^
That's a good point, actually. I feel like bringing along a dog should count as searching.

4/22/2015 2:58:24 PM

but it's not searching. it's sniffing the perfectly legal air surrounding your car.

4/22/2015 3:01:18 PM

Beethoven-

Again the court case above is nothing NEW, it's just been clarified. But new laws/case law/changes are taught yearly at in-service training required by the state.

4/22/2015 3:35:16 PM

What does that mean for protocol in the meantime? Do you see a lot of cases that come back? Or informal training to keep people up to date? It seems like a lot could change in the course of the year, and you don't want people walking free because of law updates.

4/22/2015 3:50:45 PM

Speaking for my department, online training comes out shortly after new case law and or new laws/city codes etc.

Then when the yearly in-service comes around that is state mandated we hear it again. We usually get everything twice.

4/22/2015 4:08:51 PM

Thanks for your reply.

4/22/2015 4:12:11 PM

Quote :

"But TKE-Teg, this actually isn't anything new at all. I'm not sure if the supreme court just revisited the issue to make a more clear judgement or what, but this is how it's been for as long as I've been a cop."

not being able to make anyone wait at all is a big change, this is different. there is now no such thing as a reasonable amount of time, you can't extend a stop for any amount of time.

this is good because sniff searches are some of the most BS bullshit out there

4/23/2015 8:31:23 AM

It's not really new though. The Supreme Court saying no time at all is really how it was before. To extend a stop beyond the reasonable amount of time to conduct the particular stop you were on always takes additional reasonable articulatable suspicion.

Though I'm sure somewhere out there, where this particular case came from to reach Supreme Court, there were agencies pushing this "grey area" of time to where it's not legitimately a reasonable amount of time. I could see this happening in rural areas where getting a K9 to your traffic stop takes an exuberant amount of time.

In the city it takes much less time and can easily be done within the normal amount of time that a traffic stop takes. Especially if they are on stand by with you doing highway interdiction or something of the sort.

I can see how you may think K9's are BS, but at least in my agency and experience they are very strict with training and competency of the dogs and the state standards (I don't know the exact terms for their lisences and standards)... I do know that our K9's get cut early if they don't meet the handlers expectations and state requirements etc... Some of our K9's are very good at drug detection and some are not. But I have never ever seen a handler make a dog alert at something that wasn't there..

4/23/2015 9:32:10 AM

no

try to follow this:

reasonable time =/= no additional time

no additional time = 0 extra time

reasonable time > no additional time

Quote :

" it's sniffing the perfectly legal air surrounding your car."

by dogs that have been shown to have incredibly high false positives, that are often not updated on training. they can claim the dog alerted to anything they want to, it's awesome for them.

[Edited on April 23, 2015 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2015 9:37:31 AM

dtownral, Try to follow along, no one said anything about ADDING time, the only way time could be added is for established reasonable articulatable suspicion that another crime is occurring beyond the original traffic stop (detainment at it's lowest level) or probable cause.

As I was mentioning, A sniff of a vehicle can correctly occur while the officer who stopped the vehicle is completing the checks and tickets/warning tickets whatever, without adding time to do so unless RAS/PC exists.

Here an important quote from the case law itself:

Quote :

"An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But contrary to JUSTICE ALITO’s suggestion, post, at 4, n. 2, he may not do so in away that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspi­cion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individ­ual. But see post, at 1–2 (ALITOJ., dissenting) (premising opinion on the dissent’s own finding of “reasonable suspi­cion,” although the District Court reached the opposite conclusion, and the Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue). Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, anofficer’s mission includes “ordinary inquiries incident to[the traffic] stop.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 408. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, de­termining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s regis­tration and proof of insurance. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–660 (1979). See also 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.3(c"

The problem with this stop the reached the supreme court is that this all occurred after the warning ticket was issued. Once enforcement action has been taken, the detainment ends. The only thing you can hang on to at this point is consent.

There is still debate with even the court justices about this, and it will be revisited to make it even more clear I'm sure...

4/23/2015 10:30:45 AM

no

Quote :

"The Government argues that an officer may “incremental[ly]” prolong a stop to conduct a dog sniff so long as the officer is reasonably diligent in pursuing the traffic-related purpose of the stop, and the overall duration of the stop remains reasonable in relation to the duration of other traffic stops involving similar circumstances. Brief for United States 36–39. The Government’s argument, in effect, is that by completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation. [...] The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6. "

this is a difference, can't use a dog to gain reasonable suspicion, using a dog adds time


[Edited on April 23, 2015 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2015 10:44:24 AM

You can still use dogs if they don't add time, and that is feasible. So, if one officer is sitting in the car writing up the ticket, searching insurance, etc., then the other office can use the dogs. Obviously, if you're delaying the writing of the ticket, or taking an unreasonable amount of time to conduct your stop, just to justify getting the dogs there, you can't do that. But if the dogs are riding around in your backseat, it's not going to add time.

