SCOTUS: Cops can't force you to wait for K9

[Dave]

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-police-cant-extend-traffic-stop-awaiting-drug-142805661.html

A 6-3 decision by SCOTUS says that police can not make you wait longer than the time it takes to deal with the offense they pulled you over for. Even a wait of less than 10 minutes was found to be unconstitutional. Score one for the 4th amendment at least.

[kidicarus13]

Cops will just start taking longer to write citations to those suspected of having drugs in their vehicles in order to give more time for the K9 to arrive.

[Graves]

Or we the people will pony up more cash to increase the number of k9 units.

[earplug]

No wonder more people dislike dogs.

[Ronin13]

I'm curious what the SCOTUS would say about reasonable suspicion -after the initial contact- that does not fulfill probable cause for a warrant, but instead would, as per most agencies policies, permit a dog sniff to confirm if drugs are present. This decision changes a lot about drug interdiction. I agree with Alito, if reasonable suspicion exists then a K9 deployment for a sniff (which *technically* doesn't violate the 4th amendment- as it is not entry into the vehicle) would be legal. Having an interest in becoming a K9 Deputy, this just makes my future position less effective.

[Graves]

No wonder more people dislike dogs.

As opposed too..?

[RCCrawler]

Or we the people will pony up more cash to increase the number of k9 units.

That wouldn't help, because that is still outside the normal function of a traffic stop. License, registration, insurance, write the ticket, check for warrants, that's all.

[Martinjmpr]

I'm curious what the SCOTUS would say about reasonable suspicion -after the initial contact- that does not fulfill probable cause for a warrant, but instead would, as per most agencies policies, permit a dog sniff to confirm if drugs are present. This decision changes a lot about drug interdiction. I agree with Alito, if reasonable suspicion exists then a K9 deployment for a sniff (which *technically* doesn't violate the 4th amendment- as it is not entry into the vehicle) would be legal. Having an interest in becoming a K9 Deputy, this just makes my future position less effective.

That's what this case is all about. There has to be objective and individualized suspicion of drug trafficking in order to justify detaining the motorist to wait for the dog. What the Court said is they can't stop you for a broken taillight and then use that alone as a pretext to detain you for a dog sniff. If they don't have a specific and articulable suspicion that you are involved in drugs then they can't hold you for the dog. If they stop you for the broken taillight then once they are done dealing with that they have to let you go.

Specific and articulable means they have to be able to state an objectively reasonable set of facts that justifies further investigation. Can't be "I have a feeling" or "any single black male driving on this highway is transporting drugs" or "In my experience at least half of these Mexicans are smugglers", or "there's no reason for anybody to be on this highway unless they are transporting dope" etc. There has to be an objective set of facts that justifies the investigation.

The thing is, the law already allows warrantless searches of automobiles on the highway based on PC (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925]) and I would have a hard time thinking of any set of objective circumstances that would justify bringing a dog that would not also justify simply searching the vehicle.

[O2HeN2]

Specific and articulable means they have to be able to state an objectively reasonable set of facts that justifies further investigation. Can't be "I have a feeling" or "any single black male driving on this highway is transporting drugs" or "In my experience at least half of these Mexicans are smugglers", or "there's no reason for anybody to be on this highway unless they are transporting dope" etc. There has to be an objective set of facts that justifies the investigation.

"You've got Colorado license plates..."

O2

[milwaukeeshaker]

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.

[hurley842002]

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.
Is your post based on extensive experience, or just stuff you read on the Internet?

[68Charger]

I'm curious what the SCOTUS would say about reasonable suspicion -after the initial contact- that does not fulfill probable cause for a warrant, but instead would, as per most agencies policies, permit a dog sniff to confirm if drugs are present. This decision changes a lot about drug interdiction. I agree with Alito, if reasonable suspicion exists then a K9 deployment for a sniff (which *technically* doesn't violate the 4th amendment- as it is not entry into the vehicle) would be legal. Having an interest in becoming a K9 Deputy, this just makes my future position less effective.

