General Forums >> The Lobby >> High school drug sweep questions

Rate

High school drug sweep questions

2,764 Views
87 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top

Posted over 3 years ago

 

 Often I read about high school drug sweep stories where the K9 officers hit on several lockers, but no drugs are found.  Generally the stories say that the k9 officer must have hit on a residual scent of drugs that were there, but are now gone.  This makes me have some questions:


In these cases, how do the police know that it is a residual scent and not just a plain old false hit?


Will the student get in trouble based on the assumption that it is a residual scent and not just a false hit?  (this seems very unfair if the student does get in trouble)


If there is a false hit on the student's locker, then how is the student supposed to prove her innocence?


If all of the K9 hits that do not yield drugs are simply attributed to residual scent, then how would the K9's handler ever know if he had a faulty dog on his hands?


When the K9's are being certified or re-certified, how is the problem of residual scents versus plain old false hits handled?  After all, if the k9 makes a false hit during the certification process, then this could just be a residual scent problem.

Good-guysjpg-a87be92e015c863e_max50

548 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

How about you "DON"T DO DRUGS". If you follow this one advise then you woould have nothing to worry about.


R.I.P "Macho Man" Randy Savage

White_shirt_max50

4926 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I see where you joined this site Dec 1st of this year. Your line of questions appears more than just an interest in the use of K9's. You are sending some red flags. I am curious why you are asking these questions?

Cruise_2014_max50

2557 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

(sighs) Damn, is this what happens when the Lobby door is left unlocked and not guarded?


PL MENTORING TEAM MEMBER

"Don't underestimate the drawing power of the Garden State." From the film "Dogma"

Trying to stay sane in an insane world...

O_s_max50

860 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

BigNTS says ...



(sighs) Damn, is this what happens when the Lobby door is left unlocked and not guarded?



Yes, and wasn't it your shift there biggins?


"Law enforcement officers are never 'off duty.' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get."
- Barbara Boxer

"My heroes are those who risk their lives every day to protect our world and make it a better place - police, firefighters and members of our armed forces."
- Sidney

Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says:  "In these cases, how do the police know that it is a residual scent and not just a plain old false hit?"


 


 


Actually, that is a fair question. It's also a question that can be, and is, asked in court. The answer is also a lot easier than one would suspect. The answer is contained in the training records of that particular dog. Good training records keep track of both training and actual utilization. Words used often in such scenarios is "the totality of circumstances". Here, we use the totality of the training records to show our position. For example. For the sake of discussion, let's say the records indicate, in training, the dog is 98 percent proficient, with no false responses. Also during training, it's demonstrated the dog does hit on residual odor. An easy training scenario to set-up. Now we go to actual usuage. The training records will indicate the number of vehicles/lockers/ rooms etc, the dog has been used to sniff. The records will indicate the number of times the dog responded during these "sniffs". Not only will the records indicate the number of times the dog responded, but also the number of times drugs were found, subsequent the response. Then it's just a simple of matter of doing some "goesintas" You know, 2 goes in to 4 etc. Some simple division will give you a percentage of times the dog responds and drugs are found or nothing is found. Using one of my recent court cases the percentages were as follows. Training - 97.5%; False responses in training - 0%. Actual usage 91% (meaning, drugs were found 91% of the time, during actual usage subsequent the dog's response). Considering the totality of circumstances let's look at a few issues; 1. Just because nothing was found doesn't mean it wasn't still there. 2. The dog will respond to residual odor (documented training) 3. it was a false response. The documentation indicates the occurance of 1 and 2 are more probable than of 3.   Because of the documented training; training showing the dog will respond to residual odor and the lack of false responses during training, it's reasonable to assume, the dog was responding to residual odor when nothing was found. Seeing how the response of the dog is probable cause, not indisputable proof, I ask you; would being correct 91 out of 100 times qualify as "probable cause"? 