4/23/2015 10:52:17 AM

Not if used correctly..

In this case the issue was: A. the officer who stopped the vehicle was the canine officer, so he had to wait for another officer to arrive on scene so that he was able to safely do the sniff and B. He had already issued the warning.

Used in a correct manor, for like highway interdiction purposes, officer one stops the car, canine officer immediately checks in and begins the sniff while officer one completes checks and writes ticket/warning whatever..

Not extending the stop unless the dog provides further probable cause, or other reasonable suspicion arises to extend the detainment past the point of the original stop (traffic violation vs and additional crime occurring at the same time)

4/23/2015 10:53:24 AM

doesn't matter, police are just as likely to shoot a mofo at this point.

(ok so I'm kinda trolling but kinda not).

4/23/2015 11:07:19 AM

^^ it doesn't matter if the other cop hadn't written the ticket yet, they can't delay anything

4/23/2015 11:24:13 AM

is it ever legitimate police procedure to strip a dead woman who's lying on the road? this is a serious question. the specific circumstances (though you've probably run into this story already) are

Quote :

"A lawsuit alleging that members of the Cook County Sheriff's Office illegally stripped a young woman who died in a drunk-driving accident and photographed her naked body... ...alleges that after the Cook County Sheriff's department arrived at the scene, the responding officers stripped Mejia of her clothes in clear view of various onlookers and proceeded to take pictures of her naked body. While the sheriff's department at first denied that such an event had ever taken place, they eventually relented, claiming that photographs were taken as part of the "standard operating procedure" of documenting a crime scene. Cara Smith, a spokeswoman for the sheriff's department stated that officers acted appropriately and were trying to preserve evidence, which was later used to convict Mejia's boyfriend, Nicholas Sord. "

4/23/2015 11:27:53 AM

She wasn't lying on the road, she was orignally in the back of the car dead. They removed her, stripped her, and took pictures.

4/23/2015 11:31:35 AM

^
nice catch, actually.

Quote :

"One set of photos shows Mejia, lifeless, in the back seat of the vehicle: She is wearing jeans, a white T-shirt and high heels. Other shots show her on a tarp on the ground, naked except for her lower undergarment."

4/23/2015 11:37:09 AM

Quote :

"You can still use dogs if they don't add time, and that is feasible. So, if one officer is sitting in the car writing up the ticket, searching insurance, etc., then the other office can use the dogs. Obviously, if you're delaying the writing of the ticket, or taking an unreasonable amount of time to conduct your stop, just to justify getting the dogs there, you can't do that. But if the dogs are riding around in your backseat, it's not going to add time."

Next question please.

4/23/2015 12:08:56 PM

^^^^, ^^.

4/23/2015 12:09:58 PM

Quote :

" But if the dogs are riding around in your backseat, it's not going to add time."

if the dog is in the backseat, you would also need another officer in the passenger seat

4/23/2015 12:40:35 PM

This is regarding the Texas incident. What is the legal obligation for the police and city to provide security for an obviously incendiary event that there is a reasonable probabilty of something happening? I'm not talking about an organic protest or event but rather a deliberate attempt to fan the flames of hate.

To me this is a case where the event organizers should be made to hire private security.

[Edited on May 7, 2015 at 9:27 AM. Reason : X]

5/7/2015 9:27:13 AM

There is a long history of police protecting radical and incendiary planned actions (e.g. protecting KKK marches, etc...), and weren't the police officers all hired and paid by the event?

5/7/2015 9:35:18 AM

Maybe. Though wasn't SWAT involved?

5/7/2015 9:38:10 AM

i thought they hired them

5/7/2015 9:44:28 AM

here is proof they arrest people at their own house for public intoxication
http://www.kcci.com/news/iowa-supreme-court-affirms-right-to-be-drunk-on-front-porch/33546198

6/12/2015 11:31:09 PM

I just saw a video on facebook where cops tazed and pepper sprayed a man who was having a stroke.

6/13/2015 8:57:18 AM

I just saw a video where cops raided a pot shop then ate the edibles

http://ktla.com/2015/06/11/video-of-santa-ana-police-pot-shop-raid-shows-officers-eating-edibles-attorney-says/

6/13/2015 9:20:01 AM

^ that some super troopers shit

6/13/2015 12:59:21 PM

My sister has been pulled over by the same cop a few times...small town.

This latest time he said that he typed her plate number in wrong (X instead of K) and it said her tags were revoked (they're not...cars completely legal) so he pulled her. I'm not sure how, but a joint was identified in her car during the stop so she got a ticket for that. During the stop the cop was asking her phone number, closest relative and that relatives phone number and address, the county she was born in, and finally asked if she was pregnant (not that it matters, but she's pretty damn skinny).

