Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint

[WessonOil]

What state does this occur in?

While he may have messed up by not producing his license, it's far worse to me that the LEO's used a command on his dog to make it scratch at the door, and they then did an illegal search based upon that, etc.

Our own government spies on us, uses the IRS to intimidate us, wants to seize our firearms, etc...so why do we feel compelled to side with the officers here?

If it was required in his state to roll the window down farther, produce ID, etc., then the LEO's should have produced documentation saying he had to, and why he was detained.

The LEOs were simply relying upon their intimidation for people to comply.

 

[Norman]

I got bored 2 minutes into it, so how do you know the K9 officer "gave a command" to produce a false alert?


And im sorry Wesson, you don't get documentation saying why you have to do something while on a traffic stop or check point. You do it, or you put your big boy pants on and deal with the consequences of refusing.

 

[Dukester]

And people wonder why there is so much hatred for LEO's. For every good one there are 100 that are scum of the earth. They forgot long ago what their actual role is and who they work for. We should apply the same level of zero tolerance aimed at my kids when they eat a Pop Tart at school to wannabe storm troopers on power trips like these guys and maybe it would get better eventually.

 

[otis147]

dog followed the officer's hand along the open window, scratching when he said "check here"

k9's are not infallible, and will give false positives if the handler chooses.

 

[Norman]

Uh, how many people here have seen more than one K9 ran on vehicles? It's not uncommon for the officer to say "check here" and indicate a place to check. If the dog detects the scent of contraband, it will alert. If it doesn't detect the scent then it won't alert. It isn't some magic command for the dog to scratch the piss out of a car and create a "false alert". Dogs are not infallible, but as long as the training and usage is logged similar to a sniper's data book, they're solid for court.


LOL Dukester. You mad bro?

 

[Dukester]

Uh, how many people here have seen more than one K9 ran on vehicles? It's not uncommon for the officer to say "check here" and indicate a place to check. If the dog detects the scent of contraband, it will alert. If it doesn't detect the scent then it won't alert. It isn't some magic command for the dog to scratch the piss out of a car and create a "false alert". Dogs are not infallible, but as long as the training and usage is logged similar to a sniper's data book, they're solid for court.


LOL Dukester. You mad bro?

Yeah I guess I am a little......

 

[streak]

Uh, how many people here have seen more than one K9 ran on vehicles? It's not uncommon for the officer to say "check here" and indicate a place to check. If the dog detects the scent of contraband, it will alert. If it doesn't detect the scent then it won't alert. It isn't some magic command for the dog to scratch the piss out of a car and create a "false alert". Dogs are not infallible, but as long as the training and usage is logged similar to a sniper's data book, they're solid for court.


LOL Dukester. You mad bro?

You should probably watch the video at about the 3:50 mark. These guys are in the wrong. But OSA is so LEO friendly that the majority will never admit this mans rights were violated. I will probably be banned again for saying so but Police Officers are fallible and should be held accountable when they intentionally violate citizens rights.

 

[mugsy]

You should probably watch the video at about the 3:50 mark. These guys are in the wrong. But OSA is so LEO friendly that the majority will never admit this mans rights were violated. I will probably be banned again for saying so but Police Officers are fallible and should be held accountable when they intentionally violate citizens rights.

Man oh man, do want violin music and cheese to go with that whine? OSA does not ban people for saying "officers are fallible and should be held accountable". However, they have banned folks who insisted on saying things like "only 1 in 100 cops isn't crooked", essentially charging all officers (well 99%) with being corrupt, etc....ad nauseum. They also don't like statements that are borderline inciting violence against LEOs (not saying you did this - just giving a for instance)

The way to deal with this is to go to court and make one's case - if the court/a jury agrees with the plaintiff then the PD may be punished or forced to change policies.

 

[vvvvvvv]

If the dog detects the scent of contraband, it will alert.

It will alert much more often when there is no contraband present.

Chicago shows 56% false positive rate in general, 73% among Hispanics.

Illinois State Police documentation shows over 74% false positive rate.

Australia reports 80% false positive rate.

In a study where there were no drugs or explosives present, 18 dogs alerted in 123 of 144 searches (some more than once, mostly in locations where the handlers had been told there should be drugs or explosives) bringing the total alerts to 225). That's an 85.5% false positive rate in a controlled environment.

Of course, the whole "dog's nose is infallible" stance of the judicial system is not as asinine as the idea that an officer claiming to smell marijuana establishes enough cause for a search given that studies show that even people familiar with the odor of marijuana can't reliably discern the smell among exhaust fumes such as the situation that would be encountered during a typical traffic stop.

 

[streak]

The way to deal with this is to go to court and make one's case - if the court/a jury agrees with the plaintiff then the PD may be punished or forced to change policies.

The problem with this is that many people dont have the resources to put up an all out court room battle with the city/state/federal gov whomever the agency may be. So we are again accepting that the burden should be placed on the citizen to guarantee rights when a guarantee of rights SHOULD imo be the norm not the exception.