Read the article. The idiot gave consent. I didn't read the Supreme Court ruling but just stopping him could have been a voluntary stop and/or a terry stop then officer says mind if I search the car and you can polite say no thank you which an officer may say that is RS that a crime is afoot but believe that could be held in court. You tell the officer sure search it when there is known contraband well your an idiot.

You're right kong, he stupidly gave consent. He probably would've been nailed anyway when they brought the dogs to sniff for drugs.

Interesting that Sotomayor of all people dissented on the basis that the law should be "knowable".

Not certain what policy is for dogs sniffing but that may get into fourth amendment search and seizure issues if no RS or PC can be articulated.

Read the article. The idiot gave consent. I didn't read the Supreme Court ruling but just stopping him could have been a voluntary stop and/or a terry stop then officer says mind if I search the car and you can polite say no thank you which an officer may say that is RS that a crime is afoot but believe that could be held in court. You tell the officer sure search it when there is known contraband well your an idiot.

True

Not certain what policy is for dogs sniffing but that may get into fourth amendment search and seizure issues if no RS or PC can be articulated.

True, but this a quite common practice in many states. Search is declined, officer states he has RS there may be drugs in the vehicle, detains you and calls for dogs to be brought to the scene. It is generally considered legal for the dogs to sniff the outside of your vehicle. If it "indicates" there are drugs, they can arrest you, impound and tear apart your car, or simply tear it apart at the scene. It's also not unheard of that the dogs will indicate mistakenly.

The wondrous "War on Drugs" has given a great deal of leeway to how the police can handle these situations, 4th amendment or no.

He would need to articulate how his training or experience led his to RS and if the court doesn't justify it then everything gets throw out. Now if the courts and the department are in cahoots were screwed.

Obviously there are so many laws even the police don't/can't know them all.

It's starting to boil down to "We think you did something illegal, hang around for awhile and we'll figure out what it is."

This is not how things are supposed to be in the United States of America.

Sometimes an officer will need to take a moment to clarify a technicality in a law but they need to articulate reasonable actions while they detain a person. The more invasive the police action the more they need to justify it. Detaining someone briefly is not so hard. Detaining them longer takes a little more. Arresting them takes even more. So on and so forth. If an officer detains someone for 5 minutes peacefully only to find out that the action wasn't actually prohibited then I don't think we are talking about a serious illegal action by an officer. However if an officer arrest someone for sticking middle finger, something obviously protected by the first amendment, then it is most certainly an illegal action and one that needs to be addressed.

Most laws that an average police officer will enforce are derived from basic values we should all know to be wrong. Things like causing injury to a person or taking/damaging someone elses stuff is obviously wrong and the public doesn't really have an argument that there are too many laws. However when it comes to traffic violations then sure there are so many laws most people could't keep track. For example it is illegal to coast your car in neutral. Why? I don't know but I sure wouldn't consider it obvious!

He would need to articulate how his training or experience led his to RS and if the court doesn't justify it then everything gets throw out. Now if the courts and the department are in cahoots were screwed.

You mean something along the lines of "I thought I smelled marijuana" I presume? Or the ever popular "The suspect was behaving in a suspicious manner".

That's all it really takes, the courts will grant the officer the benefit of the doubt, not the citizen.

You mean something along the lines of "I thought I smelled marijuana" I presume? Or the ever popular "The suspect was behaving in a suspicious manner".

That's all it really takes, the courts will grant the officer the benefit of the doubt, not the citizen.

Perhaps you have never heard an officer on a rant about how stupid the courts were in dealing with some particular case. The courts certainly don't give the officer the automatic benefit of the doubt however the courts do usually consider the officer to be a more reliable witness for multiple reasons. If it really came down to an officer not having any more clout than the defendant then no one could ever be convicted.

If the defense attorney is worth anything he will press the officer for clarification on a vague testimony such as "the suspect was behaving suspiciously" and if the officer cannot even explain what he means then his testimony is not as strong.

You really can't sue "just the officer" as he will claim qualified immunity. I think you would have to sue the department and have a judgement for you, then initiate (maybe you can do so concurrently) a 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violation) action against the individual officer.

You will actually end up just suing the "City and County of Honolulu."  I could explain it all, but the department is the same entity as the city (in the end).

I thought won't work in court. It has to be factual based to stand up in court. I.e. Terry v Ohio was based of an unmarked officer during the middle of summer watching two or three individuals wearing winter coats walking back and forth in front of a convenience store. He made contact with the individuals and did a frisk and found weapons. They challenged it in court under fourth amendment  and the frisk was upheld since a frisk can be done under reasonable suspicion given the totality of circumstances. I understand people's wariness of government and the law but the more you know the better we all are.

