Another Warrantless Aircraft Search ( Iowa)

EdFred said:
I think the question was more along the lines of how many times has the dog been alerted, and how many of those times was nothing found.
Click to expand...

And I reiterate my answer. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. If the handler wants the dog to jump, it jumps.
 
Simply stated, even if the inspector/officer has probable cause you have the right to deny a search unless he has a warrant. OTOH, if there are two bags of 'grass' in plain sight expect handcuffs.
 
Norman said:
Simply stated, even if the inspector/officer has probable cause you have the right to deny a search unless he has a warrant. OTOH, if there are two bags of 'grass' in plain sight expect handcuffs.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that?

The probable cause exception is well known.
 
docmirror said:
And I reiterate my answer. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. If the handler wants the dog to jump, it jumps.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't answer the question.

The question is "what % of the time that the dog jumps is nothing found?"

You'd be better off answering a color to a math question. Then again you can't figure out the difference between paper and paperwork, so I'm not surprised.
 
MAKG1 said:
That would be Cal. Or if you're over 60 or so, Calif. But most of us can handle a few extra letters.

It isn't "Frisco" either. That's in Colorado.
Click to expand...

LL Cool J disagrees with you.

also...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079180/

and

The St. Louis–San Francisco Railway (affectionately known as the “Frisco”) was a St. Louis-based railroad that operated in nine Midwest and southern states from 1876 to 1980.

The railroad stretched from Kansas City to Pensacola and St. Louis to Oklahoma City and Dallas, having some of the most iconic motive power, logos and slogans in the history of railroading. The Frisco was also renowned for excellent passenger service led by some of the best-looking steam locomotives ever built, and celebrated for fast freight hauling behind steam locomotives of its own design as well as diesels in the later era.

Born as a branch of the great Pacific Railroad project of the mid-19th Century, the Frisco became a separate entity that helped to feed the population of a growing nation, helped build its factories and ship those factories’ products, helped win two World Wars, and helped to carry Americans East and West, North and South in style and comfort. In the 104 years of its separate existence, it became a major corporation that provided the best service possible to its customers while treating its employees like a big family, never losing the homey touch enshrined in its Ozarks-inspired Coonskin logo.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There was something called a "drug sniffing dog," road block in Florida this week. The highway I was driving had a lighted sign announcing it, two miles ahead.

When I came up to the LEO's they politely but firmly demanded I allow their dog access to my car for a sniff. I politely declined, saying, "You Do NOT Have My Permission To Do Any Type of Search."

The LEO actually stated I did not have the "right" to refuse and I countered that my family attorney is a retired superior court judge, on speed dial, and he says I do, so the answer remains, I Do NOT Consent To Any Search.

They whined and tried to intimidate me for about ten minutes, I continually, like a broken record, offered to have my attorney come to the road block and speak to them about the fourth amendment, and they eventually gave up, when someone made a speedy u-turn and drove away.

I've wondered ever since what would have transpired if they hadn't found another potential playmate.
 
CJones said:
Sorry... Cali = shortened California.
Click to expand...

There are three established abbreviations for California: CA, Cal., and Calif. For some reason the new one that people have decided to use bugs me. :dunno:
 
My recollection on this is vague (I am not a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor), but I thought there was a case recently that held that search warrants were not required for searching a vehicle because there wasn't a sufficient expectation of privacy. Of course, even if a search warrant is not required, that does not absolve the probable cause requirement under the fourth amendment.

It sure seems to me that a road block for the purpose of stopping everyone to search for drugs would be violative of the fourth amendment. Cops get away with it for DUI checks, I think, based on the special hazards associated with driving while intoxicated and the ephemeral nature of the evidence to prove the infraction. But those issues don't seem to apply for a drug search operation.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
If true, why would they ask for consent?
Click to expand...

Because if you consent, then they are assured a court won't throw out any evidence they find. Otherwise, they have to justify it after the fact, and they know that sometimes a judge won't agree with them, even if they think they are justified in their actions.
 
docmirror said:
100%. The handler can make the dog do anything he wants. It's all interpretive, and the handler can interpret the actions of the dog anyway he wants.

All dog drug 'busts' are fake.
Click to expand...

If that could be proven, it seems like it would invalidate the use of dogs in establishing probable cause for a search. Maybe data on the percentage of alerts where no drugs were found could help provide the needed proof.
 
Old Geek said:
Here's a wild-assed guess... Because they didn't have the right and they knew it.
Click to expand...

Most states no consent is needed to send a dog around the OUTSIDE of a vehicle. Here in Ohio they may even detain you for a "reasonable" (a term not defined) amount of time while waiting for the dog.

