[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

[Ted Moffett]

A quick look at this decision (Arizona v. Gant) reveals it involves a
vehicle search after a suspect has been arrested and secured.  The source I
read indicated explicitly (and any legal eagles reading please correct my
understanding if I am wrong) this case has no bearing on many traffic stops,
given the text below:

http://apublicdefender.com/2009/04/22/4th-amdmt-gets-cpr-arizona-v-gant/

Notable, however, is another holding within this decision: that police will
always be entitled to search the interior of a vehicle if the evidence of
the *instant* offense might be discovered within it. Obviously, this would
not apply to traffic violations.
-------------------
Again, someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of current law
based on US Supreme Court rulings, is that if you are stopped for a traffic
offence, and law enforcement drug dogs alert to your vehicle, a search is
often legally allowed whether or not you consent.  We can assume that given
traffic stops often do not result in arrest or attempt to secure the driver,
for the traffic violation, that if drug dogs alert to a vehicle in this
case, then a search is proceeding without an arrest; and that, based on the
evidence of the dogs trained sense of smell and response, if a search
proceeds and drugs are found in the vehicle, an arrest can then proceed for
the illegal substances.

But I'm not sure how a case like this would be pursued if the driver had
exited and locked the vehicle during a traffic stop for a traffic violation,
then drug dogs altered to the vehicle.  I suspect this behavior on the part
of the driver, and the responses of the drug dogs, might allow law
enforcement to force entry or call a locksmith or demand the keys, etc?  Of
course, if the driver parked and locked their vehicle, after being pursued
by law enforcement with their lights on, and fled the scene, this is
illegal, correct?

Has this US Supreme Court ruling, that I referenced regarding the legal
status of traffic stop vehicle searches without consent based on drug dog
response (this case involved a traffic stop for speeding), been overturned?:

 http://www.jmls.edu/facultypubs/oneill/oneill_column_1208.shtml

In 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court examined the use of drug-sniffing dogs
in *People v. Caballes, *207 Ill.2d 504 (2003) (''*Caballes I*''). There the
state police, without any reasonable suspicion that drugs were present, used
a drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop for speeding. The dog alerted and
drugs were found in the car. The Illinois Supreme Court suppressed the
drugs. It began its analysis by conceding that the dog sniff itself was not
a ''search'' under the Fourth Amendment. But the ''scope'' of a traffic stop
must be restricted by both the ''duration'' and the ''manner'' of the stop.
The court conceded that the dog sniff did not improperly increase the
''duration'' of the stop. But the problem was the ''manner'' of the stop:
the police could provide absolutely no reason why they shifted their
interest from the speeding charge to whether the car contained drugs.
Therefore, the use of the dog meant that the police activity impermissibly
changed the ''manner'' of the stop from a focus on speeding to a focus on
drugs. Because the police thus improperly expanded the ''scope'' of the
stop, the court suppressed the drugs.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. *Illinois v. Caballes, *543 U.S. 405
(2005). First, the court held that in considering the proper scope of the
stop ''manner'' was irrelevant; the only relevant consideration was
''duration.'' Since the dog sniff was not a search and it did not improperly
extend the ''duration'' of the stop, it was proper.

On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court simply acquiesced in the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision and held for the prosecution. *People v. Caballes, *221
Ill.2d 282 (2006) (''* Caballes II*'').

