|Drug dogs are a reminder of similar Police-State
tactics and obsessive Gestapo behavior under the Nat'l Socialist
German Workers Party. http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
The swastika, although an ancient symbol, was also used to represent "S" letters joined for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis), similar to the alphabetical symbolism for the SS Division, the SA, the NSV, and the VW logo (the letters "V" and "W" joined for "Volkswagen"). http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter4a1a2a1.html
Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of Adolf Hitler's "Nazi" salute under
the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis). http://rexcurry.net/pledge7.html
Francis Bellamy & Edward Bellamy touted National Socialism and the police state in the USA decades before their dogma was exported to Germany.
DRUG DOGS USED TO PLANT DRUGS?
Are drug dogs used to plant drugs and to frame people? Some evidence suggests that is the case. http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsframe.html
Note that in one of the articles on the cited web page the government's department claims that the outrageous practice is widespread around the nation. Please alert everyone. Send info to this website of any other jurisdictions that use such "training" methods. Also note that the 3 gram amounts just happen to be the cutoff levels for the stiffer trafficking charge in that jurisdiction.
For more interesting cases involving police dogs see
Another case raises the question whether police steal cocaine that is in evidence and then leave talcum powder in place of the stolen cocaine? Some sniffer dogs were mis-trained to detect cocaine that was borrowed from the evidence room, until someone discovered that the "cocaine" was talcum powder.In another case, Florida cops [*sniff*] "lost" a two-gram packet [*sniff*] of blow used for [*sniff*] training police dogs in a hotel room.
For more information on narcotics dogs go to http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html
Police discontinue drug-training exercise
Man incorrectly charged with crime after cops forget narcotics placed in car to test dogs
By Frank Geary of the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Las Vegas police officers this week will end a long-standing police dog-training practice of placing narcotics inside the vehicles of law-abiding motorists.
For nearly 13 years, Las Vegas officers who work with drug-sniffing dogs had placed police-confiscated narcotics in people's vehicles to test their dogs' ability to sniff out hidden drugs.
The training exercise is common in police agencies nationwide.
A dog is often dispatched to a traffic stop if an officer suspects there are narcotics in a vehicle.
During a true drug search, or after a search is completed, the canine officer would place bags of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine or marijuana in the vehicle as part of the staged exercise.
In response to a recent incident in which a man was incorrectly charged with a crime, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has said the training procedure is inappropriate, and Sheriff Bill Young said last week that the practice will be temporarily terminated.
But canine officers in Las Vegas and police-dog experts insist the training is essential. They say stopping it could put the department at risk if ill-equipped dogs alert on scents other than narcotics.
"We want to expose our dogs to as many different environments as possible," said Las Vegas canine officer Jim Seebock. "We're asking our dogs to go find drugs in filthy conditions, so, if we trained them in a clean environment, then we wouldn't know if they would perform."
The officers acknowledged that not many in the public know they routinely placed illegal drugs in the vehicles of law-abiding citizens.
The training exercise came to light recently after a canine officer forgot to retrieve cocaine from the vehicle of a man who was later charged with drug possession after other investigators found the forgotten drugs in his car.
The motorist, Mark Lilly, was arrested at the scene after he tried to sell fake drugs to an undercover officer. His car was searched after he had been arrested for violating a law that forbids selling fake drugs.
With assistance from the ACLU, Lilly filed a lawsuit against the police department earlier this month. The lawsuit claims he was falsely charged with drug possession.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages in excess of $10,000, also claims the arresting officers violated Lilly's constitutional rights and that the department has a history of inadequately investigating wrongdoing by officers.
Allen Lichtenstein, counsel for the ACLU, said involving citizens' vehicles in dog training sets the stage for police abuse and devastating mistakes like the one that occurred in Lilly's case.
"It's a bad practice. It should cease immediately," Lichtenstein said. "A good rule of thumb is that police should not put drugs in the cars or other property of civilians. There is a potential for all kinds of problems, and it is unnecessary."
The lawsuit came after members of the police department's Citizen Review Board recommended that canine officer David Newton be suspended without pay and that other officers involved in Lilly's arrest be terminated.
Andrea Beckman, director of the Review Board, said last week that board members who reviewed the case are very concerned about the training method.