True, but this a quite common practice in many states. Search is declined, officer states he has RS there may be drugs in the vehicle, detains you and calls for dogs to be brought to the scene. It is generally considered legal for the dogs to sniff the outside of your vehicle. If it "indicates" there are drugs, they can arrest you, impound and tear apart your car, or simply tear it apart at the scene. It's also not unheard of that the dogs will indicate mistakenly.

The wondrous "War on Drugs" has given a great deal of leeway to how the police can handle these situations, 4th amendment or no.

Generally speaking, an alert by a dog gives the officer PC to search. But, the officer cannot, independent of any other facts detain you just to have the dog search your vehicle. So, if you get stopped for a simple traffic violation the officer cannot legally detain you longer than it normally takes to complete the encounter just to have the dog sniff your vehicle.

As for the false alerting, yes dogs do false alert. Sometimes they do so innocently, sometimes through cues (purposeful or not) from the handler. Remember, the dog wants to please the handler so it's very easy to influence the dogs behavior through subtle (again, conscious or unconscious) cues from the handler.

Generally speaking, an alert by a dog gives the officer PC to search. But, the officer cannot, independent of any other facts detain you just to have the dog search your vehicle. So, if you get stopped for a simple traffic violation the officer cannot legally detain you longer than it normally takes to complete the encounter just to have the dog sniff your vehicle.

As for the false alerting, yes dogs do false alert. Sometimes they do so innocently, sometimes through cues (purposeful or not) from the handler. Remember, the dog wants to please the handler so it's very easy to influence the dogs behavior through subtle (again, conscious or unconscious) cues from the handler.

First, I said in my post that the officer "states that he has reasonable suspicion" that there are drugs in the vehicle. This would give him cause to detain you until the dogs could be brought to the scene.

Second, I didn't attempt to place any blame on the dog. Dogs should be held blameless because, well, they're dogs.

Third, I set forth a specific scenario for this poll, an officer illegally detains you, lies to you and arrests you. Whether they're "supposed to" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. They obviously can and do detain and arrest people illegally, and they get away with it. The object of the poll is to find out what, if anything, you would do about it once the incident has occurred, not to incur a debate as to the legality of the search, the conditions of which will vary from state to state in any case and is, again, irrelevant. Nor am I attempting cast all police officers in the same light, these types of things are generally committed by a small percentage of LEO's. Most of them do their best to do the job right, within the limitations set forth in the law.

Is there anything else you require clarification on?

First, I said in my post that the officer "states that he has reasonable suspicion" that there are drugs in the vehicle. This would give him cause to detain you until the dogs could be brought to the scene.

Second, I didn't attempt to place any blame on the dog. Dogs should be held blameless because, well, they're dogs.

Third, I set forth a specific scenario for this poll, an officer illegally detains you, lies to you and arrests you. Whether they're "supposed to" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. They obviously can and do detain and arrest people illegally, and they get away with it. The object of the poll is to find out what, if anything, you would do about it once the incident has occurred, not to incur a debate as to the legality of the search, the conditions of which will vary from state to state in any case and is, again, irrelevant. Nor am I attempting cast all police officers in the same light, these types of things are generally committed by a small percentage of LEO's. Most of them do their best to do the job right, within the limitations set forth in the law.

Is there anything else you require clarification on?

Lets keep in mind that the feds can do things that local PD cannot. The feds might be able to search based off of a dog hit but from my understanding Honolulu PD would have to apply for a search warrant. I think it would be hard to develop reasonable suspicion that there were drugs in a vehicle just from a traffic stop in order to justify a detention long enough to bring a dog on scene. Now marijuana has an obvious smell but since small quantities of marijuana was misdemeanor cases, is an officer really going to spend that much time and effort for a bogus case?

As for an officer lying? Well they can lie to people, as long as it is not about certain things. If officers couldn't lie then no one could ever go undercover! The illegal arrest is the most serious concern in my opinion.

Lets keep in mind that the feds can do things that local PD cannot. The feds might be able to search based off of a dog hit but from my understanding Honolulu PD would have to apply for a search warrant. I think it would be hard to develop reasonable suspicion that there were drugs in a vehicle just from a traffic stop in order to justify a detention long enough to bring a dog on scene. Now marijuana has an obvious smell but since small quantities of marijuana was misdemeanor cases, is an officer really going to spend that much time and effort for a bogus case?

As for an officer lying? Well they can lie to people, as long as it is not about certain things. If officers couldn't lie then no one could ever go undercover! The illegal arrest is the most serious concern in my opinion.

Any amout of drugs can be grounds to confiscate your property (car) without due process, arrest or court warrent under Hawaii state property forfeiture laws.

