Drug Dog Legal Defenses Class In General Thoughts And Arguments

But in fact, no drugs were in any of the rooms, suggesting the "handler’s beliefs" and their "hidden cues" may trigger the
dog to alert on a target of suspicion, the researchers said.")

Recently I was threatened with (without probable cause) with a dog trained to sniff
drugs and quoted and number of drug busts that officer had made that year (note no
stating of any credit to the dog). All of which away from home when officer called the
k-9 unit stating they had found marijuana, however when they arrived there was no
drugs to be found (safe methods of disposal are always another good option and another
thread entirely). However, the dog stuck on resin on my fingers and I was threatened
with jail after court and was written a ticket for paraphernalia.

I looked into the laws a bit and had the case laughed @ by the D.A before court was ever near. In this thread
Ill explain how someone else may go about beating a case whereas a drug dog may be concerned. Keep in
mind I’m not trying to post my life story here and while you can attempt to use some info here, area laws are
always different and sometimes getting @ simple points and making them to be a big deal can go a long way
so long as its worded within the law in your defense.

First things first…
If you ever happen to be busted because of the presence of a drug sniffing dog. Keep your mouth shut. If authorities ask any questions excersise your 5th amendment rights and dont say anything, after drugs are found, anything that is said by the possessor can be used for the case and according to the 5th amendment, you are not required to say or admit to any information that may incriminate yourself but so often police attempt to get you to do so hoping that you don’t know your rights.

That’s all for the moment as Ive got somewhere else to be in the next few minutes, but next Ill be giving examples from a case in the state of Florida, Fl has some of the roughest laws in the states that I’ve been to thus far so I feel its a good example of how things can go if you know your stuff. I’ll also be getting into the issue of probable cause and what then serves or could be used as so and how LEO will always claim there’s probable cause even if there is not.

Ok now with that bit of information being transplanted in ones brain Ill go about talking about probable cause and k-9 units.
Kind of sketchy and gray area to discuss to me and same with many judges. Powers of persuasion and presentation of the information is crucial here if you plan to fight a case with this, BUT there is good news, cases have been fought and WON on this exact subject and that gives anyone in the same circumstances some room to win their own case easier with!

Now we are going to discuss the case of James Rabb Vs Florida State.

To give you the short sum of what happened with this fellow is pretty much according right along these lines if I remember correctly, I do smoke heavily while reading on most occasion so don’t take it to heart if I’ve confused something somewhere Im just making an attempt so one doesn’t HAVE to read through the whole case if they don’t wish
.
Someone narced this fellow out for selling pot. They proceeded to place him under surveillance in secrecy, waited on him to leave the home one afternoon in the car after making a deal, pulled him over for a simple traffic violation. He’s seen "messing around under the seat" by the officer and is asked to step out of the car for the officers safety. Cop then sees grow literature and a movie on plain sight in the guys car, asked what that was for and the fellow replies "just because it interest me (or something to being along those lines). Cop ends up finding joint in Mr. James brown’s ashtray asks him if he has anymore drugs, dude turns over 3 more joints from his sock. They cart him off to jail.
Meanwhile (before his release if I’m not mistaken) Remember I’ve said nothing about any search warrants having been obtained yet. A drug dog is walked around the presence of his home where it then strikes on the scent of some foreign drug inside of the home.

A warrant is received upon the grounds of the cannabis literature in the front seat of the vehicle, the pot that he possessed, AND the striking of the dog @ the outside of the mans private property. Inside the home they find more pot and less than a handful of ecstasy tablets.

NOW, the man wins the case. The court declared the sniff outside of his home unusable in court and he beat the case by proving it to be a violation of his privacy. He more so made it out as they had no right to question why he had possessed cannabis info, or having connected that with any info about his own personal home to have gone and done such a thing as walk the dog around his home. On top of him pointing out that the dog could have been trained to strike on the scene outside of his home by simple command, after all they were easily trained enough to strike when they find drugs. (a professional dog handler of good respect presented a many of these points with the dog but one can easily make them themselves if done in the right mannerism.)

If youd like to read more on the case then here is a pdf file on it
http://www.4dca.org/Feb2006/02-15-06/4D02-5139.op.pdf

If police have no obvious reason for asking questions then answering them is obviously a large risk. And if your worried about getting caught doing anything with it, deny all interest in cannabis when asked by a LEO if you already didnt know this. If your caught with grow material, a friend of mine left it here is always a good explanation and unless it has weed growing in it or being used for that, they arent allowed to assume thats what its for and take it without breaking the law. If someone finds weed in your vehicle (which is a bad idea to do @ any time if more than you can immediately eat to get rid of IMO) Deny that it is yours and say its someone elses left there as well. Easier said, if they didnt catch you smoking it, it aint yours and your not going to tell them who it belongs too. If you really feel you must give them a reason for not naming a owner to the substance tell them something simple as "for them to be harassed for it" however, you arent required to say anything about the stuff though, cause youll likelly be charged for it anyways no matter what is said but it makes them less likely to consider your home, other vehicles, or personal property as containing more evidence on you. NOT that a traffic stop bust is a reason to search those places unless you have a large amount of illegal material to be sold. In which case your going to jail for a nice stay and they are tearing object or place you have access to apart in order to search for more dirt to bury you with.