 


Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

 Thanks for the answer DFrost.  I had no idea that residual odors were part of training.  I thought they just tested the dogs for drugs-present versus drugs-not-present.  I didn't know that they actually created residual odor situations and also spaces where they are certain that no residual odors are present.  Is it possible that the dog is effectively being trained to not alert when it smells the chemical used to clean the residual odors out?  It remains amazing how often these high school sweeps yield lots of k9 hits and no actual drugs, but if things are really like you say they are then I guess the K9's must be correct.  I am still not sure how I feel about the idea of a student getting in trouble for a residual odor hit, though.


 


Follow up question:


What do they do if the K9 makes a couple of false hits during certification?  Does the police department have to get rid of the dog?  If they just keep retesting the dog until it passes, then that seems like a bad way to do it because the k9 will luck into the correct answers sooner or later, even without being particularly accurate.

Cruise_2014_max50

2557 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

rc86 says ...



BigNTS says ...



(sighs) Damn, is this what happens when the Lobby door is left unlocked and not guarded?



Yes, and wasn't it your shift there biggins?



I swear. I only closed my eyes for a few minutes!  


PL MENTORING TEAM MEMBER

"Don't underestimate the drawing power of the Garden State." From the film "Dogma"

Trying to stay sane in an insane world...

Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says:


 Is it possible that the dog is effectively being trained to not alert when it smells the chemical used to clean the residual odors out? 


 It remains amazing how often these high school sweeps yield lots of k9 hits and no actual drugs


  I am still not sure how I feel about the idea of a student getting in trouble for a residual odor hit, though.

 


 

Follow up question:




What do they do if the K9 makes a couple of false hits during certification?  Does the police department have to get rid of the dog?  If they just keep retesting the dog until it passes, then that seems like a bad way to do it because the k9 will luck into the correct answers sooner or later, even without being particularly accurate.


 


You don't understand the way dogs are trained. It's not a play on words when I say; dog's aren't trained to not find something. They are only trained what to find.


I'm not  at all surprised in the number of hits in todays school. If a student got in trouble, and no drugs were found, it wasn't the police, it was the school administration. That's their business, not the business of the police department. I will also state, you probably hear there are a lot more hits than there really are. That's just an opinion though.  


The standard in most certifications is less than 10%. So if the false responses you refer to are less than 10 percent, then the dog would certify. If he was more than 10% it would not certify. If after retraining and evaluation by the head trainer, the dog is unable to maintain the required proficiency, yes it would be retired.


Read again what I said about training records. They are what's important.


 


Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

uncledennis1 says ...



I see where you joined this site Dec 1st of this year. Your line of questions appears more than just an interest in the use of K9's. You are sending some red flags. I am curious why you are asking these questions?


 


 


 


And other concerned officers; I can see this poster has more of an interest than the just use of K9. The point is, he was not disrespectful, they were legitimate questions. Questions I've been asked numerous times in both state and federal court. Any time I have an opportunity to show K9 training is not smoke and mirrors or some sort of voodoo, I just don't see the harm. I have no doubt he's forming opinions based on rumors he's heard and half answers he's found on the internet by some chat room lawyer. Hearing the truth isn't going to harm anything. If it came to the point he was disrespectful or asked questions that, tactically, would not be prudent to answer, I'm no rookie.


 


DFrost



Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Gator_max50

5484 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

bmorgan says ...



DFrost says ...



uncledennis1 says ...



I see where you joined this site Dec 1st of this year. Your line of questions appears more than just an interest in the use of K9's. You are sending some red flags. I am curious why you are asking these questions?


 


 


 


And other concerned officers; I can see this poster has more of an interest than the just use of K9. The point is, he was not disrespectful, they were legitimate questions. Questions I've been asked numerous times in both state and federal court. Any time I have an opportunity to show K9 training is not smoke and mirrors or some sort of voodoo, I just don't see the harm. I have no doubt he's forming opinions based on rumors he's heard and half answers he's found on the internet by some chat room lawyer. Hearing the truth isn't going to harm anything. If it came to the point he was disrespectful or asked questions that, tactically, would not be prudent to answer, I'm no rookie.


 


DFrost




Nicely stated.