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 5/22/09, bear at moscow.com <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Paul, Sunil, et al
>
> Take a look at a case named ARIZONA v. GANT,  which overturned the New
> York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) decision.
>
> So, based on GANT, if you get out of the car and LOCK it, IF the police
> continue to search without a warrant, the chances are that the evidence
> (and the charges) will be tossed. If you park the car correctly, they
> can't even do an "inventory" search, as there is no reason to tow the car,
> so no reason to "inventory" the contents, which prevents the search under
> the pretext of an inventory.
>
> THE really really sad part of all these decisions is that a search warrant
> isn't that hard to get!, yet there are some police officers that try to
> cut corners and by cutting those corners the result is sloppy police work
> and a citizen distrust of police in general.
>
> The underlining issue, and one which we are all responsible for is that
> police have gone from peace officers to law enforcers. Now, you have to
> ask why? And the answer to that is actually easy, you can't quantify a
> negative. For example, we can count the number of DUI arrests an officer
> makes, but how do you quantify how many intoxicated people the police
> officers stops from driving in the first place?
>
> AND while I'm on this particular soap box, ask yourself, do we really want
> to prevent drunk  driving as opposed to arresting and prosecution drunk
> drivers? Take a look at how much REVENUE is brought into the state and the
> individual municipalities by the drunk drivers.
>
> IF you really want drunk drivers off the road, pass the same draconian
> legislation that has resulted in successful eradication of drunk drivers
> in other countries. Make the legal driving BAC .01, thats enough that if
> there is some legitimate reason why there is a small amount of alcohol is
> a persons system, say cough medicine, you're good to go, anything else,
> you're over the limit. And for a sentence, seize the car. Taking away a
> drivers license does not stop anyone from driving, taking away a car does.
> And pass the legislation in such a way that if you and the bank own the
> car, you still have to make the car payments even if it is seized.
> The first year, this type of law will be drastic and I can hear all the
> excuses, now: Kids can't go to base ball, I need it for my job, how do I
> get groceries etc. The answer, IF we really want drunks off the road is:
> YOU should have thought about that before you drove under the influence.
>
> Now, think about some of the changes that need to be made IF we want to
> get people under the influence off the roads.  Let's say a cab from
> Pullman to Moscow cost $25.00, far cheaper  than loosing your car! Also,
> instead of LAW ENFORCEMENT arresting and seizing the driver and car, peace
> officers would actually help an impaired driver get home.
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > That makes sense.  I was thinking more along the lines of handing over
> > your keys when asked for them.  I've also heard the advice that if
> > you're ordered out of the car you should lock it when you get out.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> I have to disagree with this:
> >>
> >> "If the police are going to search your car despite your lack of
> >> consent, don't get in their way and be cooperative by letting them
> >> into the car and the trunk or whatever when they ask."
> >>
> >> I think people should make it clear they are not consenting.  Don't
> >> let them into your trunk. Be polite, and if they order you out of the
> >> car, get out, but make sure your dissent is unequivocal. Don't give
> >> them a chance to claim you consented.
> >>
> >> Sunil
> >>
> >> > Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:25:06 -0700
> >> > From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> >> > To: starbliss at gmail.com
> >> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; donaledwards at hotmail.com
> >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> >> >
> >> > The point of the "I do not consent to a search" line is not to stop
> >> all
> >> > searches. It's a counter to one of the many "games" that are played at
> >> > such times by the police. When a person who does not have much contact
> >> > with the police is asked "Do you have any drugs in your car?", they
> >> > usually answer "No" which is often followed by "Then you don't mind
> >> if I
> >> > take a quick look, right?". Your normal Joe now has a little quandary.
> >> > They've stated on the record that they don't have drugs in the car, so
> >> > they may feel that they need to back up their statement by letting
> >> their
> >> > car be searched. This may even happen if they do have drugs in the
> >> > car. Even if you're sure that you don't have drugs in the car, how do
> >> > you know that your friend you gave a lift to yesterday didn't drop
