K9 Open air sniffs, Reasonable Suspicion Stops on Pedestrians & Terry Frisks with Zach Miller.

[@joetripi3255]

What happens if a canine makes too many mistakes

[@kentlbrown5810]

Should the K9 handler have to identify how the dog indicates the presence of contraband to the suspect or to the court? Can the officer allow the K9 inside the car when the original officer leaves the door open or denies letting the suspect shut the door? Should the police require statistics be maintained to determine if a dog indication provides REASONABLE suspicion? Number of K9 interactions. Number of positive indications by the dog. Number of times no contraband was found even though the dog had a positive hit. Percentage of false positives. If that % gets near 50% is a positive indicator really REASONABLE?

[@Arminsaf2]

Saying a informant tip and a person grabbing a package from the car is such a ridiculously low bar for probable cause you have opened a huge can of worms. Unless the informant gave specific information you better be pretty sure it’s a package with evidence.

[@MisterTDiSalvo187]

Rodriguez V us States you cannot prolong a traffic stop to wait for a canine to arrive on the scene. If a K-9 Officer pulls a motor vehicle over he could employ the canine but you cannot prolong the stop longer than reasonably necessary to complete the mission for the initial stop in the first place or is unconstitutional. Furthermore certifications for canines, (and my father was k9 officer as well as owning his own training company upon retirement) i think should be brought into question as dogs are allowed one false positive alert during testing. Also a lot of training associations use a minimum of 10 grams of a controlled substance, some use 1 gram because of the unreliability of any amount less than 1 gram. Aside from that, you have the right to question your accuser, how can you question a dog? A silent palm up in a upward motion is the silent command for sit. The average citizen doesnt know that. I have seen officers utilize that to say the dog sitting was his alert. Not knowing i know advanced obedience and off leash training. The problem lies both in the reliability of the animal and the integrity or lack there or with the officer.

[@DEA90799]

How is it a "technicality" when prosecution witnesses impeach their own testimony or that the accuser is unavailable to be confronted by a defendant during a trial?

[@jy4356]

I will never forget when I was in training and my FTO said, "As I ask people if I can pat them down for weapons, I am already actively doing it." I said, "Isn't that unconstitutional and a violation of Terry v Ohio?" And she just laughed. I feel I was correct after listening to this discussion

[@rickbruceroche2038]

Curtalage. You CANNOT enter to do your dog test.

[@DB-th8kb]

How about we end the K9 drug units? I was pulled over for a made up reason (supposedly getting of the exit and going 60mph when it turned to 45mph, yet making sure I went the speed limit because I saw the cop follow me). Cop asked to bring his K9 around my car. I said no and asked what his suspicion was. He said nothing, it was for “extra training”. I said no again. He went back to patrol car with my license and registration and came back with dog. Of course the dog hit. I had to sit in on the side of the road while the cop pulled my car apart. He found absolutely nothing. And to prove he pulled me over for no reason, he conveniently forgot to write me a warning or citation for the original reason I was stopped. You guys are out of control. I’ve never done a drug in my life, never been arrested, etc. I have respect for the cops in dangerous areas. The majority of you are just bored, not serving or protecting us with our tax payer money like you’re supposed to, but acting like bullies.

[@gordonjolivette5219]

I have an experiment... now police officers have right too...so this would have to be done under a terms of employment exemption...Give 1000 K9 cops randomly and without warning a lie detector test and simply ask them two questions.1)Do you have a secret signal for your dog so that he will indicate on a car that there are drugs? 2)Have you ever used it to illegally search a car? If we are honest it is likely that the result would be a horrible failing grade on top of the dogs themselves already getting a failing grade. I am aghast that after testing was done showing your average K9 police dog is only about 52% accurate, that the supreme court said 52% was good enough. 52% was a failing grade on every test I have ever heard of.

[@libertyprime1710]

If a dog alerts on a car that has no drugs in it, what's the damage? Dogs will alert on cars without drugs and they won't alert on cars with drugs. Is it's the latter, a criminal gets away and if it's the former, a law abiding citizen gets his car searched and goes on his way. If you don't have drugs in your car you have nothing to worry about.

[@sclifford9818]

@@libertyprime1710you seem like the kind of if you have nothing to hide what’s the big deal. Your rights are what the deal is. To add to the dog questions, before you ask the 2 questions investigate with the colleagues. Most lawyers know the answer before the question is asked.

[@libertyprime1710]

@@sclifford9818 That's literally incomparable. One is an assumption of guilt, which is unconstitutional, and the other is a good faith mistake by a drug detection tool. Dogs are one of the most accurate methods of detection with the most minimal amount of privacy violation. What's your alternative?

[@cichlid43]

@@libertyprime1710 The alternative is for law enforcement to respect the 4th amendment or end up on court with a lawsuit if they don't.

[@joeamerican3106]

Are all canine cops honest and don't produce a hit just when they want

[@cmack3625]

How do you know something is illegal with your meth hypnosis that it is not a bag of candy, or something else? It could be thrown out with a good lawyer. I brought oregano and bay leaves to my mother's to help cook Thanksgiving dinner. I had a big containers of them I would not use before it went bad so I put some in zip lock bags. Is that pot automatically and allows you to search illegally in your mind?