The alert of the dog serves as PC to search.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are three established abbreviations for California: CA, Cal., and Calif. For some reason the new one that people have decided to use bugs me. :dunno:
Click to expand...

If by new you mean the 80s.....
 
Palmpilot said:
If that could be proven, it seems like it would invalidate the use of dogs in establishing probable cause for a search. Maybe data on the percentage of alerts where no drugs were found could help provide the needed proof.
Click to expand...

If the government responded to reasonable proof none of us would need medicals to fly our personal aircraft. Heck, in my state an LEO is considered a calibrated velocity measurement device. No foolin'.
 
Palmpilot said:
If that could be proven, it seems like it would invalidate the use of dogs in establishing probable cause for a search. Maybe data on the percentage of alerts where no drugs were found could help provide the needed proof.
Click to expand...

It likely cannot be proven, sure you could train a dog to give false alerts, but considering the alert of a dog doesn't give you any evidence it seems like a big waste of time to have your dog alert falsely
 
You do realize that states have different laws concerning vehicle searches. Montana considers them an extension of your home.
In an case, police can't just search your vehicle because they want to. If they see something in plain view, dog alert or some other PC they might be able to articulate the the need for a search.
They did not have consent and it sounds doubtful that they have probable cause. I'd be getting an attorney to have a chat with them.

JeffDG said:
An aircraft is a vehicle, and as such, the police do not need a warrant to search. They need either consent or probable cause, which they said they had.

Had the police found something, that probable cause determination could have been challenged and the evidence excluded if appropriate PC was not present.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
If the government responded to reasonable proof none of us would need medicals to fly our personal aircraft. Heck, in my state an LEO is considered a calibrated velocity measurement device. No foolin'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that is crap and most LEOs know it.

And it all came about because someone argued with the cop about how fast he was going because the LEO didn't "lock in" the speed on the radar IIRC.
 
Again, you still need probable cause for a vehicle search. You must have a search warrant in Montana though.

PPC1052 said:
My recollection on this is vague (I am not a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor), but I thought there was a case recently that held that search warrants were not required for searching a vehicle because there wasn't a sufficient expectation of privacy. Of course, even if a search warrant is not required, that does not absolve the probable cause requirement under the fourth amendment.

It sure seems to me that a road block for the purpose of stopping everyone to search for drugs would be violative of the fourth amendment. Cops get away with it for DUI checks, I think, based on the special hazards associated with driving while intoxicated and the ephemeral nature of the evidence to prove the infraction. But those issues don't seem to apply for a drug search operation.
Click to expand...
 
fnpdoc said:
You do realize that states have different laws concerning vehicle searches. Montana considers them an extension of your home.
In an case, police can't just search your vehicle because they want to. If they see something in plain view, dog alert or some other PC they might be able to articulate the the need for a search.
They did not have consent and it sounds doubtful that they have probable cause. I'd be getting an attorney to have a chat with them.
Click to expand...



Your home may also be searched without warrant or consent. Such searches are limited in scope but they are allowed under the right conditions
 
steingar said:
If the government responded to reasonable proof none of us would need medicals to fly our personal aircraft. Heck, in my state an LEO is considered a calibrated velocity measurement device. No foolin'.
Click to expand...

If we think we're defeated, we are.
 
Florida Cracker said:
There was something called a "drug sniffing dog," road block in Florida this week. The highway I was driving had a lighted sign announcing it, two miles ahead.

When I came up to the LEO's they politely but firmly demanded I allow their dog access to my car for a sniff. I politely declined, saying, "You Do NOT Have My Permission To Do Any Type of Search."

The LEO actually stated I did not have the "right" to refuse and I countered that my family attorney is a retired superior court judge, on speed dial, and he says I do, so the answer remains, I Do NOT Consent To Any Search.

They whined and tried to intimidate me for about ten minutes, I continually, like a broken record, offered to have my attorney come to the road block and speak to them about the fourth amendment, and they eventually gave up, when someone made a speedy u-turn and drove away.

I've wondered ever since what would have transpired if they hadn't found another potential playmate.
Click to expand...

This is only the start. They can have the dog walk around the OUTSIDE of your car, determine by complete fiat that the dog 'alerted' and proceed inside. It's been done, and gone through at least state court.
 
Skylane81E said:
It likely cannot be proven, sure you could train a dog to give false alerts, but considering the alert of a dog doesn't give you any evidence it seems like a big waste of time to have your dog alert falsely
Click to expand...