Ronin, I'm afraid the SCOTUS doesn't consider what it could to to prospective career paths... consider yourself lucky that this happened now and you can make an informed decision, rather than right after you did K9 training, and then the dept decided to lay off 1/2 the K9 force. (that's how it would work in Corporate America)
It's NOT a 4th amendment issue of "search" as they have decided- it's unlawful detention (seizure of their person)... based on limits of the police force, and not whether the individual has done anything wrong.

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

As opposed too..?

Kitties? http://www.madeupnews.com/feature/feature_042300_cat.html

[Irving]

I wonder if this will effect interactions where police steal money from people just because someone had a lot of cash on them. I wouldn't think that it would.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Experience. Go to you tube, there are videos there. Got a Colorado plate? Get ready for the B.S.


Is your post based on extensive experience, or just stuff you read on the Internet?

[hurley842002]

Experience. Go to you tube, there are videos there. Got a Colorado plate? Get ready for the B.S.
Okay, well I tend to not put much stock in folks who direct me to youtube for their argument.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Well officer, I also said first hand experience.

Okay, well I tend to not put much stock in folks who direct me to youtube for their argument.

[cstone]

Be courteous to one another.

Last and only warning.

[osok-308]

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.

That sounds very unfortunate that you had such a terrible experience with K9 units. I am in LE as well as I have several family members who are as well. One is actually a K9 officer as well. This is not a common experience with K9 handlers and most of the K9 officers I know are not guys who are "dog nazis" as you so kindly put it. These are people who are trying to ensure that drugs are not being trafficked accross the state. Just try to remember that we are trying to fight for the same team. I don't think that you'd want drug dealers running unchecked throughout the state.

As long as this doesn't interfere with reasonable suspicion or probable cause uses of K9 deployment, I don't see the issue. I am in LE and my duty has always been to the citizens of this state and country. I hope that this ruling doesn't make it more difficult for officers find those that are actually breaking drug laws.

[hurley842002]

That sounds very unfortunate that you had such a terrible experience with K9 units. I am in LE as well as I have several family members who are as well. One is actually a K9 officer as well. This is not a common experience with K9 handlers and most of the K9 officers I know are not guys who are "dog nazis" as you so kindly put it.

Pretty much, but I figured I shouldn't push my luck, so I didn't respond.

[brutal]

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.

No doubt, they have a whole grip of 4473 with your info all over them too.

[ROFL1]

[Bailey Guns]

ATTY: "Sir, where did you receive your extensive training on police K9 handling skills and police training and tactics."

WITNESS: "From YouTube."

Yeah...case dismissed.

[OneGuy67]

I am a LEO and have been for a long, long time. I agree with the SCOTUS decision as there was no articulable reasonable suspicion for the search.

The officer who conducted the stop was the K9 handler. He requested a cover officer and then completed the stop, returning the credentials and issuing a written warning. From there, the traffic stop was completed. The officer then asked for permission to walk his K9 around the vehicle and the driver refused. The officer did not have any articulable reason for the request and no reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, other than driving in Nebraska after midnight, which isn't a reason. He directed the driver to step out of the vehicle and wait for the cover officer to arrive, where upon he conducted a sniff of the vehicle and the K9 indicated the presence of meth.

The issue is, did the officer have reasonable suspicion to warrant a K9 search of the vehicle and based upon the case facts, the SCOTUS determined there was not. The officer interviewed both the driver and passenger and did not obtain any conflicting information as to where they came from or where they were going, which could be a indicator of trafficking, did not see anything inside the vehicle which could indicate a non-stop drive, which could be a indicator, did not articulate any nervousness or inconsistent statements, etc. There was nothing indicating the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a K9 search of the vehicle. The authority for the traffic stop ended when the tasks tied to the infraction were completed and there was nothing that could be articulated to continue the contact.

[Jacket]

What a state of "Freedom" when the public discussion is on whether we have to wait/be detained during an unwarranted search for dogs ?

