Warrantless search - Rogers County

[JEVapa]

This thread has a lot of wordy words. And stories...lots of stories.

 

[tweetr]

And that, really, is all I am insisting: that the deputies of Rogers County uphold the oath they swore "to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States" in their interactions with the people they meet. That's all! It is interesting to see such a frenzy of opposition, in a Second-Amendment focused discussion group no less, over such a simple proposition!

Can we all at least agree that deputies of Rogers County, like all state officials in all states according to Article VI, paragraph 3, must support, obey, and defend the Consitution of the United States?

 

[JEVapa]

So, are they not? Have you got your lawyer yet? When's the court date?

 

[Glocktogo]

And that, really, is all I am insisting: that the deputies of Rogers County uphold the oath they swore "to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States" in their interactions with the people they meet. That's all! It is interesting to see such a frenzy of opposition, in a Second-Amendment focused discussion group no less, over such a simple proposition!

Can we all at least agree that deputies of Rogers County, like all state officials in all states according to Article VI, paragraph 3, must support, obey, and defend the Consitution of the United States?

Sure, but you're the only one saying they aren't. So, let us know when you win. Or don't, your choice.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

You don't know the facts of this case because you were not there.

And neither were you.

 

[ef9turbo]

Thanks again for your input.
No, the dog was not close. It took about ten minutes to get the dog there. From other research that seems excessive.
It is of course the "can run a dog on a vehicle anytime they want" that I find expressly violates the Fourth Amendment right to be secure. There is no way to justify "whenever they want" under the Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause. The probable cause must exist before the search. The search cannot be used to generate probable cause without inverting the very intent of the Fourth Amendment.

I will say this. A detainment (meaning not being free to leave while deputy does what he needs, ie: warrant, dl, traffic records check, etc.) from a traffic stop, can only be as long as it needs to be. 10 minutes is not a long time for a traffic stop, especially if it’s an inexperienced deputy. Mine usually take anywhere from 6-10 mins, depending on what I find. That includes documentation, records checks, etc. If he had a similar name to someone with a warrant, etc. it could take longer; this happens quite more often than you think. Certain things allow an LE to keep a person on a call or stop as long as needed as long as he or dispatch is trying and as long as it’s not purposely excessive. Hence why I said a person being stopped for RS can only be held as long as needed. Needed can be lots of things because a lot of things can happen by means of RS and easily and quickly turn into PC for longer detainment.

Now in that span, if a k9 happens to come across the stop, free air sniff is fair game. Whether you beleive it violates his 4th or not, it doesn’t as it’s still within the legal detainment of the traffic stop.

I get you’re upset or whatever, instead of complaining and trying to argue your point to others on an online forum, get yourself a lawyer and go that route. All the information you’ll ever need to know if this was right or wrong can be had by a lawyer. Call logs, radio transmissions, OLETS information, phone calls, and etc. All that information will explain why things were done how they were done. Pretty simple…

 

[JEVapa]

This
Lawyer up and do the deed. Come back and let us know the outcome.

 

[El Pablo]

This
Lawyer up and do the deed. Come back and let us know the outcome.

Like we don’t know the outcome…

 

[JEVapa]

Like we don’t know the outcome…

Hence the reason for this forever thread, lol

 

[El Pablo]

Then necessarily when case law alters or inverts the language of the Constitution itself, it is the case law that must fail, not the Constitution. As in Dobbs reversing Roe and Casey. Whatever you may believe about the morality or even the legality of abortion, Roe and Casey were abominably poorly reasoned and must fall.

So also Carroll, which decided that if the PLACE is moveable, then the PERSON has no right to be secure. That obviously and demonstrably inverts the reason for having a Fourth Amendment in the first place. This is easily proven. Were there no moveable places to search when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Of course there were. Rowboats, ships, horse carts, oxcarts. For that matter the person himself is moveable, yet the person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, irrespective of the place. Carroll is speciously reasoned. And case law has no power to alter or erase statute law, let alone the Constitution itself.

You do know when the bill of rights was ratified.. the search in question was 100% legal because the bill of rights only applied to the federal government… since the stop was by county… in your black and white world… it was legit. it was the due process clause of the 14th amendment and further case law interpreting the 14th that made it apply to states, etc. So… you have a very big issue here with your argument… Good luck with your mental masturbation.