K-9 Unit and searching house

[Will Wood]

Ok. Let's say cop asked for consent to search, someone said no. Does the presence of a K-9 unit cancell the need for a warrent?
Maine is the state..
Just wondering, a while ago something happened. K-9 Unit came to my friends house, (LONG Story.. )

Tried to entrap him but he was smarter than that. Still he entered and searched though.

Is that legal?

[wad04]

well to give you the best answer, we would probably need to hear that long story.

are you saying the dog smelled something?

or are you saying just because he was a k-9 unit he could enter?

Because as far as i know, having a dog smell something actually within the house might be probable cause.

[Will Wood]

Crime scene at point A. I was there with cop. Scent tracked to point B. At the time, no proof of anyone else was there. Dunno how K-9s work and can tell the difference between a track that was coming, or going.

Again, at the time the owner of the house said "NO" to the cop. Came in anyways.
Charged with random misterminors (spelling?) but there is still fines attached, so trying to fight them with the cop had no right to come in.

"We" got away with the other side of the story, so no biggie there either. But still fines, bleh!

[PyRo]

You're still not giving enough information. If you want an answer you have to get into exactly who/what they were looking for and why, exactly what the officers said, exactly what your friends said, where in the house they looked, and the type of charges he received. You're probably better off speaking to a lawyer then posting that on the internet however.

From what it sounds like they were following someone who had committed a crime useing dogs. The dogs traced the person into your house. This would give them reason to search without a warrent. Maybie a lawyer can get him off on some technicality but its doubtfull.

[Lohman446]

You're leaving out too much. Police can enter when in direct pursuit of a suspect or when they have adequate probable cause of an ongoing criminal act. The K-9 unit probably makes that cause easier to come by.

Was he doing anything illegal? If not than he has nothing to worry about. I don't buy this "I was too smart for the cops" crap. Smart people accept that illegal activity may have undesired repercussions.

[behemoth]

You see, they were smokin' the ganj, and the dog got a whiff, and told the fuzz, maaan.

It was all a big buzz-kill from then on.

[PyRo]

You see, they were smokin' the ganj, and the dog got a whiff, and told the fuzz, maaan.

It was all a big buzz-kill from then on.
That's one way of putting what most likely happend.

[SCpoloRicker]

I, uh, I am going to stay out of this.

/its not facism when we do it

[Destructo6]

Typically, you need a warrant to enter a dwelling, unless it is "hot pursuit."

Automobiles are a different story, since they are a "readily mobile conveyance."

[spwz99]

I've always heard that if a k-9 hits on a car or anything else for that matter, that is enough proof to validate a search without a warrant. But I'm not a cop. Nor am I a lawyer.

[grEnAlEins]

I believe that in some states, if a canine smells somthing and alerts officers it is fine, it counts under the "plain sight doctrine." I could be wrong, but I thought some states count a hit from a canine as ok and part of plain sight. I could be wrong though.

[Lohman446]

I always love people who cannot own up to there responsibilities.

You broke the law...

The answer is not I did it because.....
A) I don't agree with the law
B) I don't care about the law and am willing to risk the consequences

Or even I didn't do it.

Instead in America the answer has become "How'd you know" Your wrong for knowing. Its you who did something wrong not me.

Break the law risk the consequences and deal with it. I speed, guess what, when I'm pulled over I don't go into a tirade about police practices, I pay teh fine.

[SCpoloRicker]

I always love people who cannot own up to there responsibilities.

You broke the law...

[snip]

Break the law risk the consequences and deal with it. I speed, guess what, when I'm pulled over I don't go into a tirade about police practices, I pay teh fine.

So, you knowingly violate the legally defined safe speed in a multi-ton vehicle, and are fined ~100 bucks plus a hit on your insurance. A dog smells recreational drug use in a private residence, and police enter the residence to identify the source.

Who is going to be in more trouble?

[Lohman446]

So, you knowingly violate the legally defined safe speed in a multi-ton vehicle, and are fined ~100 bucks plus a hit on your insurance. A dog smells recreational drug use in a private residence, and police enter the residence to identify the source.

Who is going to be in more trouble?


I don't make the laws, I simply choose to follow (or not) with full consideration of the possible legal consequences.

[Steelrat]

So, you knowingly violate the legally defined safe speed in a multi-ton vehicle, and are fined ~100 bucks plus a hit on your insurance. A dog smells recreational drug use in a private residence, and police enter the residence to identify the source.

Who is going to be in more trouble?

Actually, we know very little about what went on, certainly too little to make any assumptions, other than the fact that they were guilty of something, and got caught.

If the police find someone murdered, and they follow a blood trail to a house, can they go in?

[SCpoloRicker]

If the police find someone murdered, and they follow a blood trail to a house, can they go in?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/cartoon/mrdid.jpg

No, of course police should not follow a blood trail. :rolleyes:

/cause thats what the topic was
//Strawman (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html)
///hey bro!

[hipster]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do

[wad04]

that's actually not true at all. If you refuse to have them search, they can't just go into your house but not look in drawers. Plain view in that case would be whatever they can see through windows and doors (probably the one he knocked on and someone opened to refuse entry).

[Lohman446]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do

So not true. Refusing a search is not grounds for probable cause. They are able to look from there vantage point outside of the door as you are talking to them and can come up with any number of things for probable cause "Heh, that guy doesn't look 21 who has an open container" of an ongoing crime. Thats why you learn at college to step outside, close the door behind yourself, and then talk with the officer.

[SCpoloRicker]

I'd like to add that this thread is rife with possibilities for a well-played "I work for"; which, having already pulled once this week, I shall avoid. ;)

[rkjunior303]

rife.

good word!