[Ronin13]

That's what this case is all about. There has to be objective and individualized suspicion of drug trafficking in order to justify detaining the motorist to wait for the dog. What the Court said is they can't stop you for a broken taillight and then use that alone as a pretext to detain you for a dog sniff. If they don't have a specific and articulable suspicion that you are involved in drugs then they can't hold you for the dog. If they stop you for the broken taillight then once they are done dealing with that they have to let you go.

Specific and articulable means they have to be able to state an objectively reasonable set of facts that justifies further investigation. Can't be "I have a feeling" or "any single black male driving on this highway is transporting drugs" or "In my experience at least half of these Mexicans are smugglers", or "there's no reason for anybody to be on this highway unless they are transporting dope" etc. There has to be an objective set of facts that justifies the investigation.

The thing is, the law already allows warrantless searches of automobiles on the highway based on PC (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925]) and I would have a hard time thinking of any set of objective circumstances that would justify bringing a dog that would not also justify simply searching the vehicle.
This is what I was thinking, but the article seemed pretty wishy washy on that. Thanks for clarifying what I was already thinking was the case.

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.
I know 4 out of our 9 K9 deputies with the agency I'm on, and not a single one of them has an iota of a clue WTF you're talking about. That's not part of their training, and the fact that you brought this up in such an Alex Jones kind of way just makes me sad. You are certainly not alone in harboring this false belief, which does nothing but foster more distrust between the police and the public. I suggest reading some of the works of Sir Robert Peel, who said "The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Many I know follow this teaching, including myself. Don't you go off holding any signs in protest now (sorry, but that's what you sound like with that post).

I am a LEO and have been for a long, long time. I agree with the SCOTUS decision as there was no articulable reasonable suspicion for the search.

The officer who conducted the stop was the K9 handler. He requested a cover officer and then completed the stop, returning the credentials and issuing a written warning. From there, the traffic stop was completed. The officer then asked for permission to walk his K9 around the vehicle and the driver refused. The officer did not have any articulable reason for the request and no reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, other than driving in Nebraska after midnight, which isn't a reason. He directed the driver to step out of the vehicle and wait for the cover officer to arrive, where upon he conducted a sniff of the vehicle and the K9 indicated the presence of meth.

The issue is, did the officer have reasonable suspicion to warrant a K9 search of the vehicle and based upon the case facts, the SCOTUS determined there was not. The officer interviewed both the driver and passenger and did not obtain any conflicting information as to where they came from or where they were going, which could be a indicator of trafficking, did not see anything inside the vehicle which could indicate a non-stop drive, which could be a indicator, did not articulate any nervousness or inconsistent statements, etc. There was nothing indicating the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a K9 search of the vehicle. The authority for the traffic stop ended when the tasks tied to the infraction were completed and there was nothing that could be articulated to continue the contact.
Well said. [Beer]

[milwaukeeshaker]

Real funny. This "experience" cost me 1,600 in paint repairs. So yuk it up boys.


ATTY: "Sir, where did you receive your extensive training on police K9 handling skills and police training and tactics."

WITNESS: "From YouTube."

Yeah...case dismissed.

[Irving]

Did they take the dog across the roof? Had a claim like that once.

[kidicarus13]

In 2006, former narcotics officer and current criminal defense expert witness, Barry Cooper, was the first to blow the whistle on drug dog false alerts. Enjoy this comprehensive study of drug dogs which includes videos of false and true alerts.

http://nevergetbusted.com/nevergetbusted-tips/university-study-tricked-certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/ (http://nevergetbusted.com/nevergetbusted-tips/university-study-tricked-certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/)

[milwaukeeshaker]

Just sides of fenders and doors.

[milwaukeeshaker]

This just can't be true! Video evidence? Nah. Seems like whatever I say on this forum must be a load of crap.

Seriously, thanks for posting that.



http://nevergetbusted.com/nevergetbusted-tips/university-study-tricked-certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/

[cstone]

Real funny. This "experience" cost me 1,600 in paint repairs. So yuk it up boys.