"The feeling of the board is that there is a grave concern where training exercises are being done during a live investigation," Beckman said. "There is the risk of a mistake. There is the problem of Mr. Lilly potentially driving off with the Metro (police) drugs in the back of his car."
Similar problems haven't surfaced during the past 13 years. But after the Lilly case, Young said he determined that the dangers of the exercise outweigh its benefits.
"Because an officer failed to retrieve a training aid, we have had two other officers accused of making a false arrest. We have people questioning our integrity, and a lot of people question the value, or the need, to place illegal narcotics in a vehicle when we are dealing with a criminal suspect," Young said. "It's a matter of best practices. Could we have avoided all of this by changing a training practice?"
The officers assigned to the canine unit's six drug-sniffing dogs carry heroine, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana with them on patrol.
Each officer carries a four-gram, 14-gram and 28-gram bag of each drug for use in training. Each drug is kept inside a mason jar, and all of the jars are secured inside a locker in the officer's SUV.
The 14 officers and two sergeants in the canine unit each ride with a patrol dog, either a German shepherd or Belgian malinois. Six of the officers also are accompanied by a drug-sniffing canine, which are hunting breeds like Labradors, malinois and springer spaniels.
The narcotics, which are confiscated from suspects in drug cases, are monitored regularly by the officers' superiors and the police crime lab, the officers said.
A supervisor weighs each officer's narcotics monthly to make certain the weight hasn't changed, and the purity or quality of each drug is tested by lab technicians once a year, Sgt. Jay Carlson said.
"We do a lot to make sure our training aids are accounted for," said Carlson, who has been with the canine unit since 1992. "There is no way I can take out my cocaine and replace it. I will get caught."
As a result of the controversy surrounding Lilly's arrest, police started labeling the bag as property of the department. The notice includes the officer's name and phone number in case the training tool is misplaced.
Lt. Kent Bitsko, who oversees the canine unit, said the Lilly incident was a mistake and that better controls are in place as a result, but that similar problems still could arise in the future. Nobody is perfect, he said.
"Our controls are better now than they have ever been, and four years from now they will be even better," Bitsko said. "The shame of it is that it takes something bad to happen to bring it to our attention."
Terry Fleck, deputy sheriff for the Eldorado County sheriff's office in Northern California and a member of the United States Police Canine Association, has trained police dogs all over the country for years.
He said Las Vegas' canine unit is considered one of the best.
Fleck said that training canines during traffic stops is an essential aspect of any good police-dog program. Dogs won't respond appropriately if they are trained, for example, to search officers' private vehicles, cars in a junkyard or some other staged, controlled setting.
To do their job well, the dogs must be able to distinguish the scents of illegal narcotics from myriad odors, such as beer cans, motor oil, perfume and groceries.
And the dogs must learn to locate drugs despite real-life distractions, such as the noise of traffic and strangers looking on.
"It's like night and day," Fleck said of dogs who receive training during traffic stops and those who don't. "If he is distracted by the cars whizzing by or the people or the McDonald's wrapper or whatever is in the car, without the acclimation training, they are going to be distracted just like you would be."
Bob Eden, a canine officer in Delta, British Columbia, who founded the Eden Consulting Group, which trains police dogs for other agencies, said dogs are smart enough to distinguish a rehearsed training exercise from a drug search simulated under real-life circumstances.
If the dogs don't receive in-the-field training, the dog might get lazy and become unreliable when it comes time to find real drugs, he said.
"To get more acclimated to the real-life situation, we want to get them out and give them as much variety as possible so they're acclimated to real world noises, scents and distractions," Eden said."If the dog's capability is lowered due to a lack of training, you might end up with a false indication. We want that dog to not give a false indication, and the only way to do that is to make sure the dog is comfortable in any environment."
ON DRUG DOGS
Playboy Magazine http://rexcurry.net/drugdog.jpg
COPS PLANT POT ? FLWeekly V 29 #
25 June 19 2004 - the attempted murder retrial Andrews 4th DCA D1328
shows the judge finds that cops intended to kill Andrews before he was
stopped, & planted pot in car.
From 2007: Documents Reveal: Cops Planted Pot
on 92-Year Old Woman They Killed in Botched Drug Raid. Atlanta resident Kathryn
Johnston's death has finally been exposed to be a case of police coverup
in clear example of the insanity of the war on drugs. http://www.alternet.org/drugs/51151/
Cops steal cocaine and leave talcum powder? Are they looking for a thief? Maybe. Did villains get away with it? Maybe. Should you be concerned about police?