> >> some
> >> > accidentally? Answer the first question with "I do not consent to a
> >> > search", and they know it's not worth their time to try to trick you
> >> > into letting them into your car.
> >> >
> >> > If the police are going to search your car despite your lack of
> >> consent,
> >> > don't get in their way and be cooperative by letting them into the car
> >> > and the trunk or whatever when they ask.
> >> >
> >> > Don't play their games. On the other hand, if they are going to run
> >> > roughshod over your rights, don't fight them.
> >> >
> >> > Remember, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Do some
> >> > searches on Youtube for "don't talk to the police" and find out more.
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> > Ted Moffett wrote:
> >> > > A police officer must make their own subjective determination as to
> >> > > whether or not a drug dog has "alerted" to a potential smell. It's
> >> > > not as though a dog can sign an affidavit? I've known dogs to
> >> display
> >> > > the behavior you describe, for reasons I could not exactly
> >> determine!
> >> > > If human eye witness testimony is so susceptible to error, as is
> >> well
> >> > > documented, are we to trust dog "testimony" as more reliable? Oddly,
> >> > > it just might, in special cases, be more reliable! But a law
> >> > > enforcement officer who was less then thoroughly ethical could
> >> easily
> >> > > claim a drug dog "alerted," to justify a search, when it did not
> >> > > actually alert, correct? And could the dog testify to this lie? No.
> >> > > Using dog "testimony" in a court case presents certain legal
> >> problems.
> >> > > Must the dog be present in court so the accused can face those who
> >> > > accused them? Ridiculous, of course. But given a drug dog as the
> >> > > primary source of the evidence that a crime is being committed,
> >> thus a
> >> > > search that violates the Fourth Amendment is justified, seems
> >> > > questionable by definition, given a dog cannot testify in court.
> >> > > No doubt legal scholars have found a way around this objection.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ted Moffett
> >> > >
> >> > > On 5/21/09, *donald edwards* <donaledwards at hotmail.com
> >> > > <mailto:donaledwards at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks Ted, this is an interesting case you cite. All I could add
> >> > > from what I've seen is that a dog's alert to his owner
> >> > > is very precise. They are usually frantic and tearing at all
> >> > > parts of the vehicle or building because they are excited to do
> >> > > their job and earn their reward. Once they've come across
> >> > > a positive scent they immediately sit and look their trainer
> >> > > directly in the eyes until acknowledged. I don't know their
> >> > > failure rate but could guess it's low from studies I've seen
> >> > > regarding success rates at identifying even invisible skin cancer
> >> > > cells from healthy ones. I also don't know how often they might
> >> > > hit on a previous but empty hiding spot. Apparently 90% of the
> >> > > cash in your wallet contains cocaine residue from passing through
> >> > > drive-thru markets in metro areas. Would that cause a positive
> >> alert?
> >> > >
> >> > > The issue of an officer using his own sense of smell in
> >> > > determining probable cause to take a search further has led to
> >> > > dismissal of cases due to the subjective nature of ones'
> >> > > interpretation of what exactly they are smelling. This led to
> >> > > state mandated courses that they can swear in court as having
> >> > > passed and proven their ability to distinguish certain drugs from
> >> > > say...previous or continuing personal experience or a neighboring
> >> > > skunk, cat piss or Clorox factory.
> >> > >
> >> > > Seems that refusing a search, when other probable cause has
> >> > > already been determined is just another case for probable cause.
> >> > > Just exibiting excessively nervous signs, as most folks who aren't
> >> > > regulary in contact with the police usually are, is used as
> >> > > probable cause all the time. Ever hear the question "Any guns,
> >> > > knives, hand grenades, bodies or nukes in the car?" When a person
> >> > > quickly answers a serious "No Sir!" vs. a slight chuckle or "Huh?
> >> > > Really?" as a person with nothing to hide would probably reply,
> >> > > it's a red flag that an officer may want to just ask if they might
> >> > > search.
> >> > >
> >> > > On the issue of gays in the military...I'd think they have as much
> >> > > right to fight and die for all of our rights to life, liberty and
> >> > > the pursuit of happiness, in spite of their own infringements back
> >> > > home, just as African-Americans did since the civil war.
> >> > >
> >> > > Much to think about, thanks Viz'z!
> >> > >
> >> > > Don
> >> > >
> >> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090522/53a2812c/attachment-0001.html