search of vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mommyof2

New Member
If I deny an officer the right to search my vehicle but was held outside my car until the K9 unit shows up, are my rights violated when the dog smells around my car and smells children cold medicine which causes the officers to search my vehicle. I really don't consider that probable cause or is it? They didn't find anything else in my vehicle after the search.
 
Not all dogs are trained for narcotics. If this dog was not trained then the probable cause may be weak or non-existent.
Police can detain you briefly to allow the dog to sniff around. If it takes too long to get the dog then your detainment may be unreasonable.
If you asserted your refusal to allow the search and the police proceeded based on the response of an untrained dog then maybe you have a gripe.... or if they made you wait a long time for the dog to arrive.
However, if you are not facing any criminal charges it may be best to simply make a formal complaint to the department and then let it go.

Also, a search based on a hit from a trained narcotic dog may be sufficient to justify some searches, but if time is not a factor it would be smarter for the police to slow down and get a warrant if the owner is refusing permission.
 
It doesn't matter what the medicine contained. The question is about how the police got into the vehicle without permission. That requires a warrant or probable cause. A dog that is not certified for narcotics can't get the police around a warrant.
 
Mommyof2 said:
are my rights violated when the dog smells around my car and smells children cold medicine which causes the officers to search my vehicle.
Click to expand...

It is a 4th Amendment question. The contents of the bottle is irrelevant. The question is regarding probable cause. The answer, as usual, depends on circumstances we can only guess at.

The contents of the bottle would not justify a bad search lacking probable cause. The legitimacy of the search is not based upon what is found.
 
OP said nothing else was found.
Apparently no arrest, just a question about whether the search was lawful or not.
 
shrinkmaster said:
I guess the question is since there was no real harm is it worth the trouble to pursue this further?
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on the principles of the person who was searched and whether the circumstances were actually unlawful.
My money would be on no, it is likely not worth pursuing beyond a formal complaint. However if there is an unlawful detention while waiting for the canine coupled with a bad search based on unqualified canine there might be a little bit of a payday in there.
 
OP, were you on parole or probation?
Please elaborate about the circumstances of the stop.
Was the bottle confiscated?
Did the bottle contain over the counter medication, or was it obtained by prescription?
If obtained by RX, whose name was on the label?
 
The medicine was for my 2 year old niece and was only tylenol. I am not on probation or anything just in a flashy car. After the search and nothing besides the medicine was found, I was slapped with a wreckless driving ticket for going across the yellow line but I was turning off a side street onto a main street (turning left off of the side street) so therefore I would have to come across that line to get into the right lane. I was held out there over an hour and late for work.
 
Mommyof2 said:
If I deny an officer the right to search my vehicle but was held outside my car until the K9 unit shows up, are my rights violated when the dog smells around my car and smells children cold medicine which causes the officers to search my vehicle. I really don't consider that probable cause or is it? They didn't find anything else in my vehicle after the search.
Click to expand...
First off, what was the original stop for and how long were you detained while awaiting the K-9?

Second, where was the bottle and what did the cold medicine contain?

Whether anything can be done or not depends on a number of factors. Since there appears to be no evidence of a crime, suppression is not an issue here. So, the issue then becomes of whether you want to make a personnel complaint, sue, or just grouse on the internet. Whether you could get a payday or not depends on a number of factors you have not mentioned such as the time of the detention, and what the officers have to say about their probable cause. It may well be that the search was bad, but that there is no practical recourse for you to take aside from a complaint. If you feel that you have won the lawsuit lottery, consult an attorney. I don't see it, but then I also don't know MS law in this area.
 
mightymoose said:
It doesn't matter what the medicine contained. The question is about how the police got into the vehicle without permission. That requires a warrant or probable cause. A dog that is not certified for narcotics can't get the police around a warrant.
Click to expand...


Well, the LEO and the Judge have asked the same question - apparently it might just matter.
 
It truly does not matter. They ask out of curiosity, or to determine if suppression of evidence is an issue. The question has no bearing on the outcome as OP said nothing was found.

All that matters is the officers reasonable suspicion (or lack of) when calling for the dog, the length of the wait, and the qualifications of the dog. Those are the elements that lead to developing probable cause to search regardless of what is found.

Whatever is found inside the car is beside the point and does not change whether the search was conducted legally or not.
 
The answer to the OP's original question as to whether his rights were violated is, "Maybe."

I don't see that anyone said the question of what is found inside the car changes the legality of the search. But, the content of the substance within the car might explain the alert by the dog and any subsequent search of the interior. And since no evidence was apparently found, there is nothing to suppress.

As the OP was told, he can decline consent to search. However, the police can still run a dog around the exterior of the car and that can result in the development of probable cause. Yes, there is a time element that comes into play hence the reason I asked about the length of the detention as well as the content of the substance found. Given solely what the OP has written, there is nothing to indicate that the search was unlawful.
 
Right. The contents may explain why the dog had a hit on the car, but what was found is irrelevant toward whether the search was legal. The dog's qualifications are what matter. A dog not properly trained as a narcotics dog can not give police probable cause to search for narcotics. A dog that is trained can give probable cause and it does not matter if anything is found or not, however a dog with too many false positives can be a problem.
This scenario makes me curious what reasonable suspicion the officer had in the first place to call for the dog, as that alone could result in an unlawful detention and bad search.
 
Last edited:
mightymoose said:
Right. The contents may explain why the dog had a hit on the car, but what was found is otherwise irrelevant. The dog's qualifications are what matter. A dog not properly trained as a narcotics dog can not give police probabl cause to search for narcotics.
Click to expand...
And it would be silly to run an attack dog around a car looking for drugs. If it was a dog NOT trained to detect drugs, then there would be a host of problems ... though that does not appear to be an issue here. I have to assume that it was a drug dog that was run around the car.

A dog that is trained can give probable cause and it does not matter if anything is found or not, however a dog with too many false positives can be a problem.
This scenario makes me curious what reasonable suspicion the officer had in the first place to call for the dog, as that alone could result in an unlawful detention and bad search.
Click to expand...
A lawful detention is required, but depending on the details of MS law there may not be a requirement for reasonable suspicion to run a dog around a car so long as the underlying detention is lawful and the detention is not unreasonably prolonged. While CA takes into account the record of the dog, MS may not. And since we aren't dealing with a suppression question, the reliability of the dog is moot.

Here in CA we can run a dog around a car without specific reasonable suspicion so long as the detention is not prolonged ... MS may be the same or it may hold a higher standard, I do not know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top