Federal Lawsuit Challenges K-9 Reliability

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLRjBVvg98U

I saw this earlier.  Federal Lawsuit challenging the use of a K-9.  The bodycam footage shows the K-9 officer signaling to the dog right before it alerted on the door (after already sniffing that area).  You can see it in the reflection.  I didn't study the video carefully.
 
I hope the the case gets a good hearing.  I am sure K-9 dogs are capable of sniffing out the things they are trained for.  I am also certain that many cops will do whatever it takes to get what they want, and dogs will do whatever they think they should to please their handler. 

Lawsuit: Texas Sheriff’s Deputy Falsifies Traffic Offense to Justify Unwarranted Truck Search
https://ij.org/press-release/lawsuit-texas-sheriffs-deputy-falsifies-traffic-offense-to-justify-unwarranted-truck-search/

The Civil Rights Lawyer talked about the same case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHsmF1-K9Cc

[Hawkmoon]

The use of drug-sniffing dogs was perhaps a good idea when it was first initiated but, as with everything, unscrupulous individuals will find ways to abuse it. In my opinion, there is no question that some handlers have trained their dogs to alert on a signal.

I hope this lawsuit succeeds.

[230RN]

I don't know about you, but just after 4:35 in the guy's dash cam, it looked to me like quite a bit of a swerve was cut off. I suppose the movement could be explained by something else, maybe an earthquake, maybe he bumped the camera, whatever, but I would question the statement that there was no swerving based on that very short segment... about 2 seconds, tops.

If there was actually a swerve that was deleted, I call that "lying by omission," but what to you think?

Look carefully at it.

I'm not questioning the possible chicanery of drug dog handlers --I almost view it as a "given," but I wonder about the insistence that he "din't do nuthin' nohow."

My initital reaction to searches "authorized" by dogs is "was the search supported by the dog's oath or affirmation?"  Were the seats of the car particularly described?

Go ahead, grin, but this is another example of how "all governments trend toward tyranny," in our case by diluting the proscriptions of the Constitution.  Applause for the guy and his lawyer for pursuing this.

Terry, 230RN

REF (A4):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Oh, wait, no, we didn't mean oaths and affirmations of dogs.  That's just fine with us, the inventors of the U.S. and framers of the Bill Of Rights.  Hey, dogs are cool, dig it?""

[MechAg94]

Yeah, it wouldn't be an issue if courts didn't rubber stamp it so often without question.  It seems many low level judges are just looking for cops to give them an excuse to sign off instead of requiring a bit more. 

Even if the drug dogs were required to complete regular double blind testing, how do you test the honestly of the K-9 handler?  They could still have the dog trained to hit on command. 

[cordex]

Odd to bring him into the car for questioning. 

Pretty sure that since Rodriguez v. United States (2015) my K9 buddies aren't even allowed to run a dog on their own normal traffic stops anymore absent some other RAS or a evidence of a crime beyond the traffic infraction that was the reason for the stop because that would make the stop take longer than it takes to write a ticket.  If they rolled up on another unit's stop and ran the dog that might be fine so long as it didn't extend the stop.  Ten minutes into the stop and only then calling K9 for the free air sniff?  Not going to play well.

That said, I don't think the handler signaled the dog to alert.  It looked to me more like he was signaling the dog to check the rear driver's wheel well while the dog was indicating by sitting then trying to get his attention.  Many are trained to sit or lie down (the handler even mentions toward the end of the IJ video that "he sat hard" which makes it likely that is how he was trained) and indicate where the smell is coming from.  Viewed in that context, the dog sitting by the door, looking back and forth between the handler and the open window, then jumping at the window when the handler tried to tell him to search elsewhere ... I could see that as being a legitimate alert.

And as I've said before relating to K9 searches, a corrupt cop doesn't need a dog to behave corruptly, and a dog doesn't even make it easier.  A cop without a dog can claim that he thinks he smells marijuana and that can be sufficient probable cause for a search.  Plenty of other ways to hem someone up without relying on a dog.

In summary: bad stop, but not because of an obviously fake dog alert.

[MechAg94]

I have heard about extending the stop being bad.  I didn't know that was a thing until seeing some videos recently.  I would agree with you on that part.  He may have screwed up by getting in the car and answering questions.  I might have to rewatch to see if he agreed or if he was told. 

The didn't find anything in the vehicle so it makes me wonder what the dog was hitting on or if it was just a miss.  I would take issue with being accused of running drugs before the stop, but that may not be actionable.