Talcum dog team leave red faces
Mr Evans admitted seven of the state's elite drug sniffer dogs had to be retrained after spending more than five months on Melbourne's streets unable to track cocaine because they were mistakenly trained to detect the drug with talcum powder.
He said initial investigation had indicated the talcum powder may have been mislabelled as cocaine by police, but conceded that there may be a more sinister explanation.
"This is an embarrassing incident ... That's why we are having a full investigation. We need to drill down and find out what's going on," Mr Evans said.
Police discovered they were using talcum powder to train the dogs to detect cocaine during an internal audit, Mr Evans said.
"The good news is this has been picked up early by our internal processes. We also expect to be able to quickly track down any lost babies."
Mr Evans said
police had not charged anyone with the possession of misidentified talcum
powder, but conceded it was possible the dogs had failed to detect the
presence of cocaine on suspects.
Mar. 28, 2005 from the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Vin Suprynowicz
EDITORIAL: Metro cop planted drugs in suspect's car Sheriff says suspensions will suffice
There have long been rumors that police canine officers carry around small quantities of contraband drugs which they can use to contaminate a motorist's car, causing their dogs to "alert" on the vehicle and thus justifying an otherwise illegal search of the interior and its occupants.
Many have dismissed such stories as an urban legend.
But what would happen if a group of Las Vegas Metropolitan police officers were actually found to have participated in such an activity? Would all be forgiven with a wrist-slap, if they merely said it was "a mistake"?
While officers were in the process of arresting local resident Mark Lilly last July on suspicion of selling harmless legal substances and claiming they were narcotics, an official police spokesman now admits, canine officer David Newton placed real controlled drugs in Mr. Lilly's vehicle. He has since contended he did so "as a training exercise" for his dog.
It seems pointless to ask whether contaminating active crime scenes is an accepted time, method, or location for a canine "training exercise." A better question might be what Officer Newton was doing carrying narcotics to an active crime scene in the first place. Has he been charged with possession of those narcotics? Were they of a quantity that would get anyone else automatically charged with "possession with intent to sell"?
Police next expect us to believe officer Newton "forgot" he had placed the drugs in the car, whereupon officers Kevin Collmar and David Parker searched the car, found the planted drugs, and charged Mr. Lilly with possession of actual controlled drugs without proper licenses or prescriptions.
To his credit, canine officer Newton subsequently filled out a notice to the prosecutor that he himself had possessed and planted the drugs, and that the charge should be dropped.
But that notice somehow "never made it to the prosecutor," contends Las Vegas Police Deputy Chief Mike Ault, who oversees internal investigations.
Officers Parker and Collmar then proceeded to testify against Mr. Lilly at his preliminary hearing, failing to mention to the prosecutor (or the court, presumably) that the possession charge should have been dropped since the drugs had been planted by police.
Mr. Lilly was ordered to stand trial in District Court. This generally entails considerable expense and inconvenience. Charges were not dropped until officer Jeffrey Huyer notified the prosecution.
Internal Affairs investigators concluded Parker and Collmar "neglected their duty" -- an awfully polite way to put it.
On Feb. 17, the often toothless Las Vegas Police Citizen Review Board found some backbone, recommending these officers be fired because they had filed a false report and lied in court.
But apparently those aren't firing offenses in the department of Sheriff Bill Young. Instead, Sheriff Young said Thursday he will suspend these two officers without pay, since the drugs were not placed in Mr. Lilly's vehicle "intentionally."
Is the sheriff now contending the drugs fell out of officer Newton's pocket accidentally? That he was actually planning to distribute them at a retirement party down at the precinct house later that night? Then what was all that hoo-hah about "conducting a training exercise"? And -- again -- what possible legitimate purpose could a canine officer have for carrying his own narcotics to a live crime scene?
Did we just forget to take our "dumb" pills today?
Joining in this bizarre defense of such police behavior, Las Vegas Police Protective Association President Dave Kallas opines "I am at least glad that the department realized the Citizen Review Board recommendation was extreme and certainly not reasonable."
Mr. Lilly, whose car was auctioned off after it was impounded, insists "It was no mistake. They knew what they were doing. It was a setup."