Now lets chat about the probable cause thing, many a cases without dogs even are won using this defense.
Police cannot search without your consent without having a warrant which probable cause is needed for. Probable cause is the reason that they would need to go through your belongings legally. It must be a reason in which without a doubt (key thing there) would suggest that you are somehow breaking the law with your property and allow them to search to see if you are breaking the law and to take the evidence needed for court.

IF LEO are searching for drugs, all states that I’ve helped people in, require the warrant to list the items in specifics in which they may be searching for. They cannot just list general terms for most things such as "illegal drugs" they would have to list "marijuana", "cocaine" etc…

From my knowledge, For the police to seize someone’s computer, the probable cause, and an order on the warrant to do so must be obtained with the search warrant used to enter ones home. I very well could be mistaken but I believe that’s something done nationally in the U.s but of course, local law always rules despite whatever federal law might state despite this supposed to be opposite and Ill always argue that area will win over fed, simply because it does in 90% of cases).

In a good many of southern states, People know that a locking compartment many just think the glove box and trunk but its generally anything that locks) in a motor vehicle is illegal to search without a warrant or a dog striking on the vehicle. Reason that officers cannot search in these areas in states with that law is lack of probable cause. Warrantless searches are searching for obvious and harmful things that may be a harm to the officer immediately. This would be an example of a pat down looking for weapons (if they feel anything other than weapons they cant just reach in and pull out your grass or etc, other than where weapons are concerned) Another example would be the officer looking in the immediate area of the vehicle you get stopped in to make sure there are no weapons laying around to harm him with.

If an officer is to find something in one of these warrant less searches, it can be used as evidence legally if there was probable cause for that search in the first place.

A glove box, trunk, or other locked containers in these states are a legal defense for the lack of probable cause. Now many people would say, "why could they not have a weapon in those locked containers?" Simply put, they could. BUT how are they to open that LOCKED container while the officer is present, retrieve the weapon and harm him before the officer could defend himself?

And how would you be able to open or lock the container to hide contraband while the keys are to be in the vehicle ignition going down the road (albeit some vehicles will allow you to remove the key most will not)?

There is no reason while these things should be easily done by the public masses and therefore there needs to be a warrant to violate your privacy in these states such as that. (However that is not true to all states some can and will make you open the container if you consent to a search)

A drug dog striking outside the vehicle can be used as probable cause to obtain a warrant to any of the private domains of the car because *surprise*, the entire vehicle is in public when on the roadways. If it were sitting on private property, its not probable cause for a warrant alone.

Odd how probable cause works @ times, it can end up being quite confusing sometimes as well. Where as LEO dogs are concerned, a good defense is trying to make it seem like they had no reason to have been using them in the first place or have violated your privacy rights in some means by using them.

Keep in mind as I’ve said before, sometimes your just F()kt!

another good case to read up on if someone needs some ideas as how to find a defense.
http://rexcurry.net/drug-dogs-jacque…ht-arizona.pdf

Here’s a good video and do what he tells you you have a lot better chance of getting out of being busted. They have been stopping people here on traffic stops and saying as they walk up to the car I smell MJ. Then busting them after searching the car. The judges are sick and tried of this bull and they are throwing them out of court. Half of the stops don’t even get a ticket. There nazi out look on you is you are guilty till I say your not. Watch this video it give you a lot of valuable info.

Button Ads!

Recently I was threatened with (without probable cause) with a dog trained to sniff
drugs and quoted and number of drug busts that officer had made that year (note no
stating of any credit to the dog).

Allison Margolin: Drug Dog Sniff Ruling Doesn’t Smell So Bad After All. Read PDF
US Supreme Court Ruling On "Florida VS. Harris" 2013 DJDAR 229 Feb 22nd 2013

Do drug dogs pass the sniff test? With Links To 4 Other Articles About Drug Dogs And Reliability..?

Handlers’ beliefs influence drug-sniffing dogs’ performance

US IL: Drug-sniffing Dogs In Traffic Stops Often Wrong! Legal Section

Florida Appeals Court Restricts Warrantless Drug Dog Searches