Whether it's controlled by the handler or not, the "probable" in probable cause is a statistical concept, which is why I think statistics on the success rate of the handler/dog combination would be relevant.
 
Palmpilot said:
Whether it's controlled by the handler or not, the "probable" in probable cause is a statistical concept, which is why I think statistics on the success rate of the handler/dog combination would be relevant.
Click to expand...

Agree, and if we were seeing false alert after false alert leading to "bad" searches as much as people love to hate the police it would be front page news IMO
 
EdFred said:
LL Cool J disagrees with you.

also...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079180/

and
Click to expand...
So, your authorities include a rapper, Hollywood movie, and marketing garbage from 2000 miles away?

You will NEVER identify yourself as a clueless outsider faster than walking into a San Francisco locale and say the word "Frisco" without following it immediately with "Colorado."

Rather than irrelevant random assertions of authority, TRY it. Let us know the results.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1112552&postcount=2
Click to expand...

Got a more authoritative source?

For example, if we start with this authoritative statement:

"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace,"

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103) then one is closer to determining whether flying is a "right" or a "privilege". Me, I take it as being a right - not a privilege - because the right to use any form of transport should be the default state of things in places where government is considered to be a servant to the needs of the public, rather than the other way around. Specifically that flying is one of those "unalienable rights" that are mentioned in the U.S. declaration of independence. [Insert patriotic flag wave here.] It should only be minimally regulated in ways that insure joint safety.
 
Palmpilot said:
Whether it's controlled by the handler or not, the "probable" in probable cause is a statistical concept, which is why I think statistics on the success rate of the handler/dog combination would be relevant.
Click to expand...

Heisenberg comes into play here. If you set up an experimental situation where you have contraband containing and contraband free samples, odds are the dog will do fine. They can smell this stuff, no doubt. Moreover, in such a situation the handler has no preconceptions. Now out in the field the handler does have preconceptions, and that's how you'd have to test it to get any reasonable numbers. I doubt anyone has, but I would be surprised if the dogs were any better than random. I am not accusing anyone of malfeasance, but I stand by my assertion that dogs are sensitive creatures that will seek to please their pack leader.
 
MAKG1 said:
So, your authorities include a rapper, Hollywood movie, and marketing garbage from 2000 miles away?

You will NEVER identify yourself as a clueless outsider faster than walking into a San Francisco locale and say the word "Frisco" without following it immediately with "Colorado."

Rather than irrelevant random assertions of authority, TRY it. Let us know the results.
Click to expand...

Your opereating under the false premise that I actually give a crap that someone who drives a VW bus, wears a hemp necklace, and smells of patchouli thinks I'm an outsider or not.
 
LOL, you are reaching here. Good luck articulating why you searched a home without a warrant.
Below are the 4 circumstances where the police may be able to search your home without a warrant.
However, a smart police officer will secure the home and people and get a warrant, if able.
So once again, if you have the police come to your house. They can't just decide to search it.

1. Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations
where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.
Skylane81E said:
Your home may also be searched without warrant or consent. Such searches are limited in scope but they are allowed under the right conditions
Click to expand...
 
Florida Cracker said:
There was something called a "drug sniffing dog," road block in Florida this week. The highway I was driving had a lighted sign announcing it, two miles ahead.

When I came up to the LEO's they politely but firmly demanded I allow their dog access to my car for a sniff. I politely declined, saying, "You Do NOT Have My Permission To Do Any Type of Search."

The LEO actually stated I did not have the "right" to refuse and I countered that my family attorney is a retired superior court judge, on speed dial, and he says I do, so the answer remains, I Do NOT Consent To Any Search.

They whined and tried to intimidate me for about ten minutes, I continually, like a broken record, offered to have my attorney come to the road block and speak to them about the fourth amendment, and they eventually gave up, when someone made a speedy u-turn and drove away.

I've wondered ever since what would have transpired if they hadn't found another potential playmate.
Click to expand...

Too bad you didn't video tape it... That would have made a great You Tube episode..:yes::yes::)
 
fnpdoc said:
LOL, you are reaching here. Good luck articulating why you searched a home without a warrant.
Below are the 4 circumstances where the police may be able to search your home without a warrant.
However, a smart police officer will secure the home and people and get a warrant, if able.
So once again, if you have the police come to your house. They can't just decide to search it.

1. Consent.
2. Plain View.
3. Search Incident to Arrest.
4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations
where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.
Click to expand...

3 and 4 are precisely what I was getting at.

The point is we have no blanket protection against search, only agains "unreasonable" search.

Got to have a handle on the legal (and variable) definition of resonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top