Agreed

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

 


I'm not  at all surprised in the number of hits in todays school. If a student got in trouble, and no drugs were found, it wasn't the police, it was the school administration. That's their business, not the business of the police department. 


I assume that if drugs are found then the policeman is empowered to make an arrest whether the administrator wants him to or not. Does a K9 hit that yields no drugs also give probable cause to arrest because it means that drugs were almost certainly there before? I have never heard of a policeman making an arrest based on residual odor (in school or in the rest of the world), but I can't see why they don't arrest on this basis because false hits (not based on residual odor) are very improbable. I mean, let's say that k9 hits that yield no drugs are 95% residual odor hits and 5% false hits, then that is not just "probable cause" (good arrest), but "beyond a reasonable doubt" (enough to convict). Even if hits that yield no drugs are 75% residual odor hits and 25% false hits, that is still good for an arrest so that the investigation can be completed with the perp in jail where he may be persuaded to confess. Still, I don't think this is how it works, but I am not sure why it does not work this way.

Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says:  "I am still not sure how I feel about the idea of a student getting in trouble for a residual odor hit, though."


Then Cleanville_Tziabatz  says: "I have never heard of a policeman making an arrest based on residual odor (in school or in the rest of the world), "


Pehaps I drew the wrong conclusion when you stated how you weren't sure about the idea of students getting in trouble for residual odor. It seems as if you were inferring that it happened. Here though you state you've never heard of a policeman making an arrest  based on residual odor. Neither have I. The search, subsequent the response by the dog, was the investigation. If the search did not yield drugs, then, in my experience, an arrest isn't made.


You stated: but "beyond a reasonable doubt" (enough to convict).  Do not confuse the terms "beyond a reasonable doubt", and probable cause. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard. When we discuss drug dogs we are talking of the lesser standard, probable cause.


If a K9 hit does not yield any drugs, there is little that can be done, criminally, beyond that search. In certain settings ie, prisons, some work areas etc, the subject may  be required to take a drug test of some sort. That however would be administrative and would not involve law enforcement. For example, the company a person works for may h ave a policy that a drug test can be ordered with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The penalty for refusing a drug test might be termination. It's strictly administrative, company policy etc and does not involve law enforcement.


 


At any rate, bottom line. I'm not familiar with any case where a suspect was "arrested" because of a residual odor response.


 


 


 


Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Mr-natural_1__max50

2178 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I once witnessed this a propos statement made by a Chicago PD officer:


The only reason I'm not taking you in is that I can't inventory smoke.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

DFrost says ...



Cleanville_Tziabatz says:  "I am still not sure how I feel about the idea of a student getting in trouble for a residual odor hit, though."


Then Cleanville_Tziabatz  says: "I have never heard of a policeman making an arrest based on residual odor (in school or in the rest of the world), "


Pehaps I drew the wrong conclusion when you stated how you weren't sure about the idea of students getting in trouble for residual odor. It seems as if you were inferring that it happened. Here though you state you've never heard of a policeman making an arrest  based on residual odor. Neither have I. The search, subsequent the response by the dog, was the investigation. If the search did not yield drugs, then, in my experience, an arrest isn't made.


You stated: but "beyond a reasonable doubt" (enough to convict).  Do not confuse the terms "beyond a reasonable doubt", and probable cause. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard. When we discuss drug dogs we are talking of the lesser standard, probable cause.


If a K9 hit does not yield any drugs, there is little that can be done, criminally, beyond that search. In certain settings ie, prisons, some work areas etc, the subject may  be required to take a drug test of some sort. That however would be administrative and would not involve law enforcement. For example, the company a person works for may h ave a policy that a drug test can be ordered with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The penalty for refusing a drug test might be termination. It's strictly administrative, company policy etc and does not involve law enforcement.


 


At any rate, bottom line. I'm not familiar with any case where a suspect was "arrested" because of a residual odor response.


 


 


 


I remain concerned about the possibility of students getting in trouble for hits that yield no drugs, even though I understand that they are not arrested.