[@borabora4480]

you should always get a search warrant when time allows and you think you have PC. Without that search warrant you are replacing a jude s opinion for your own as a law enforcement officer. It is lazy not to and direspectful of your oath. It may be legal but a far cry from respecting the oath.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Suppose you as an undercover officer stop someone on your belief that they match a description and it turns out that had you surveillance that person a bit more you would have found out they did not match the description? And you came off as impersonators to them because did not properly identify as law enforcement? And then you did something that convinced them you're just common criminals and violent felons, and it led to their violent arrest? There's a case out there called King v United States 917 F.3d 409 where this scenario actually happened, although it got reversed on other grounds in Brownback v King 592 US 740

[@kazzdevlin5339]

Lawfully on the property to do a Terry stop? Based on what reasonable articulable facts the word of a drugged out ci? Then what happens when the package isn't drugs congrats for walking yourself into a civil rights lawsuit

[@DEA90799]

I believe your viewers would benefit by watching KZbin videos from first and fourth amendment auditors and The Civil Rights Lawyer, and Audit The Audit.

[@aprilerickson5433]

If only they would, but cognitive dissonance.

[@borabora4480]

if an officer was just going onto the property for a knock and talk why would he be looking into a car in the driveway. that is not normal visitor behavior so it would not pass the 4th amendment. the second scenario, you say you believe it is credible but not according to the judge, so you should stop and investigate further to bolster the PC warrant request. Now you just say just wait until he leaves and pull him over and you laugh. How about the fact there was no basis for the traffic stop. You guys are just actively looking for ways to violate and push the edge of constitutional protection. Shameful. I want bad guys caught too, but not this way. do your work properly.

[@themikeymikechannel2947]

If we are not detained or arrested and we will not be waiting on a sniff search warrant!! LOL

[@etfilms8645]

No American flag here, just the Blue gang signs. Figuring out how to violate Americans freedom is the goal of this channel.

[@williamhegele2151]

No victim,no crime. NOTICE. automobile not motor vehicle???

[@jameszander6805]

You openly stated that you can cite "suspicion" without even needing to state what actual crime the "suspicion" is of. Courts have long upheld that ones ID is their property and protected under 4A unless probable cause of a suspicion of a crime is supporting the detainment and ID'ing. (Not ambiguos suspicion alone) I am let down to hear that this video of yours is openly telling LEOs to violate an individual's 4A rights while ignoring SCOTUS upheld precident. Imo...you are giving LEOs a false sense of how to over ride SCOTUS upheld rights, violate them, and have them facing a federal lawsuit for deprivation of rights under color of law, lose their qualified immunity, be sued civially without that immunity, and face legal and civil repercussuions....up to and including revocation of their bonding. Shameful.

[@timothyboone5003]

I’m on your side, but it would do you well to understand what RAS (reasonable articulate suspicion) and PC (probable cause). These two are not interchangeable. They are different elements, RAS is needed to stop, detain, and ID. PC is required to make a warrantless arrest or vehicle search.

[@themikeymikechannel2947]

Both are totally wrong in this video - no consent means no consent to search of any kind!! just don't violate the privacy act of things in our vehicles! Nothing over rules the privacy act and never will!!!!

[@jy4356]

A dog conducting an open air sniff is not a search. On a traffic stop you are detained for a reasonable amount of time for the officer to complete their duties related to the stop. I would guess you'll get some extra tickets and they'll maybe have less discretion if you don't consent but it doesn't make what they do wrong

[@themikeymikechannel2947]

@@jy4356 - no consent of a search means non human searches as well! Search is a search by any and by all means are not needed without a sniff search warrant k9 dogs are government property also so we a person says no consent - it's means a huge settlement lawsuit will pend!!!!

[@EddieLeal]

Whether a dog sniff inspection constitutes a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment depends on whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy intruded by the inspection. Dog-sniff inspection of items in public does not constitute a search or a seizure under the Fourth Amendment so long as the dog is lawfully present at the scene and the conduct is proper. Following this principle, inspection of containers, packages, lockers or vehicle exteriors can be properly conducted without a warrant or probable cause. A dog sniff inspection has been held as a Fourth Amendment search when a person expects the place or property being inspected to be free of governmental intrusion. For example, a dog sniff of someone’s home may be considered a search.

[@kentlbrown5810]

For the 911 caller, even if the officer believes what the citizen says, doesn’t that statement have to indicate criminality? Just saying someone has a gun in a constitutional carry state does not indicate criminality and should not provide reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop anyone!

[@timothyboone5003]

@jy4356 You imply that it’s ok to tax the 4th Amendment. “Get some extra tickets and less discretion” if you don’t consent. That’s equivalent to saying if you don’t waive your Constitutionally protected Right, it’s going to cost you more. I may be wrong but I believe officers take an oath to follow or maybe protect the Constitution. That’s hypocrisy at its best.