Sullum Looks At Drug Dogs And The SCOTUS

I was glad I checked this link which should be of interest to those following the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the validity of drug dogs in establishing probable cause. Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum takes a close look at drug dogs and their effectiveness, and how the courts- the Supreme Court, specifically- view those cases.

Interesting read but I'm not sure I catch the full reasoning of why the court would be more skeptical of a drug dog's use in a search of a house as opposed to one of a car. Reliability of drug dogs doesn't seem to be considered in either case. I'm reading it as the court being more concerned about the location of where the drug dog alerted.

Supremes Back Drug Dog Search

I mentioned last year, the Supreme Court was going to hear two cases regarding the validity of drug dog searches. They decided one of them yesterday ruling that, despite a dog alerting falsely on the same vehicle twice, the dog's alerts were still grounds for probable cause for a search.

The way I read it, the justices are saying it doesn't matter what the false alert rate of drug dogs are. That they were certified through an official drug dog training course, alone, validates their alerts as sufficient.

This is almost the exact opposite of the sort of ruling I thought would be proper. What this means is that anybody, drug user or not, can be searched on a whim if a drug dog decides for one reason to another to alert on your car or home.

The death of a thousand cuts continues, and I'm sure we'll see this case used as precedent by courts in the future to further eviscerate protections against illegal search and seizures.

~~~~~~~

I've written about drug dogs before. Radley Balko had a great post on his blog last year that should have been titled All You Ever Needed To Know About Drug Dogs.

Update: Radley Balko opines this recent decision.

Traffic Stops, Drug Dogs and Probable Cause

Radley Balko has a nice piece up on the Huffington Post about a traffic stop that results in what should be an illegal search. I feel safe in saying this same sort of thing probably happens hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day in this country.

In this incident the out- of- state driver is pulled over for one of those catch all reasons: crossing the yellow line a few times. The officer seems about to let him go but then questions him. After a minute or so he comes up with the all too predictable, "Do you mind if I search your car?". After the driver refuses the search, the officer uses his dog to fabricate cause for a search.

A couple things make my blood boil over this sort of thing:

First, the idea that so many cops ask to search people's cars for no particular reason. It's as if they figure, "Why not? All they can do is say no". They shouldn't be asking to search vehicles unless they have probable cause to begin with.

Second, the courts really need to lower the level of faith given to drug dogs. I'm reading more and more about how dogs can read signals and feelings from their handlers that encourage dogs to give the response the handler wants.

If nothing else, it seems to me totally out of line that a drug dog can alert on a car thus giving police probable cause to go through the whole car. If the dog alerts on a car- as I've written before- that dog should go inside the car and find the supposed drugs. The police shouldn't be able to search everything in the car because a dog alerts.

If he's so good at what he does, he should be able to pinpoint the drug location immediately. If he can't, it's a false alert and the search should be aborted.

I often don't have the time or desire to watch videos that accompany news stories. In this case I'm glad I did as the driver of the car put together a nice account of the incident. He even includes some footage of drug dog training with false alerts. Some of you may enjoy the slightly over 17 minute video. About the only downside is the voices are a little hard to hear during the traffic stop.

The bottom line is the courts really need to reclassify the validity of probable cause they give to drug dog alerts.

Addendum: As an aside, this sort of thing makes me wonder about all the locals we've heard about getting busted, especially out of state, for transporting dope? They're usually stopped by police for some traffic infraction. I know I'm not the only one who thinks "How could they be so stupid to be speeding while carrying a bunch of pot?".

Maybe they weren't?

Drug Dogs: No Warrant Necessary

Yet another drug dog search and arrest in the news, this time from Crescent City. I'm finding these stories more and more disturbing if only for the fact they're widespread and most people seem to find them acceptable.

In this case a couple people are stopped in a car for traffic violations. A police dog is brought to the scene which is considered "...routine that he would do that.". Naturally, the dog alerts to drugs in the car and the officers search the car. And, naturally, the dog isn't used to pinpoint the supposed drugs, but gives officers cause to search the whole car.

What do they find first? Some prescription drugs, which I feel safe in saying aren't something dogs would normally alert on. If they are, that means many of us are open to having our cars searched at any time for no reason. Almost as an aside, the article mentions a couple bags of methamphetamine that were also supposedly found after the prescription drugs are found.

Fair enough with the meth since I would think dogs might be trained to alert to methamphetamine. Still, the cops once again search the whole car because of a vague alert by the dog and that leaves the whole car open to search without warrant.

And these dogs don't seem to be reliable as some might think. I've written before about one guy who was stopped by police and a drug dog alerted to drugs in his car. No drugs were found. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

A few weeks ago Radley Balko did a post about a police search of a couple middle schools using drug dogs. The dog alerted to drugs in student's lockers over 20 times, yet no drugs were found.

This is commonplace and it seems to be getting worse with no indication that I've heard of the courts questioning the validity of these searches. It seems the situation will only get worse, and the vast majority of us will respond with a simple shrug of our shoulders.

Supreme Court Mulls Drug Dog Cases

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutional aspects of two cases involving drug dogs from Florida. Radley Balko's look at the cases might well be titled All You Ever Wanted To Know About Drug Dogs. He covers a lot of ground.

Suffice it to say, this could have some important ramifications depending on what they decide. I'm not very optimistic. The Supreme Court seems to rule more and more often in favor of the power of the state, even if just a little at a time, regardless of who sits on it.

Drug Dogs Help Seize Bail Money

Radley Balko reports on what seems to be a scam in Wisconsin where police are seizing bail money. They have a drug dog alert on the money. Declare it "drug money", and seize it using asset forfeiture laws.

Once again, hat tip to The Agitator blog for a good story.

One Guy's Drug Dog Story

I thought this guy's story about getting stopped by the Texas Highway Patrol and searched for drugs was a fun read in some ways. His point wasn't so much about the dog brought to sniff his car for drugs but the widely practiced fishing expeditions that are carried out routinely in the border states.

I've seen it myself on those real life cop TV shows and, while I'm sympathetic to the police side in many instances having somewhat of a mickey mouse law enforcement type background myself, some of the ways the cops intimidate drivers into having their cars searched without probable cause burns me up at times.

My question in this case was about search procedure in regards the dog:

The dog supposedly signals drugs in the car. The cops consider that probable cause to search so they go inside the car and search it both inside and out. If the dog can locate drugs, why didn't they have the dog go inside the car and pinpoint the drugs he supposedly smelled from the outside of the car? Seems to me that would have saved considerable time.

My guess is that it gives the cops more leeway in searching the vehicle if they keep the dog away from the car after signaling. If the dog finds the drugs right away, I'm guessing that may cause problems with them wanting to go through the rest of the car. I'm not sure but it probably has to do with something along that line.

This should concern us all, especially with the reliability of the drug dogs themselves coming into question now. Thanks to Radley Balko for the link to the story above.

Drug Dog Scandal Unfolding?

Radley Balko is right. This could be big.

Some retired cops from Nevada have filed a racketeering complaint against some local police departments. They claim the department's drug dogs were trained to alert on cue, not scent,  enabling police to perform illegal searches.

It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

Sidestepping The Law?

A well written and hard- hitting letter to the editor in the Willits News discusses evidence commonly used against many of us by police and prosecutors nowadays: "The American public tend to believe that drug sniffing dogs, DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair sample comparisons and the testimony of a police officer are highly accurate forms of evidence used to establish the guilt of someone accused of a crime. Wrong."