unreasonable detention?

[guest043013-2]

On I-10 in Mississippi, the cops knew it was a pipeline for illegal cargo, both human and contraband. They also knew that an unmarked truck as ooposed to a major carrier line was the most likely candidates. They customarily stopped those and sniffed them with their dog, always would see that going on side of road. But then, it did not take near that long to get the dog there.

DAWGS, your example is a perfect case of deciding how much inconvenience am I willing to endure in order to prove my point. And for the cop, how much am I willing to inconvenience someone to prove his point. And the poor dog was just excited to get out of the car for a bit and sniff around, maybe pee on your tire.

[Dawgs]

I was on vacation and by myself, I was in no hurry. The funny part is that I was pulled over for not signaling for a lane change. The cop was sitting on the shoulder and I moved to the left lane. Back then I did have the look of a hard core biker, complete with full beard.

My favorite stop was in Texas. The Texas Ranger saw my pistol in the seat and asked if it was loaded. I told him the magazine was full but no round in the chamber. He told me that was kinda useless that way!!

[sky_wire]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

I was stopped and detained on the side of the road in Arizona for over two hours. The reason for the delay, when the cop asked to search the vehicle I said fine as soon as you show me the warrant. We sat and waited for the K9 unit to show up to sniff the car. The cop told me we could have proceeded much faster if I would have just opened up the car for him. I told him just out of principle that wasn't going to happen. To this day I still consider it an illegal search, but what the hell he wasn't harassing anyone else in that time frame.

Two hours waiting for the dog?!?! You’re probably right, the detention might have been unreasonable. Had the pooolice found anything, you might have had a good chance at a motion to suppress.

BTW, next time, politely request that the police put booties on the dog’s feet before letting it in your car. You have a right not to have your seats torn up.

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by sky_wire

Two hours waiting for the dog?!?! You’re probably right, the detention might have been unreasonable. Had the pooolice found anything, you might have had a good chance at a motion to suppress.

BTW, next time, politely request that the police put booties on the dog’s feet before letting it in your car. You have a right not to have your seats torn up.

Based on his story, the dog never entered the car. They had no warrant, they had no probable cause, so they brought the dog over to sniff the car and that would have led to probable cause to search the car.

This will be ShysterJon's area of expertise, but if the dog alerted on something, I assume that would have gave them probable cause and since the vehicle is capable of being moved, they could search it without the warrant?

[Dawgs]

The dog never entered the car, just sniffed around the outside of it and then laid down in the shade beside it.

[Jannisary]

Here's a link to an interesting article that touches on the subject of car searches and detention.

Mason, Caleb E., Jay-Z’s 99 Problems, Verse 2: A Close Reading with Fourth Amendment Guidance for Cops and Perps (August 13, 2012). St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 567, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2128852

[sky_wire]

Originally Posted by Dawgs

The dog never entered the car, just sniffed around the outside of it and then laid down in the shade beside it.

Maybe they brought the bomb dog by mistake? ;-)

[Dawgs]

Not sure what its specialty was, it was a little Beagle.

[guest043013-2]

They just needed a dog to make a show of it.

Bombs, drugs, cadavers, didn't really matter.

[sky_wire]

Originally Posted by tigercat

They just needed a dog to make a show of it.

Bombs, drugs, cadavers, didn't really matter.

Yea, they just need to spend that grant money from Dept. Homeland Security. Imagine getting a $100,000 grant to take your dog to work every day.

[guest043013-2]

Better partner than some. Probably a whole lot better to pick up girls with after the shift is over.

Can see it now. Take the drug sniffing dog for a walk in the park. It alerts on a hot girl sitting on her blanket reading a book. You slip on over to her and make a deal. Great for smoothing through the intros.

[Poet Laureate]

acp, to think that the police don't retaliate, especially for something as petty as filing a complaint after being lawfully detained, is naive beyond belief. Cops, just like anyone else, will close ranks to protect their own, and they have the means to make life miserable for anyone if they choose.
-
Consider: the average person can't drive more than half a mile without breaking a traffic law (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report I saw while spending eighteen years adjusting auto claims). Whether it's failing to signal a lane change, speeding, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign or when turning right on red, turning from the right lane into the left lane, following too closely, or half a dozen other violations, if the cops want you, they'll get you. And filing a frivolous complaint is one sure way to make certain that every cop in town knows you, your car, and your tag number by heart.

[sky_wire]

FYI, recent TX caselaw....

Waiting for drug dog to arrive prolonged detention of passenger beyond what is reasonable.

State v. Ibanez, 2012 WL 2742808 (Tex.App.-Austin Jul 06, 2012) (NO. 03-10-00832-CR) “Here, the video recording shows that the troopers discovered [driver’s] true identity and his outstanding warrant approximately an hour and fifteen minutes after the initiation of the traffic stop. Certainly, by that point, [driver] was under arrest and the troopers' investigation into his identity was therefore complete. In addition, the officers had completed their search of the vehicle. However, the officers had not yet conducted the canine sniff that yielded the evidence at issue in [D’s – the passenger’s] motion to suppress. In order for the canine sniff to be conducted, the officers continued to detain [D] for another thirty minutes….[W]e conclude that the record supports an implied finding by the trial court that the traffic stop concluded upon the identification and arrest of [driver]. Thus, the additional time it took for the dog to arrive prolonged the detention beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop….Based on the totality of the circumstances, we hold that by the hour-and-fifteen-minute mark when the prolonged detention of [D] began, the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on [D’s] part. Consequently, there was no justification for them to continue detaining [D] for another thirty minutes until the arrival of the canine unit.”