Page 2 of 2
Re: US Supreme Court: Dog Sniffs
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:07 pm
by mojo84
Is searching one innocent good guy justification enough if it actually catches 10 bad guys? If it wasn't effective, they wouldn't be doing it.
I bet the ratio is closer 10 searches to net 1 or 2 bad guys. Same with pretextual traffic stops.
Re: US Supreme Court: Dog Sniffs
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:50 pm
by Daisy Cutter
SCOTUS 1969, police can lie during interrogation. This makes them non-credible in my view when interacting in a stop. Its sad that the law-abiding have to resort to video to try to preserve their rights.
Now if someone would invent a cheap gas chromatograph that would provide real-time uploadable cabin air data, to defeat the phony "I smell weed" search pretext, that would be a step in the right direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: US Supreme Court: Dog Sniffs
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:27 am
by cb1000rider
Daisy Cutter wrote: Its sad that the law-abiding have to resort to video to try to preserve their rights.
What's sad is that we have police departments that object to making changes that would protect good officers from bad circumstances, decrease the use of force (liability), and decrease the number of complaints that come from the public.