[dogmush]

The thing to remember is that the whole time the guy was sitting in the deputy's truck talking to him, he could have left.

It was after the dog hit that the deputy said "You are being detained while we search". That 10 min of chatting? He could have, and should have left.  If the Deputy was going to detain him on the traffic warning he should have been forced to do so.

Remember: When in a professional capacity, the cops are not your friends, they are not chatting, and they are not "just trying to get you on your way" they are trying to pin a crime on you.

Once the cop started asking fishing questions the correct answer is "I'm done talking, am I being detained "

[Hawkmoon]

Once the cop started asking fishing questions the correct answer is "I'm done talking, am I being detained "

^^^ QFT *








* Quoted For Truth

[RoadKingLarry]

But was he really free to go?
I'd be real skeptical of that.

[dogmush]

But was he really free to go?
I'd be real skeptical of that.

Perhaps not, but by not pushing the issue he lets the .gov claim he was.

Pay attention to what the cop very carefully says, on camera.
"I'm only giving you a warning "
I'd like you to get ot of the car"
Come talk with me while I write your warning"

These are all carefully constructed phrases so that when played in court the police can claim he was not investigating yet.

Even when the deputy brought up the dog the first time. "We have a K9 pretty close, I'm going to have him come do a walk around, that way it'll be quicker"

Cops practice active voice statements that sound like a directive, while not actually being one.  They know that most people aren't going to be super assertive with an armed authority figure.

Would this deputy have backed down if challenged, or ramped up? We'll never know, because the victim never tried to assert his rights.

Even if the cop was going to escalate,  the victim would have been better off making the cop explicitly detain him as early as possible.  The timer on "can not detain you for longer than needed for the traffic stop" has a hard start when they stop you from leaving.

[WLJ]

and dogs will do whatever they think they should to please their handler. 

Just like far too many humans

[230RN]

"Remember: When in a professional capacity, the cops are not your friends, they are not chatting, and they are not 'just trying to get you on your way' they are trying to pin a crime on you."

That doesn't mean you can't be respecfully self-assured.

Ticks me off that they rehearse all kinds of scenarios and dialogues, but you're caught flatfooted.

[Pb]

I would be willing to bet a lot of dogs give false alerts to please their handlers, even if the cop isn't trying to signal them on purpose.  Sort of like a "clever hans" situation... where a horse learned to solve math problems, but was really watching his owner for unintentional cues.

[cordex]

I would be willing to bet a lot of dogs give false alerts to please their handlers, even if the cop isn't trying to signal them on purpose.  Sort of like a "clever hans" situation... where a horse learned to solve math problems, but was really watching his owner for unintentional cues.

That wouldn't play well during certifications where the handler doesn't know where the drugs are.

[Pb]

The dog is probably smart enough to know when the handler wants him to alert on a real search.... versus in a certification, the handler won't display an accidental signals of desire for a search.

[MechAg94]

I have heard someone say before that if they are led around a vehicle 2 or 3 times, but the 3rd time they will assume they messed up and alert to please their handler.  I can't say that happened here. 

I don't know the various ways dogs are tested certified.  Sounds like there are differences around the country.  The main thing I would like to see come of this is for consistent testing and certification standards nationwide.  Personally, I think that should apply to any mode of evidence that is used to justify searches, arrests, or convictions.  Dogs are not the same as a road side drug testing kit, but they can't testify what they smelled either. 

[Pb]

The dog could easily see if the cop acts suspicious / aggressive towards the person pulled over, and learn to signal based on that.  Dogs want to please...

[T.O.M.]

I will admit here that when I was a prosecutor, I handled a few dog based drug cases.  In all of the cases, the dogs hit immediately, and large amounts of drugs were found in the cars.  That said, I would agree that a dog alone should not be sufficient for probable cause.  The officers should have to articulate a reasonable suspicion of drugs in the vehicle prior to the sniff.  But that's just me.  We'll see what SCOTUS says. 

[French G.]

I got asked into a car with officer chomps to be written a warning. In Illinois, should have declined but trying to play upstanding citizen since car was less than legal. I am sure it was to let the dog smell me. Lesson learned, no cops on I64, massive operations on the approaches to Chicago.

[Hawkmoon]

I would be willing to bet a lot of dogs give false alerts to please their handlers, even if the cop isn't trying to signal them on purpose.  Sort of like a "clever hans" situation... where a horse learned to solve math problems, but was really watching his owner for unintentional cues.