No one said that your experience was funny.

Did you report the incident involving damage of your vehicle to the police department? To your insurance company? What did the K9 officer say when you pointed out the damage he had caused?

I never liked hitting doors with a ram because regardless of the results, someone had to wait at the un-useable door until the door could be fixed or secured. My supervisors were never pleasant about paying $1000+ to fix doors.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Really? No one alluded to funny? As usual, I'm being portrayed as if I'm a fringe wacko, with the usual yuk yuk comments addressing my validity about any subject I respond about. 1. Would have cost me more for the lawyer to try and recover the repair costs. 2. Just had liability on that collector car. 3. "Officer" said TS buddy. And finally, No, I did not have any kind of contraband in the vehicle.


No one said that your experience was funny.

Did you report the incident involving damage of your vehicle to the police department? To your insurance company? What did the K9 officer say when you pointed out the damage he had caused?

I never liked hitting doors with a ram because regardless of the results, someone had to wait at the un-useable door until the door could be fixed or secured. My supervisors were never pleasant about paying $1000+ to fix doors.

[cstone]

Barry Cooper is an interesting character.

He has a unique perspective, but I don't believe I would take legal advice from him. YMMV

[cstone]

Really? No one alluded to funny? As usual, I'm being portrayed as if I'm a fringe wacko, with the usual yuk yuk comments addressing my validity about any subject I respond about. 1. Would have cost me more for the lawyer to try and recover the repair costs. 2. Just had liability on that collector car. 3. "Officer" said TS buddy. And finally, No, I did not have any kind of contraband in the vehicle.

IMO, you are making this a personal issue based on your one experience.

I understand from your answer that you chose not to pursue the issue and that is of course your right. Then you come here and use that one experience to discredit all (or most) use of K9s by law enforcement.

When I have been stopped and asked if I would mind my vehicle searched, I have always answered "No." When advised that they can bring a K9 to sniff around my vehicle, I tell them they should do what they believe they need to do. I then tell them that if the K9 alerts, and my vehicle is searched, and no contraband is found, I will pursue decertification of the K9 and handler until they are retrained. If anyone damages my property, and I can file a claim to obtain compensation for my damages, I do so.

We all do what we can do.

[Ronin13]

In 2006, former narcotics officer and current criminal defense expert witness, Barry Cooper, was the first to blow the whistle on drug dog false alerts. Enjoy this comprehensive study of drug dogs which includes videos of false and true alerts.

(http://nevergetbusted.com/nevergetbusted-tips/university-study-tricked-certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/)http://nevergetbusted.com/nevergetbusted-tips/university-study-tricked-certified-police-dogs-to-false-alert-200-times/
There are also "studies" done to make it look like "climate change" is predominantly caused by mankind... So what? Do I take some YouTubers and potentially very biased "research" or do I go straight to the source and see if actual cops, who actually do the work and go through the training and hear it from them that they don't train false alerts. I'm well aware of Mr. Cooper, and like many in our own state, I think his love affair with pot has, ahem, clouded his judgment.

This just can't be true! Video evidence? Nah. Seems like whatever I say on this forum must be a load of crap.

Seriously, thanks for posting that.
Not everything, just this. I don't know squat about basketball, so you won't see me posting things about which teams are the best in the NBA.

No, I did not have any kind of contraband in the vehicle.
GSDs have over 2,000,000 scent receptors in their nose... sometimes, like everything else, they make mistakes or have false positives. Nothing in this world is perfect. Sorry your paint got scratched, I truly am, but don't hate me for saying this, sometimes shit happens.

[68Charger]

Barry Cooper is an interesting character.

He has a unique perspective, but I don't believe I would take legal advice from him. YMMV

He's selling a service- "Click To Hire Barry As Your K-9 Expert Witness (http://nevergetbusted.com/consult-with-barry/)"\
So this entire article is an ADVERTISEMENT.

Mr. Shaker- I believe you went over the top when you said "Most" K9s are trained to hit on queue...