[Rocp15126]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do


Actually we should say that any sense "in plain ... " can be used. A cop on a search warrent for a shotgun cannot go into your jewelry box, find drugs, and thereby arrest you. However if he is feeling at the top of your closet shelf for the firearm and feels a bag of drugs (in plain touch) then your SOL. It works with the other senses, and in the case of dogs.."in plain smell" This is how one lawyer explained it to me.

[wad04]

exactly :)

[grEnAlEins]

I'd like to add that this thread is rife with possibilities for a well-played "I work for"; which, having already pulled once this week, I shall avoid. ;)
:rofl: I work for herpes... oops wrong thread :rolleyes:

[hipster]

I stand by what I said ( I went to school for criminal justice )
if an officer rapps upon you door and you open it and let him in Even just a foot he has gain legal entry refusing a seach constitutes grounds for prb cause anything in that room or any space adjacent to it which is not closed and or sealed can be walked into and looked at

you can all say what you want about that but you will lose any protest made in your house against them ( then they will get a warrent)and you will lose legal represented case against those actions.In the eyes of the legal system what the did will be considered permissable and you will lose( even your lawers fee)
( do not think I am saying it is right i'm just saying in the working real world it is )

with a vehicle however it gets even worse doors closed trunk closed it wont matter you open it or they will and you wont like how

just don't keep things you would not like to be discovered out of plain sight and cooperate it will be over quick and alright

[hipster]

Resistance is futile

[Lohman446]

I stand by what I said ( I went to school for criminal justice )
if an officer rapps upon you door and you open it and let him in Even just a foot he has gain legal entry

Actually, given that added bit of information I'd agree with you. Once you have allowed an officer permission to search (or enter) you can't just decide to take it back (mind you I have the danger of a little knowledge creating a big problem - 2yrs of business law).

[SCpoloRicker]

Resistance is futile

I see what you did there.

[wad04]

what you said the first time is still wrong, but by adding you let the police officer in your house, you're correct.

[nulam]

This is not legal advice, this does not create a lawyer client relationship. Just general principals of the current state of search and seizure law.


The United States Supreme Court has held that under the Fourth Amendment the warrantless use of drug sniffing dogs and even infared cameras is permissible because "the heat that Ford intentionally vented from his [***11] mobile home was a waste byproduct of his marijuana cultivation and is analogous to the inculpatory items that the respondents in Greenwood discarded in their trash...."); Pinson, 24 F.3d at 1058 ("just as odor escapes a compartment or building and is detected by the sense-enhancing instrument of a canine sniff, so also does heat escape a home and is detected by the sense-enhancing infrared camera"). United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110, 103 S. Ct. 2637 (1983). So, under Federal law, odors and heat signature outside the home are likened to trash on the curb, in which one has NO expectation of privacy.

Now, that said, the Federal Constitution provides the minimum amount of protection of individual rights and the states are free to provide their citizens with additional portections under their respective constitutions. That is the case in my state (PA) with respect to both infared detection and canine detection. For canine there must be reasonable suspicion if the area searched is an automobile and probable cause must exist for search of the person and domicile. Commonwealth v. Gindlesperger, 560 Pa. 222 (1999).

This does not address the "hot pursuit" doctrine because that is fact sensitive and not enough information was provided to realy give any sort of analysis of what happened.

[nulam]

Also, Hipster, you are spreading some seriously flawed interpretations of search and seizure law. Refusing to consent to a search is NEVER enough to raise a reasonable suspicion or create probable cause. (the exception being a Terry stop) Also, you may limit the scope of a search and revoke consent to search at any time. And, last, nothing you do "triggers" the "plain view" doctrine; if it is in plain view, it's admissible.

[hipster]

Yes NULAM you have some blackand white valid points which on paper work

however in my miss guided youth while supporting myself at a state school ( where I was in criminal justice and an A -B student ) with a "side Buisness" I learned three times mind you about the realistics of a simple may search you car question ( I never got the just say yes and 9- out of 10 its quick they barely look then leave through my head)

and at residences in two state I relearned those lessons , I also at the time thought as you to a point and when nothing was uncovered , found and or noticed upon the first one of these searches I took what I thought was the right action to protect and defend my rights.
Armed with my fresh in school insite , the books the officers themselves use and a good amount of ill gotten easily made money I set off
even with a high priced lawer certain prcticalites and loop holes exist for officers to do the things they do, in the name of probable cause
what I offer is facts from both knowlage and being face to face with reality

Resistance is truely futile
as far as you this is the letter of law goes sit down and watch a reality cop show for a week with a pad write down every thing they do "wrong" or "illegally do " and get away with.
you will see reality is not quite as tidey as written in a book

think as you like do as you see fit and good luck to you all but don't say I did give you a heads up

[Steelrat]

This is the worst discussion of legal matters that I have ever read.

[hipster]

by the by there is a book published for use in school country wide on police feild opperation in which i states the the declination of a search
of a vehicle which was pulled over for suspicious reasons is in itself considered probable cause
or a place of residence when dispatched due to disturbance , noise , domestic or routine inquiries belonging to suspicious behavior is also reason for probable cause

[wad04]

this doesn't change the fact that you're totally wrong still.

[Lohman446]

After a brief glimpse at Nulams profile and past posts (Occupation: Attorney) I have a feeling I am going to beleive him far more than Hipster.

That being said my lawyer has always told me to offer the responding officers a drink and then ask for a lawyer. Give them minimal information to secure a scene (weapon location) Do not consent to search but if they insist on entering so be it. Be polite but don't say anything else :)

[Pickle]

Nulam is right.

That is the biggest I can get the period :D