Sheriff Young's wrist-slap punishment "raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire criminal justice system in Southern Nevada," says Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada.
That's an understatement.
How many other drug busts have officer Newton and his trained pooch helped facilitate? How many have served time after one of these little "training exercises"? How large a stash of contraband drugs does the officer possess, where did he get it, and what's it for? How much will taxpayers end up paying to settle the promised lawsuit from the falsely accused Mr. Lilly?
Sheriff Young and his investigators apparently don't care. Case closed.
DO TSA THUGS FRAME PEOPLE? Many airport employees double as paid informers for the police. The Drug Enforcement Administration usually pays them 10 percent of any money seized, says Capt. Judy Bawcum, head of the Nashville police division that runs an airport unit. It is an incentive for lies and frame-ups.
It was no joke at security gate
By Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
Posted on Thu, Jan. 21, 2010
In the tense new world of air travel, we're stripped of shoes, told not to take too much shampoo on board, frowned on if we crack a smile.
The last thing we expect is a joke from a Transportation Security Administration screener - particularly one this stupid.
Rebecca Solomon is 22 and a student at the University of Michigan, and on Jan. 5 she was flying back to school after holiday break. She made sure she arrived at Philadelphia International Airport 90 minutes before takeoff, given the new regulations.
She would be flying into Detroit on Northwest Airlines, the same city and carrier involved in the attempted bombing on Christmas, just 10 days before. She was tense.
What happened to her lasted only 20 seconds, but she says they were the longest 20 seconds of her life.
After pulling her laptop out of her carry-on bag, sliding the items through the scanning machines, and walking through a detector, she went to collect her things.
A TSA worker was staring at her. He motioned her toward him.
Then he pulled a small, clear plastic bag from her carry-on - the sort of baggie that a pair of earrings might come in. Inside the bag was fine, white powder.
She remembers his words: "Where did you get it?"
Two thoughts came to her in a jumble: A terrorist was using her to sneak bomb-detonating materials on the plane. Or a drug dealer had made her an unwitting mule, planting coke or some other trouble in her bag while she wasn't looking.
She'd left her carry-on by her feet as she handed her license and boarding pass to a security agent at the beginning of the line.
Answer truthfully, the TSA worker informed her, and everything will be OK.
Solomon, 5-foot-3 and traveling alone, looked up at the man in the black shirt and fought back tears.
Put yourself in her place and count out 20 seconds. Her heart pounded. She started to sweat. She panicked at having to explain something she couldn't.
Now picture her expression as the TSA employee started to smile.
Just kidding, he said. He waved the baggie. It was his.
And so she collected her things, stunned, and the tears began to fall.
Another passenger, a woman traveling to Colorado, consoled her as others who had witnessed the confrontation went about their business. Solomon and the woman walked to their gates, where each called for security and reported what had happened.
A joke? You're not serious. Was he hitting on her? Was he flexing his muscle? Who at a time of heightened security and rattled nerves would play so cavalierly with a passenger's emotions?
When someone is trying to blow planes out of the sky, what is a TSA employee doing with his eyes off the ball?
When she complained to airport security, Solomon said, she was told the TSA worker had been training the staff to detect contraband. She was shocked that no one took him off the floor, she said.
"It was such a violation," the Wynnewood native told me by phone. "I'd come early. I'd done everything right. And they were kidding about it."
I ran her story past Ann Davis, regional TSA spokeswoman, who said she knew nothing to contradict the young traveler's account.
Davis said privacy law prevents her from identifying the TSA employee. The law prevents her from disclosing what sort of discipline he might have received.
"The TSA views this employee's behavior to be highly inappropriate and unprofessional," she wrote. "We can assure travelers this employee has been disciplined by TSA management at Philadelphia International Airport, and he has expressed remorse for his actions."
Maybe he's been punished enough. That Solomon's father, Jeffrey, is a Center City litigator might mean this story isn't over.
In the meantime, I think the TSA worker should spend time following passengers through the scanners, handing them their shoes. Maybe he could tie them, too.
Update: Ann Davis, the TSA spokeswoman, said this afternoon that the worker is no longer employed by the agency as of today. She said privacy laws prevented her from saying if he was fired or left on his own.
Someone wrote: I wonder how many times that similar 'jokes' have been perpetrated on the flying public?
Not that they don't have it coming, of course, for ENABLING government thugs (whether by flying or by voting) at the outset. Tyrants don't
exist in a vacuum, people. They exist because their victims-to-be LET them exist.
Once a victim,
Twice a volunteer,
Thrice an enabler.
|Immigrants and Americans were persecuted by government
schools (socialist schools) and by the Pledge of Allegiance. See
images & articles at http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html
For fascinating information about symbolism see http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
Hear audio on worldwide radio at http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html
Two LV police officers to be disciplined
Sheriff admits mistakes were made but says drugs were not put in suspect's
by Frank Geary Las Vegas Review-Journal
Sheriff Bill Young said Thursday he will suspend without pay two officers involved in the arrest of a man charged with drug possession after a canine officer placed the narcotics in the man's car as an exercise for his drug-sniffing dog.
The decision to suspend officers Kevin Collmar and David Parker came a month after the Las Vegas police Citizen Review Board recommended that the officers be fired.
Board members concluded the officers filed a false report and that they lied in court. "They make good officers look bad," according to the board's Feb. 17 findings.
Young said the unpaid suspensions were appropriate, in part because the drugs were not placed in suspect Mark Lilly's vehicle intentionally.
"We did a thorough investigation on this. A couple officers made some errors, but there was nothing done by the police officers to cause further harm," Young said.
Police said Lilly offered to sell narcotics to an undercover officer in Las Vegas in July. A search of his vehicle and found fake drugs, police said. Lilly was charged with violating a law that forbids selling bogus narcotics, said Deputy Chief Mike Ault, who oversees internal investigations.
But canine officer David Newton then placed real drugs in Lilly's vehicle as a training exercise for his dog. The officer forgot the drugs, and Lilly was charged with drug possession after other officers searched his vehicle.
Newton soon discovered the mistake and filled out a notice to a prosecutor so the possession charge would be dropped. But the notice never made it to the prosecutor, Ault said.
Parker and Collmar then testified at Lilly's preliminary hearing and failed to mention to the prosecutor that the possession charge should have been dropped, Ault said.
A judge then ordered Lilly to stand trial in District Court. The possession charge wasn't dropped until officer Jeffrey Guyer notified the prosecutor after the preliminary hearing.
A disciplinary letter was put in Newton's personnel file for his actions after the arrest.
Internal-affairs investigators determined Parker and Collmar neglected their duty and that Parker didn't prepare for court as required.
Young declined to say how long the suspensions will last. Both can appeal the punishments. If they are successful, the officers could be suspended for fewer days or not disciplined at all.
Dave Kallas, president of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association and a Review Board critic, declined to comment on the suspensions without knowing the duration of each. But he applauded the sheriff for not following the Review Board's advice.
"I am at least glad that the department realized the Citizen Review Board recommendation was extreme and certainly not reasonable," Kallas said.
Lilly, who said his car was auctioned off by the Police Department after it was impounded, said the officers should be terminated and arrested for intentionally planting drugs in his car.
"It was no mistake. They knew what they were doing. It was a setup. If it was anybody else, they would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Lilly said. "They don't cut any corners for criminals. Why should they for cops?"
|DRUG DOG CASES
From Forensic Magazine, a short article on studies on dog sniffs. Note the mention of the “Rosenthal effect”, the subconscious cues the handler can give the scent dog. (Essentially the same problem one encounters with confirmation bias and non-blind tests.) http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=86
Drug dog alert cannot be used to get warrant for a home? More leashes for drug dogs. The police may not use a drug dog alert outside the defendant's home to obtain probable cause for a warrant to search the home, the Fourth DCA ruled February 15, 2006. State v. Rabb, ___ So. 2d ___, 31 F.L.W. D510 (4th DCA 2/15/2006). The case can be viewed at http://www.4dca.org/Feb2006/02-15-06/4D02-5139.op.pdf or under the "opinions" section at http://www.4dca.org and then looking under the 2/15/06 opinion date, or try an internet search for the case name. When the government should chase robbers, the government chases Rabb (for pot). The government robbed Rabb of his pot? The lengthy decision, extensively discussing the use of non-traditional methods of obtaining evidence for warrants, was issued upon remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Rabb, 125 S. Ct. 2246 (2005). On May 16, 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in case # 04-914 had granted a petition for a writ of certiorari the earlier Rabb appeals judgment was vacated and the case was remanded to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, for further consideration in light of Illinois v. Caballes (2005). The police got an anonymous tip that defendant was growing marijuana in his home. They made a traffic stop of defendant and found marijuana, and they then took a drug dog to his home. The dog alerted on the residence, and the officers stated that they could smell marijuana at the front door. They obtained a warrant, and the search revealed growing marijuana. "Given the shroud of protection wrapped around a house by the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), controls the outcome of the case at bar. In Kyllo, law enforcement, believing Kyllo to be growing marijuana in his house, employed an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan his house and reveal heat signatures. Id. at 29. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of the roof and one wall of the house were relatively hot compared to the remainder of the house and surrounding houses. Id. at 30. As a result, law enforcement concluded that Kyllo was employing halide lamps to grow marijuana. Id. Combined with further information gathered, law enforcement obtained a warrant and discovered in excess of one hundred marijuana plants in Kyllo's house. Id. Kyllo was charged with manufacturing marijuana and moved to suppress the marijuana evidence seized from his house based on the use of the thermal imager. Id. The trial court and appellate court determined that use of the thermal imager did not amount to a search of Kyllo's house. Id. at 30-31. "The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding: "We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search -- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. Id. at 34. The Court also noted: "The Government maintains, however, that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected 'only heat radiating from the external surface of the house.' . . . We rejected such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Katz, [another vice case -gambling case- see the bottom of this page] where the eavesdropping device picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology -- including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude, the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development. 533 U.S. at 35-36. ... We now turn to the intersection between the staunchly-protected house, as discussed in Kyllo, and law enforcement's use of dog sniffs by trained canines to detect contraband. It is true that the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983), that 'the particular course of investigation that the agents intended to pursue here -- exposure of respondent's luggage, which was located in a public place, to a trained canine -- did not constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.' Id. at 707. The rationale for the holding is that 'the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item.' Id. In Place, the United States Supreme Court was not addressing the use of law enforcement investigatory techniques at a house as in Kyllo, but rather only whether a dog sniff of luggage in a public airport constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The function of 'place' in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was instrumental in the decision in Place. "'Place' is no less key in the case at bar. We are of the view that luggage located in a public airport is quite different from a house, not only in physical attributes, but also in the historical protection granted by law. In United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1366 (2d Cir. 1985), the Second Circuit compared the dog sniff of luggage in Place with that of an apartment, and concluded that "a practice that is not intrusive in a public airport may be intrusive when employed at a person's home.' The rationale for this conclusion is that "the defendant had a legitimate expectation that the contents of his closed apartment would remain private, that they could not be 'sensed' from outside his door. Use of the trained dog impermissibly intruded on that legitimate expectation.' Id. 1367. "This logic is no different than that expressed in Kyllo, one of the recent pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court on law enforcement searches of houses. The use of the dog, like the use of a thermal imager, allowed law enforcement to use sense-enhancing technology to intrude into the constitutionally-protected area of Rabb's house, which is reasonably considered a search violative of Rabb's expectation of privacy in his retreat. Likewise, it is of no importance that a dog sniff provides limited information regarding only the presence or absence of contraband, because as in Kyllo, the quality or quantity of information obtained through the search is not the feared injury. Rather, it is the fact that law enforcement endeavored to obtain the information from inside the house at all, or in this case, the fact that a dog's sense of smell crossed the 'firm line' of Fourth Amendment protection at the door of Rabb's house. Because the smell of marijuana had its source in Rabb's house, it was an 'intimate detail' of that house, no less so than the ambient temperature inside Kyllo's house. Until the United States Supreme Court indicates otherwise, therefore, we are bound to conclude that the use of a dog sniff to detect contraband inside a house does not pass constitutional muster. The dog sniff at the house in this case constitutes an illegal search." An earlier case in State v. Rabb is from 4th DCA 09/14/05 at http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202005/09-14-05/4D02-5139.pdf
Illinois v. Caballes, 03-923 Supreme Court to Rule on Drug Dogs in Traffic Stops WASHINGTON, April 5 2004. Audio recordings of the oral arguments in Caballes can be heard or downloaded at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1751/ The reading of the opinion can also be heard at that url. When Roy Caballes was pulled over by an Illinois state trooper for speeding on a rainy night in 1998, the incident did not seem to be grist for a Supreme Court case. But as Mr. Caballes's car was sitting beside Interstate 80 in La Salle County, another trooper arrived with a police dog. The dog sniffed around it for the presence of drugs, and marijuana was found in the trunk. Mr. Caballes was given only a warning for speeding (he had been clocked at 71 miles an hour in a 65 m.p.h. zone), but he was in big trouble because of the marijuana, since he had prior drug-related arrests. The 1998 arrest resulted in a conviction on marijuana-trafficking charges, a sentence of 12 years in prison and a fine of more than $250,000. Mr. Caballes appealed, contending that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence of the drugs found in the trunk and thrown out the arrest because the police had improperly widened the bounds of an ordinary traffic stop. An Illinois appeals court rejected Mr. Caballes's argument, finding that the sniff by the dog was justified. But the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the defendant, ruling 4 to 3 that the sniff was conducted without "specific and articulable facts" and throwing out the conviction. The Illinois justices said the fact that the aroma of air-freshener was obvious in the defendant's car and his apparent nervousness even after being told he was being given only a warning for speeding could account for "nothing more than a vague hunch" on the part of the troopers, not a sufficient basis to let the dog sniff. (One fact not explained in any of the legal paperwork is why Mr. Caballes was pulled over in the first place, since he was going a mere 6 m.p.h. over the limit.) In any event, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, has appealed the Illinois Supreme Court ruling. So within the next several months, the United States Supreme Court will rule on Mr. Caballes's fate, and perhaps clarify when a sniff is a search, and when it is just a sniff. It is yet another in a series of cases weighing police officers' power to look for wrongdoing against the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In a Michigan case from more than a decade ago, the justices upheld sobriety checkpoints as a means of protecting public safety by getting drunken drivers off the road. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a sniff by a drug-detecting dog, which is commonly used at airports, is so minimally intrusive as not to constitute a search.
But in a 2000 case from Indianapolis, the justices ruled that roadblocks aimed at discovering drugs violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority held that "the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime" was insufficient justification for wholesale stops.
US v. Robinson 6th Circuit (argued Oct 2003) Whether an "ancient" sniff trained dog is sufficient for probable cause that marijuana is present at the time of the sniff is an issue. A significant issue remains as to whether the dog is trained to quantitative amounts or to historic presence, i.e. that marijuana has been present sometime in the past but may not be there at the time of the sniff.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), Docket Number: 99-8508 audio is at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1304/ A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall." Question Presented: Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Conclusion: Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."
|OTHER SUPPRESSION CASES
An Eleventh Circuit case struck down mandatory metal detectors for protest attendees. BOURGEOIS v. PETERS at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf
It struck down a city police policy requiring everyone attending a November 2002 protest against the "School of the Americas" to pass through a metal detector violated the Fourth and First Amendments.
The court's opinion is particularly notable for its rebuke of the city's effort to justify use of the metal detector based on 9/11:
The City's brief begins with the bold declaration that "[l]ocal governments need an opinion that, without question, allows non-discriminatory, low-level magnetometer searches at large gatherings." Appellees' Brief at 13. Citing nothing more than a single case from 1980, the City contends that "[p]ost September 11, 2001, this Court can determine [that] the preventive measure of a magnetometer at large gatherings is constitutional as a matter of law." Id. (citing Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 606 (1980)).
A great case, it is also perplexing for another reason: It cites Wikipedia, an anonymous bulletin board (touted as an online collaborative encyclopedia), for information on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory System. It might be one of only two times that a court has cited Wikipedia, the other being Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004), a Michigan Supreme Court case, which cites Wikipedia for information on positional asphyxia.
Police officers said "If you don't consent to search, we'll kill this dog!" http://rexcurry.net/dog4.jpg
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Decided December 18, 1967: Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari. Question Presented: Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? Conclusion: Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection. The government gambles away freedom by chasing Katz. Putting a leash on politicians is like herding cats.
The Sheriff said "I'll kill myself if you don't waive your rights!" http://rexcurry.net/police-state-sheriff-blazing-saddles.jpg
Dr. Rex Curry exposed the myths about drug dogs, sniffer dogs, police dogs, drug detection dogs, narco dogs, bomb dogs, explosives dogs, narcotics dogs, and police searches and seizures http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html