I could counter that "Most forum reports of damage you see posted are made up"... and I'd probably be more accurate than saying Most K9 units are dirty...
are there dirty cops, and dirty K9 units? I'm sure there are- but you used "Most" in your post, which doesn't help your credibility... it seems inflammatory rather than having a civil discussion.

You decided not to do anything about the damage to your vehicle... you could have complained to the Officer's supervisor yourself without a lawyer and sought compensation from the department, even if a lawyer was involved you could recoup your legal fees...

[Great-Kazoo]

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.ISfq2514GVgRKBbzPc6w%2fA&pid=15.1&P=0




insert for levity.

[Ronin13]

IMO, you are making this a personal issue based on your one experience.

I understand from your answer that you chose not to pursue the issue and that is of course your right. Then you come here and use that one experience to discredit all (or most) use of K9s by law enforcement.

When I have been stopped and asked if I would mind my vehicle searched, I have always answered "No." When advised that they can bring a K9 to sniff around my vehicle, I tell them they should do what they believe they need to do. I then tell them that if the K9 alerts, and my vehicle is searched, and no contraband is found, I will pursue decertification of the K9 and handler until they are retrained. If anyone damages my property, and I can file a claim to obtain compensation for my damages, I do so.

We all do what we can do.
This!
http://media.giphy.com/media/NnGGHE0muVqpO/giphy.gif

[crays]

68charger beat me to it.
There will always be SOME bad cops.
Beat cops, K9 cops, specialized unit cops, detectives. Doesn't matter what their assignment is.
But, they will always be a slim minority, and there will always be an abundance of decent, hard working, honest cops.
Sorry your experience was so negative, shaker. I would hate to have to endure that myself, but I think the pushback you are getting here is due to the broad brush you are painting with in this thread.

[milwaukeeshaker]

I used "most" because I have talked to others that have had the same kind of "false alerting" tactics performed by K9's on a traffic stop. I believe this is a tactic used by some in a "fishing expedition" in order to finagle around the 4th amendment rights of the vehicle owner. Maybe you are not that kind of officer, but you cannot tell me that the badge heavy cop does not exist. I unfortunately ran into one of those, and so have others, all in the name of the "drug war" which in a truly free country should not exist, but that's another story.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Noted. I should not have used most. My apologies to those officers that are decent, honest, and do not abuse their power.


68charger beat me to it.
There will always be SOME bad cops.
Beat cops, K9 cops, specialized unit cops, detectives. Doesn't matter what their assignment is.
But, they will always be a slim minority, and there will always be an abundance of decent, hard working, honest cops.
Sorry your experience was so negative, shaker. I would hate to have to endure that myself, but I think the pushback you are getting here is due to the broad brush you are painting with in this thread.

[Irving]

I believe that damage that occurs from police activity is specifically excluded on most home and auto policies.

[crays]

I used "most" because I have talked to others that have had the same kind of "false alerting" tactics performed by K9's on a traffic stop. I believe this is a tactic used by some in a "fishing expedition" in order to finagle around the 4th amendment rights of the vehicle owner. Maybe you are not that kind of officer, but you cannot tell me that the badge heavy cop does not exist. I unfortunately ran into one of those, and so have others, all in the name of the "drug war" which in a truly free country should not exist, but that's another story.
Quick question.
What was the situation surrounding your talks to the others? Were they random conversations in a non-specific setting, with an "Aha!!" moment, or were these interactions initiated in a forum/thread/etc. where bad K9 searches, or even K9 searches in general, were at the forefront?

I am not baiting or leading here, simply asking.