Heh, heh ...

I saw that live when I was a little kid. Back when Gene Autry was still a television and movie star as a cowboy (long before he bought a baseball team), he came to the city near where we lived as part of some show (it might have been the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus) and my parents took my brother and me to the show. At one point Gene was showing how smart his horse, Champion, was by telling him count to three.

Champ got it wrong twice in a row. On the third try, ol' Champ used his hoof to stamp once ... twice ... three times ... and was CLEARLY going for a fourth when Gene quickly intervened by stepping in close, patting him on the shoulder, and saying loudly, "GOOD BOY, CHAMP -- GOOD BOY!"

[HankB]

Some years ago on the legal forum at another gun board there was a thread about a high school that brought in drug sniffing K-9s to sniff students, lockers, and cars in the lot for drugs & weapons. I opined that perhaps some enterprising students should soak a few joints in water for a couple of days and then spray the tires and lockers of teachers and administrators with the reefer water so the dogs would have a LOT of things to hit on.

Hoo boy - the legal forum moderator went bat**** crazy when he saw it, especially since a couple of other people apparently agreed with me. When I got back to the forum a couple of days after my original post I found a nasty PM from the moderator telling me how bad I was for suggesting "damage and vandalism" . . . by spraying tires and lockers with dope water. Of course, since the mod seemed to be LOSING the forum debate with other folks who'd weighed in,  he deleted the entire thread, as was his wont. I received a couple of PMs from other folks who'd also had their posts deleted, and we agreed the mod was a classical small man in a position of minor authority. Had a good laugh about it.

[230RN]

^
While realizing that was a frivolous non-serious suggestion, my first thought was that it could be construed as tampering with evidence.  Sort of like scattering brass around a crime scene to mask the real cartridge cases... also a frivolous non-serious suggestion.

I believe I'm familiar with that particular sub-forum and I don't go on it for the simple reason that he has set up rather strict rules... which is OK, his forum his rules... but I won't post according to his rules.  There are other sub-forums where I can be a little "theoretical" and even playful, so no skin off my nose.  I will say that if I have a specific legal question according to current legal theory, I would trust his answers.

The problem is that in my opinion the legal structure is largely based on ancient "Common Law," and that the old "Common Law" has largely been superseded  by a new common law instituted and ratified in December of 1791.

I am pleased to note that this concept seems to have trickled --not "soaked" --into the legal system of late and I may have to retract my oft-stated snide opinion that most judges are illiterate since they can't understand the simple plain English of the Constitution --the new "Common Law."

There.  I said it and I ain't takin' it back

Terry, 230RN

[BobR]

Some of the casinos in Las Vegas have touted their use of dogs to search for "explosives", especially firearms and ammunition. Most people not really knowing how that works may leave their guns at home. I, on the other hand just carry a handful of .22 shells that have recently been shot. I randomly drop them into potted plants, on the floor, etc. Carrying a gun into a casino is perfectly legal. Only if they figure you out then they can ask you to leave or have you trespassed if you refuse. I am sure you will be put into their facial recognition system as a scofflaw if you do carry into there and they discover you have a gun so they can swoop down earlier the next time you visit.

bob

[HankB]

Some of the casinos in Las Vegas have touted their use of dogs to search for "explosives", especially firearms and ammunition. Most people not really knowing how that works may leave their guns at home. I, on the other hand just carry a handful of .22 shells that have recently been shot. I randomly drop them into potted plants, on the floor, etc. Carrying a gun into a casino is perfectly legal. Only if they figure you out then they can ask you to leave or have you trespassed if you refuse. I am sure you will be put into their facial recognition system as a scofflaw if you do carry into there and they discover you have a gun so they can swoop down earlier the next time you visit.

bob

I remember reading that someone (not me!!!) suggested going around sensitive areas where dogs are used and scattering smokeless powder around. He suggested some sort of rig like the prisoners in the movie Stalag 17 (or was it The Great Escape?) used to dispose of dirt from their escape tunnels - bags down their pants legs that would release a trickle when they're walking around.

If this were done at some place like an airport . . . I wonder how many decades in the Federal Graybar Motel would be imposed on the prankster. Probably enough that even were he a young man when he did it, he'd be pretty gray by they time they let him out.

[RocketMan]

It was "The Great Escape."