug dog to sniff the outside of your car. If an officer is asking for permission to do either, it usually means they do not already have probable cause and need your permission. Many people don’t know it is within their rights to refuse consent for police to search your belongings at this point. If you say yes and consent, it becomes legal for the officer to search your car or use a drug dog.
In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has provided certain limits as to the use of drug dogs, explained below.
Drug Dogs and Airport Luggage: United States v. Place: Letting a drug dog sniff a piece of luggage at the airport is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Police do not need probable cause or a warrant to let the dog sniff your luggage.
Drug Dogs and Traffic Stops:
Rodriguez v. United States: Unless police have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime, it is an unconstitutional seizure for them to extend a legal traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. Dog sniffs at a traffic stop are considered “searches” within the Fourth Amendment that require probable cause, and police cannot use a drug dog to obtain that probable cause unless they already have reasonable suspicion. Police authority for holding up your vehicle ends once their tasks tied to the traffic violation (i.e., writing your ticket) are or reasonably should have been finished.
Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training.
In Harris, the driver refused to give officers permission to use drug dogs to sniff his car while he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. The officers walked a drug dog around his car anyway, the dog alerted, and the officers searched his car, finding pseudoephedrine and other supplies used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The particular dog the officers used to sniff Harris’s car was trained to detect several different types of illegal substances, but not pseudoephedrine. Harris argued at trial that the dog’s alert was false and did not give the officer probable cause to search his car, so the drugs should be suppressed as evidence.
This case raised two of the classic problems with using drug dogs to provide probable cause:
Lack of uniformity in training for police dogs
Dogs are not trained to alert to all illegal substances
Inaccuracy of drug dog results. Only 44 percent of dog alerts in a Chicago Tribune study led to the discovery of paraphernalia or drugs. This could be because:
The dog handler exhibits leading behavior. Spending too long examining the car or leading a dog around it too many times can lead to false alerts.
Drug dogs are domesticated animals who are trained to please their handlers above all else. This desire outweighs their drug sniffing capabilities. Studies suggest a drug dog can read its handler’s body language revealing any preexisting beliefs about who might or might not be hiding drugs.
Racial profiling by the police officer is one example of this.
In the Chicago Tribune report, the accuracy rate of dog alerts for Hispanic drivers was 27 percent, even lower than the 44 percent overall rate. This could mean the dogs in these cases were picking up on cues from their handlers, who expected to find drugs.
Compounding this problem is that most states do not hold drug dogs to any statutory standard of performance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal court for North Carolina, has accepted as evidence dogs with success rates of 43 percent.
Obviously this won’t prevent a bad or uninformed officer from violating your 4th Amendment right. But with body cams on officers, your knowledge of your 4th Amendment rights, and of course a decent lawyer, you should be able to have any evidence seized considered inadmissible and the case thrown out if you can demonstrate that you gave the officer no probable cause to use a dog. Basically, keep your shit tight and legally you’ll be protected.
Keep in mind though that is the officer smells drugs such as weed then that’s considered probable cause. It definitely pays to look up what your rights are before you wind up in jeopardy.
Also, I’ve been considering lately that the word “rights” is thrown around an awful lot. I prefer to think of our rights as responsibilities...
Does the police officer require my consent to search?
Police need reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation to pull you over in the first place. Then, in order to search the car, they need probable cause that you have committed some crime other than the traffic violation. So unless an officer already has probable cause, they need your permission to search your vehicle, or to allow a drug dog to sniff the outside of your car. If an officer is asking for permission to do either, it usually means they do not already have probable cause and need your permission. Many people don’t know it is within their rights to refuse consent for police to search your belongings at this point. If you say yes and consent, it becomes legal for the officer to search your car or use a drug dog.
In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has provided certain limits as to the use of drug dogs, explained below.
Drug Dogs and Airport Luggage: United States v. Place: Letting a drug dog sniff a piece of luggage at the airport is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Police do not need probable cause or a warrant to let the dog sniff your luggage.
Drug Dogs and Traffic Stops:
Rodriguez v. United States: Unless police have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime, it is an unconstitutional seizure for them to extend a legal traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. Dog sniffs at a traffic stop are considered “searches” within the Fourth Amendment that require probable cause, and police cannot use a drug dog to obtain that probable cause unless they already have reasonable suspicion. Police authority for holding up your vehicle ends once their tasks tied to the traffic violation (i.e., writing your ticket) are or reasonably should have been finished.