Lets keep in mind that the feds can do things that local PD cannot. The feds might be able to search based off of a dog hit but from my understanding Honolulu PD would have to apply for a search warrant. I think it would be hard to develop reasonable suspicion that there were drugs in a vehicle just from a traffic stop in order to justify a detention long enough to bring a dog on scene. Now marijuana has an obvious smell but since small quantities of marijuana was misdemeanor cases, is an officer really going to spend that much time and effort for a bogus case?

As for an officer lying? Well they can lie to people, as long as it is not about certain things. If officers couldn't lie then no one could ever go undercover! The illegal arrest is the most serious concern in my opinion.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Third, I set forth a specific scenario for this poll, an officer illegally detains you, lies to you and arrests you. Whether they're "supposed to" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. They obviously can and do detain and arrest people illegally, and they get away with it. The object of the poll is to find out what, if anything, you would do about it once the incident has occurred, not to incur a debate as to the legality of the search, the conditions of which will vary from state to state in any case and is, again, irrelevant. Nor am I attempting cast all police officers in the same light, these types of things are generally committed by a small percentage of LEO's. Most of them do their best to do the job right, within the limitations set forth in the law.

Please feel free to read this as many times as it takes for it to sink in.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Please feel free to read this as many times as it takes for it to sink in.

Edster, I fully understand the question, I am merely  providing a bit of context since an illegal arrest can be comprised of different things depending on what agency you are dealing with. It is important for us all to know our rights because frequently people will think they were detained illegally when they weren't or were detained illegally and they didn't know it.

First, I said in my post that the officer "states that he has reasonable suspicion" that there are drugs in the vehicle. This would give him cause to detain you until the dogs could be brought to the scene.

Second, I didn't attempt to place any blame on the dog. Dogs should be held blameless because, well, they're dogs.

Third, I set forth a specific scenario for this poll, an officer illegally detains you, lies to you and arrests you. Whether they're "supposed to" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. They obviously can and do detain and arrest people illegally, and they get away with it. The object of the poll is to find out what, if anything, you would do about it once the incident has occurred, not to incur a debate as to the legality of the search, the conditions of which will vary from state to state in any case and is, again, irrelevant. Nor am I attempting cast all police officers in the same light, these types of things are generally committed by a small percentage of LEO's. Most of them do their best to do the job right, within the limitations set forth in the law.

Is there anything else you require clarification on?

My, feeling a little defensive? I was making very general comments about the process. Yes, if the officer has RAS of illegal activity he can detain you. However, how long he can detain you is up for debate. Some courts have held that with RAS a 45 minute wait is OK. Without RAS the time a person can be held must be "de minimus" which, as is usually the case, ill defined.

As for the dog, again, I was making a general comment, not accusing you of blaming the dog....

But hey, thanks for the clarification....

Leo's can initiate a voluntary contact at any time and from the voluntary contact with a Leo's experience and training can articulate RS for a terry stop that is not illegal. If a bolo goes out and they stop you and do a terry frisk of you and vehicle and go into the trunk and find contraband that is an illegal search that can be thrown out unless you have said officer consent. Due to the nature of a terry stop is for weapons on a person or in the immediate lunging area of a vehicle. If during the search for weapons in an officers experience he feels and articulates drugs in your pocket wherever the. He can confiscate that and no arrest you for contraband and do an sia. If you want more info we can discuss all types of scenarios at length as well as resource location. Though I will not post on an open forum any resource location. Fed state and local all follow same court precedence. 

Leo's can initiate a voluntary contact at any time and from the voluntary contact with a Leo's experience and training can articulate RS for a terry stop that is not illegal. If a bolo goes out and they stop you and do a terry frisk of you and vehicle and go into the trunk and find contraband that is an illegal search that can be thrown out unless you have said officer consent. Due to the nature of a terry stop is for weapons on a person or in the immediate lunging area of a vehicle. If during the search for weapons in an officers experience he feels and articulates drugs in your pocket wherever the. He can confiscate that and no arrest you for contraband and do an sia. If you want more info we can discuss all types of scenarios at length as well as resource location. Though I will not post on an open forum any resource location. Fed state and local all follow same court precedence. 

AGAIN, I'm not trying to ascertain what constitutes a LEGAL STOP. That is a subject for another thread. The point of the poll was to find out what, if anything, people would do if they WERE detained, lied to, and arrested ILLEGALLY. The assumption, for the purposes of this poll, is that you know the law and have done nothing illegal. For whatever reason, the LEO has decided to give you a hard time. Maybe you look like the guy he caught his wife banging, whatever, he's decided to give you a hard time and kick the 4th amendment to the curb in order to do it. Whether or not this will hold up in court is irrelevant, as you were released after a few hours with no charges.

Resource location??? Isn't that Fed, State and local LAW? These aren't "secret" and can be accessed by anyone. Feel free to post them in the open, this is the United States of America.