On an earlier occasion she was pulled for not wearing her seat belt when she was definitely wearing it (according to her).

Same cop has also been to her house to deliver papers related to a restraining order. And there's one other stop I can't remember the details on.

The latter two things are whatever, but it seems a pattern is being established...and I'm wondering what all those questions are about on the latest stop.

6/13/2015 1:34:16 PM

Sounds sketch.

He might be on some perv shit like that state trooper James Crouch exposed. I think that trooper was eventually banned from testifying in court, and subsequently fired. He was profiling college girls for late night traffic stops and then trying to ask them out on dates, even if he arrested them.

6/13/2015 1:55:40 PM

^ and that was one reason the old wake DA Colon Willoughby went after James

James hurt his pride

6/13/2015 6:29:13 PM

Quote :

"and I'm wondering what all those questions are about on the latest stop."

Minus the pregnancy question, those are pretty normal things to ask in some departments. Some officers put that info on their copy of the citation so they can find you in case you don't show up for court.

Quote :

"The latter two things are whatever, but it seems a pattern is being established.."

No offense as I don't know you or your sister, but could the pattern be that she simply breaks the law often? I've stopped some people multiple times, even physically arrested the same guy on four different occasions, and I work in a pretty good size city.

6/30/2015 2:30:23 PM

Quote :

"could the pattern be that she simply breaks the law often?"

Sure, if she's lying to me. The way she tells it he's always pulling her for wearing a seatbelt when she has it on. Who knows.

6/30/2015 2:52:43 PM

When was the last time you rode with her? Have you looked to see if she wears her belt? It may be hard to believe, but some people will lie about breaking the law...

On the other hand, how many times has she been pulled for seatbelt violations and how many times has she been cited for a seatbelt violation? If a cop has pulled someone for the same violation more than once or twice and not cited them then you've gotta wonder why.

6/30/2015 9:46:12 PM

What do you see yourself doing in 5, 10 years? Going to make it a career thing?

7/31/2015 12:02:08 AM

do yall see other officers and think to yourselves "you aren't the right person for this job"

7/31/2015 7:24:25 AM

Quote :

"What do you see yourself doing in 5, 10 years? Going to make it a career thing?"

5 years? I'll be in on our street level narcotics team or handling a dog.
10 years? I'll be a supervisor, most likely on patrol.

It's pretty much a career for me

Quote :

"do yall see other officers and think to yourselves "you aren't the right person for this job""

Yup. Some are too badge heavy, some are too afraid, some are down right inept.

7/31/2015 8:45:28 AM

you'll be pushing paper.

7/31/2015 8:56:31 AM

Any chance I can get the Wolf Web Discount if you ever pull me over?

7/31/2015 9:04:56 AM

The last three NCSU students I've pulled over have all denied being Wolfwebbers and or didn't know what I was talking about.

7/31/2015 10:09:54 AM

What percentage of your fellow officers would you say are genuinely stupid? Evil? Actually in it for the right reason (sense of civic pride, desire to protect those in need, etc)?

7/31/2015 8:35:32 PM

A cop can't just be a cop bc he thinks he would be good at it and enjoy the work, like everyone else in the world?

7/31/2015 8:50:11 PM

What are the coins the brass give out for ?? "Challenge coins"?

8/12/2015 7:18:05 PM

Quote :

"A cop can't just be a cop bc he thinks he would be good at it and enjoy the work, like everyone else in the world?"

The water is pretty gray, considering all 3 options presented.

[Edited on August 13, 2015 at 12:43 AM. Reason : ^ the military does that...so by extension, i'd imagine cops do too. ]

8/13/2015 12:42:00 AM

Yeah but what are they good for? I just got one from the FBI director and i'm like wtf do i use this for?

8/13/2015 6:38:06 AM

Historically, they were to prove membership. If you claimed to be of a certain organization and someone "challenged" that claim, you could pull out your coin and prove them. Now they are just given out for collection, appreciation, etc. I have amassed several from other agencies over the years (mainly for helping them out w/ investigations, etc).

8/13/2015 6:47:24 AM

Are you ever riding around in your personal car, sitting in traffic, and just wish you could flip on a siren and get through?

8/23/2015 8:42:12 PM

What do the police drive in your city? What would you rather drive?

DC has

8/24/2015 2:17:00 PM

Quote :

"Are you ever riding around in your personal car, sitting in traffic, and just wish you could flip on a siren and get through?"

My wife does all the driving.

Quote :

"What do the police drive in your city? What would you rather drive?"

I've driven every police car out there. I really enjoyed the new(ish) Caprice. The newest Charger is really nice (especially w/ AWD). If I had my choice, it would be one of the Tahoe PPVs (4x4 version).

8/25/2015 6:55:02 AM