Florida v. Harris: The fact that a drug dog is not trained to detect the particular substance found in a vehicle, and alerted anyway, is not enough to dismiss a dog’s reliability or the probable cause their alert provided the police officer. If a drug dog is “certified,” this is enough to create a presumption that the dog provided probable cause, even though there are no uniform standards for drug dog certification and training.
In Harris, the driver refused to give officers permission to use drug dogs to sniff his car while he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. The officers walked a drug dog around his car anyway, the dog alerted, and the officers searched his car, finding pseudoephedrine and other supplies used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The particular dog the officers used to sniff Harris’s car was trained to detect several different types of illegal substances, but not pseudoephedrine. Harris argued at trial that the dog’s alert was false and did not give the officer probable cause to search his car, so the drugs should be suppressed as evidence.
This case raised two of the classic problems with using drug dogs to provide probable cause:
Lack of uniformity in training for police dogs
Dogs are not trained to alert to all illegal substances
Inaccuracy of drug dog results. Only 44 percent of dog alerts in a Chicago Tribune study led to the discovery of paraphernalia or drugs. This could be because:
The dog handler exhibits leading behavior. Spending too long examining the car or leading a dog around it too many times can lead to false alerts.
Drug dogs are domesticated animals who are trained to please their handlers above all else. This desire outweighs their drug sniffing capabilities. Studies suggest a drug dog can read its handler’s body language revealing any preexisting beliefs about who might or might not be hiding drugs.
Racial profiling by the police officer is one example of this.
In the Chicago Tribune report, the accuracy rate of dog alerts for Hispanic drivers was 27 percent, even lower than the 44 percent overall rate. This could mean the dogs in these cases were picking up on cues from their handlers, who expected to find drugs.
Compounding this problem is that most states do not hold drug dogs to any statutory standard of performance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the federal court for North Carolina, has accepted as evidence dogs with success rates of 43 percent.
“Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
cavaliereagle
- Central Eagles. Richland Northeast
- Posts: 1235
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:34 am
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
No, I have no problem with that. Also, i'm against drugs. I've never even tried them, but i've seen them destroy many lives. Even in my own family. Also, I support the police. I have no problem if a cop sees something out of order investigating it. It requires his hands and his eyes to do a thorough search. With a dog, he does a thorough search with only his nose. To me, that violates the 4th Amendment against illegal searches. Of course, the courts obviously don't agree or it wouldn't be allowed. I stand in the minority with this viewpoint. I just don't see the difference.DeCav wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:48 amI believe something must be possessed in order to be surrendered. As you say, this is a policy that seems to already exist.cavaliereagle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:02 amSounds like surrendering rights to me.DeCav wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:11 pmActually I don't have a problem with the dogs. But then again I'm not ever transporting drugs or explosives.
As I understand it, if an officer sees something illegal in your car like an open container or a pistol or drug paraphenalia then he has probable cause and can search it. Maybe I'm wrong. If an officer stops a car and sees a child tied up in the backseat, I'm pretty sure that the driver is not going to be able to plead the 4th amendment. But still, the officer is outside the car and only using his eyes to establish probable cause.
I see no reason why a dog cannot use it's nose as long as it is outside the car and sniffing. One sense is that of sight, the other sense is that of smell.
I would say that if anyone has something in their car that they want to hide from the dogs then they should have it stored so that the a dog can't smell it. Then there is no problem. Same thing with kidnapping. Just make sure the person tied up in the backseat is out of sight. Probably tape over the mouth is a good idea too.
Do you disagree about a person visibly tied up inside a car?
CENTRAL EAGLES...MAKE PLAYS NOT EXCUSES.
Re: Government Overreach Guns and Illegal Searches
No, the law and the courts would seem to agree with you.
Apparently the police can’t walk a dog around your car unless you consent to the dog or the cop can demonstrate probable cause.
The police can’t legally pull you over for a traffic violation and start walking a dog around your car. That’s violates your 4th Amendment. It’s good to know that. And though I wouldn’t harass an officer, it definitely never hurts to calmly remind an officer about your rights. Lots of videos online that demonstrate that some officers do not know much about the law.
Apparently the police can’t walk a dog around your car unless you consent to the dog or the cop can demonstrate probable cause.
The police can’t legally pull you over for a traffic violation and start walking a dog around your car. That’s violates your 4th Amendment. It’s good to know that. And though I wouldn’t harass an officer, it definitely never hurts to calmly remind an officer about your rights. Lots of videos online that demonstrate that some officers do not know much about the law.
“Win as if you were used to it, lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson