KBCraig wrote:I've always had a problem with using K9s to establish PC. A K9 can't testify, nor swear out an affidavit for a search warrant. There is no objective way of verifying that the K9 signaled a hit; we have only the handler's word that the dog detected something. When a search subsequent to K9 detection turns up nothing, it's easily excused, but the unwarranted search still happened.
Using a K9 is a search, and should always be treated as such. I know the courts have ruled differently, but the courts have been wrong about lots of other things, too.
But then again, I also hate having to show ID for Sudafed because of the "tweekers". Privacy slowly eroding away...I know from reading on the board that there are several educators with CHL and leave it locked in the car. I even know of a couple of administrators who CHL. It would stink if the dog alerted on one of their vehicles and exposed an otherwise private matter.
That's truly amazing. Here's what is not so amazing or comforting for that matter...I was traveling through Love Field with a friend who had been to Afganistan. He mentioned that he was carrying a canvas bag that he used in Afganistan to haul around RPGs, grenades, ammo, etc. I asked him was he the least bit concerned that the bag might not pass the swab test for explosives. Hey said, "Nah, hasn't happened yet...been through a number of airports." Sure enough, I watched as they swabbed his bag and let us pass.srothstein wrote:If the dog has been properly trained to detect firearms, and is being handled by a properly trained officer, it is that good.