[Ronin13]

I used "most" because I have talked to others that have had the same kind of "false alerting" tactics performed by K9's on a traffic stop. I believe this is a tactic used by some in a "fishing expedition" in order to finagle around the 4th amendment rights of the vehicle owner. Maybe you are not that kind of officer, but you cannot tell me that the badge heavy cop does not exist. I unfortunately ran into one of those, and so have others, all in the name of the "drug war" which in a truly free country should not exist, but that's another story.
I agree that there are bad cops, or even "badge heavy" ones out there, I've met a few myself. But like was said before, these individuals are a very small minority. I don't think there is some fishing going on to get around the 4th Amendment- most cops respect the Bill of Rights and do their due diligence to respect people's Constitutional rights. What I think you, and the few others you have talked to, have experienced are the aggressive enforcement folks that want to project the image that they're "kicking ass and taking names" in drug enforcement and interdiction. I've met people like this, and while I don't agree with the level of aggression that they use in the narcotics game, it is an issue due to the large amount of narcotics related crimes going on. In terms of the drug war, it is a loosing battle for those of us who are genuinely trying to keep drugs off the streets. America is among the top drug using nations out there, and sadly we're losing.

[Monky]

I keep a bag of duck jerky in the truck, just for such instances to make the dog go nuts. Works well.

Yes I'm fucking joking.

[Bailey Guns]

Seems like whatever I say on this forum must be a load of crap.

Maybe it's the delivery.

[milwaukeeshaker]

Just coworkers, friends, relatives, and aquaintances talked with over a period of a few years about vacation driving, and traffic laws, etc. All since the laws enacted that allowed police to confiscate your vehicle and contents if you were found with drugs.


Quick question.
What was the situation surrounding your talks to the others? Were they random conversations in a non-specific setting, with an "Aha!!" moment, or were these interactions initiated in a forum/thread/etc. where bad K9 searches, or even K9 searches in general, were at the forefront?

I am not baiting or leading here, simply asking.

[Great-Kazoo]

Just coworkers, friends, relatives, and aquaintances talked with over a period of a few years about vacation driving, and traffic laws, etc. All since the laws enacted that allowed police to confiscate your vehicle and contents if you were found with drugs.

Don't drive with drugs?

We've driven throughout the midwest , west to the pacific. To date if stopped, not 1 LE asked to search our vehicle. Not that they would be given permission.

Now go back 4 decades and i can give you 1st hand horror stories about riding mc's and over aggressive LE's. Even driving vehicles no less. Back then they didn't care what the SCOUTS or state level courts had ruled. They wanted in, they were in your vehicle, en mass. NYSP were real horrendous about illegal S&S

[milwaukeeshaker]

Drugs? Never have, never will.


Don't drive with drugs?

We've driven throughout the midwest , west to the pacific. To date if stopped, not 1 LE asked to search our vehicle. Not that they would be given permission.

Now go back 4 decades and i can give you 1st hand horror stories about riding mc's and over aggressive LE's. Even driving vehicles no less. Back then they didn't care what the SCOUTS or state level courts had ruled. They wanted in, they were in your vehicle, en mass. NYSP were real horrendous about illegal S&S

[osok-308]

I agree that there are bad cops, or even "badge heavy" ones out there, I've met a few myself. But like was said before, these individuals are a very small minority. I don't think there is some fishing going on to get around the 4th Amendment- most cops respect the Bill of Rights and do their due diligence to respect people's Constitutional rights. What I think you, and the few others you have talked to, have experienced are the aggressive enforcement folks that want to project the image that they're "kicking ass and taking names" in drug enforcement and interdiction. I've met people like this, and while I don't agree with the level of aggression that they use in the narcotics game, it is an issue due to the large amount of narcotics related crimes going on. In terms of the drug war, it is a loosing battle for those of us who are genuinely trying to keep drugs off the streets. America is among the top drug using nations out there, and sadly we're losing.

Well said. From my experience, most cops are people who do their best to make sure that they respect the rights of the individual. I know that I personally would want to be treated with dignity and respect, and therefore, I aim to treat others the same way. You can always find bad cops, just like you can find bad priests, bad members of the military, and bad citizens. The issue is that a lot of people are now going OUT OF THEIR WAY in an attempt to try to force police into doing or saying something stupid, which results in people making the police's job that much harder.

I am not trying to justify the actions of one bad police officer, I am trying explain that they too are human and as humans, they are not immune to errors in judgement. I am genuinely sorry that milwalkeeshaker had a bad experience with police, and I hope that your future encounters with them are better.

[mindfold]

This thread is making me look forward more and more to driving to Michigan in June with CO plates. Last time I did I was pulled over twice. I think speeding was the reason. Wife and kids in the car. Pretty sure it was the CO plates that got me. and yes I set the cruise at 5 over. Fully expecting to be pulled over at least one on the way there.

[hurley842002]

This thread is making me look forward more and more to driving to Michigan in June with CO plates. Last time I did I was pulled over twice. I think speeding was the reason. Wife and kids in the car. Pretty sure it was the CO plates that got me. and yes I set the cruise at 5 over. Fully expecting to be pulled over at least one on the way there.
I wouldn't be too paranoid, we drove to California last summer with zero issues. Don't do anything stupid, and stupid stuff generally avoids you. Unless of course, you, your family, and your friends just have horrible luck or something......

[Martinjmpr]

I wouldn't be too paranoid, we drove to California last summer with zero issues. Don't do anything stupid, and stupid stuff generally avoids you. Unless of course, you, your family, and your friends just have horrible luck or something......

Wife and I drove more than 10,000 miles last year in my 4runner pulling our little trailer, though Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. We had ZERO interactions with the police. Now it may be that a 4runner with military license plates driven by a middle aged white guy doesn't fit the "profile" like, say a Subaru covered in 420 stickers and driven by a twenty-something in dreadlocks, but I think it does show that the whole "if you have CO plates the cops will pull you over to check for weed" paranoia is just stupid.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah...in the past year I've driven extensively in Idaho, and up and down the drug corridors (interstates) in MT and WY, and all over eastern WA. Police and troopers never give me, or my Colorado plates, a second look.

[mindfold]

Wife and I drove more than 10,000 miles last year in my 4runner pulling our little trailer, though Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. We had ZERO interactions with the police. Now it may be that a 4runner with military license plates driven by a middle aged white guy doesn't fit the "profile" like, say a Subaru covered in 420 stickers and driven by a twenty-something in dreadlocks, but I think it does show that the whole "if you have CO plates the cops will pull you over to check for weed" paranoia is just stupid.

Note to self......remove all 420 stickers off of car. [emoji12]


Sent from my tin foil coated mind reading device.

[Ranger353]

Note to self......remove all 420 stickers off of car. [emoji12]
Don't those 420 stickers mean "I love green leaves" ?? [ROFL2]

[roberth]

Green Tea Leaves.

[Jacket]

I have driven all over the US only had a couple of problems they were both in Utah. I drive a clean looking cars do the speed limit, ect. I have driven through some scary looking poverty stricken places where their was just old single wide trailers, broken cars, dead stores, etc. Then all the sudden a brand new shinny police car with a "K9" sticker watching the road through town for .. ? non cousins ? drug king pins ? nice car ?____ ? all it would take is $20 worth of stuff to be "found" and your life is over for a few years and they are $20,000 more in the ? black.

Police are people some are great people a few are corrupt. Their is not really much to keep them in check in situations like road side searches.

[crays]

I have driven all over the US only had a couple of problems they were both in Utah. I drive a clean looking cars do the speed limit, ect. I have driven through some scary looking poverty stricken places where their was just old single wide trailers, broken cars, dead stores, etc. Then all the sudden a brand new shinny police car with a "K9" sticker watching the road through town for .. ? non cousins ? drug king pins ? nice car ?____ ? all it would take is $20 worth of stuff to be "found" and your life is over for a few years and they are $20,000 more in the ? black.

Police are people some are great people a few are corrupt. Their is not really much to keep them in check in situations like road side searches.
Sounds like you were driving through meth heaven.

[Jacket]

Sounds like you were driving through meth heaven.

Yeah it seems like meth is pretty popular in poverty stricken rural areas. A lot of my drives were through areas that have "cheap land" and remote areas.