But moving along, I do not understand why people (in school or out) are not arrested for K9 hits that yield no drugs. Why is it not probable cause? Isn't it overwhelmingly probable that the drugs were there?

25-1-13-a_1__max50

2127 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says ...



I remain concerned about the possibility of students getting in trouble for hits that yield no drugs, even though I understand that they are not arrested. But moving along, I do not understand why people (in school or out) are not arrested for K9 hits that yield no drugs. Why is it not probable cause? Isn't it overwhelmingly probable that the drugs were there?



DFROST already answered the question(s):


School administrators are held to the lesser standard of "Reasonable Suspicion" and if they so choose, can inflict administrative discipline on said student.  Police Officers are held to the much higher standard of "Probable Cause."  You might want to learn the difference between the two and maybe take a class in rules of evidence.  The difference between the two is important.  I simply cannot make an arrest based solely on my own reasonable suspicion.  The only thing that I can do is investigate further or let it go until the next time and hope that I catch him or her holding in the future.  The school can do what they want based on reasonable suspicion alone.  Having said that, I am still concerned about the context of your question and statements........ You seem to flip-flop.

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

SkoolCop says ...



Cleanville_Tziabatz says ...



I remain concerned about the possibility of students getting in trouble for hits that yield no drugs, even though I understand that they are not arrested. But moving along, I do not understand why people (in school or out) are not arrested for K9 hits that yield no drugs. Why is it not probable cause? Isn't it overwhelmingly probable that the drugs were there?



DFROST already answered the question(s):


School administrators are held to the lesser standard of "Reasonable Suspicion" and if they so choose, can inflict administrative discipline on said student.  Police Officers are held to the much higher standard of "Probable Cause."  You might want to learn the difference between the two and maybe take a class in rules of evidence.  The difference between the two is important.  I simply cannot make an arrest based solely on my own reasonable suspicion.  The only thing that I can do is investigate further or let it go until the next time and hope that I catch him or her holding in the future.  The school can do what they want based on reasonable suspicion alone.  Having said that, I am still concerned about the context of your question and statements........ You seem to flip-flop.



Well, DFrost said that the K9s are tested to see whether they can distinguish residual odors from cleaned out spaces so that if the K9 makes a hit "in the field" then it is overwhelmingly likely that drugs were there.


 


 


 


That was a helpful answer, but also a puzzling one. It is puzzling because, if what DFrost says is true, then a K9 hit should be considered as probable cause to make an arrest, to get a search warrant for the perp's apartment, etc. But a K9 hit is not considered as probable cause (as far as I can tell). My question is: why isn't a K9 hit treated as probable cause?

Sg_max50

1626 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

DFrost says ...



Cleanville_Tziabatz says:  "I am still not sure how I feel about the idea of a student getting in trouble for a residual odor hit, though."


Then Cleanville_Tziabatz  says: "I have never heard of a policeman making an arrest based on residual odor (in school or in the rest of the world), "


Pehaps I drew the wrong conclusion when you stated how you weren't sure about the idea of students getting in trouble for residual odor. It seems as if you were inferring that it happened. Here though you state you've never heard of a policeman making an arrest  based on residual odor. Neither have I. The search, subsequent the response by the dog, was the investigation. If the search did not yield drugs, then, in my experience, an arrest isn't made.


You stated: but "beyond a reasonable doubt" (enough to convict).  Do not confuse the terms "beyond a reasonable doubt", and probable cause. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher standard. When we discuss drug dogs we are talking of the lesser standard, probable cause.


If a K9 hit does not yield any drugs, there is little that can be done, criminally, beyond that search. In certain settings ie, prisons, some work areas etc, the subject may  be required to take a drug test of some sort. That however would be administrative and would not involve law enforcement. For example, the company a person works for may h ave a policy that a drug test can be ordered with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The penalty for refusing a drug test might be termination. It's strictly administrative, company policy etc and does not involve law enforcement.


 


At any rate, bottom line. I'm not familiar with any case where a suspect was "arrested" because of a residual odor response.


 


Cleanville, See underlined above.  


Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says: "Well, DFrost said that the K9s are tested to see whether they can distinguish residual odors from cleaned out spaces so that if the K9 makes a hit "in the field" then it is overwhelmingly likely that drugs were there."


I really didn't differentiate what the dog can distinguish other than the dog responds to the odor it was trained to detect. You are the one that made the comment about the cleaning solutions etc.  While the dogs response may well be "overwhelmingly likely" that drug HAD been present, we don't make an arrest for what might have been in that instance.




Cleanville_Tziabatz says: "That was a helpful answer, but also a puzzling one. It is puzzling because, if what DFrost says is true, then a K9 hit should be considered as probable cause to make an arrest, to get a search warrant for the perp's apartment, etc. But a K9 hit is not considered as probable cause (as far as I can tell). My question is: why isn't a K9 hit treated as probable cause?


A K9 "hit" is considered as probable cause. A K9 "hit" can be used to request a search warrant. A K9 "hit" of a school locker, for example, does not provide probable cause the owner of that locker has drugs in his house. The locker could be searched, however that does not extend to the suspects house. Unless of course additional evidence that pointed to the house was found during the search. You state a K9 hit is not considerded probable cause and then ask the question, why isn't it. 


This indicates to me you really don't have a grasp of probable cause, the facts needed to obtain a warrant, the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to affect an apprehension, the application of the dog's response. How the law is applied isn't within the purview of the police officer. I don't know why you can't understand why a person is not arrested when a dog responds and nothing is found. Personally, I'm glad there are safeguards in our justice system that prevent such things happening just because "I" or some other officer think it's the right thing to do. You've been given an answer, I can't help it if you don't like the answer, perhaps someone can explain it better than I. You could also contact a lawyer or do some research of probable cause, reasonable suspicion and  beyond reasonable doubt. I have to tell ya though, there comes a point, during a discussion, when a question is asked in more than one way,  it becomes argumentative. I won't participate in an argument about drug detector dogs. If you have a legitimate question, no problem, I'll be happy to answer. I can see you might want to start going in a different direction.


 


 


Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

DFrost says ...



Cleanville_Tziabatz says: "Well, DFrost said that the K9s are tested to see whether they can distinguish residual odors from cleaned out spaces so that if the K9 makes a hit "in the field" then it is overwhelmingly likely that drugs were there."


I really didn't differentiate what the dog can distinguish other than the dog responds to the odor it was trained to detect. You are the one that made the comment about the cleaning solutions etc.  While the dogs response may well be "overwhelmingly likely" that drug HAD been present, we don't make an arrest for what might have been in that instance.




Cleanville_Tziabatz says: "That was a helpful answer, but also a puzzling one. It is puzzling because, if what DFrost says is true, then a K9 hit should be considered as probable cause to make an arrest, to get a search warrant for the perp's apartment, etc. But a K9 hit is not considered as probable cause (as far as I can tell). My question is: why isn't a K9 hit treated as probable cause?


A K9 "hit" is considered as probable cause. A K9 "hit" can be used to request a search warrant. A K9 "hit" of a school locker, for example, does not provide probable cause the owner of that locker has drugs in his house. The locker could be searched, however that does not extend to the suspects house. Unless of course additional evidence that pointed to the house was found during the search. You state a K9 hit is not considerded probable cause and then ask the question, why isn't it. 


This indicates to me you really don't have a grasp of probable cause, the facts needed to obtain a warrant, the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to affect an apprehension, the application of the dog's response. How the law is applied isn't within the purview of the police officer. I don't know why you can't understand why a person is not arrested when a dog responds and nothing is found. Personally, I'm glad there are safeguards in our justice system that prevent such things happening just because "I" or some other officer think it's the right thing to do. You've been given an answer, I can't help it if you don't like the answer, perhaps someone can explain it better than I. You could also contact a lawyer or do some research of probable cause, reasonable suspicion and  beyond reasonable doubt. I have to tell ya though, there comes a point, during a discussion, when a question is asked in more than one way,  it becomes argumentative. I won't participate in an argument about drug detector dogs. If you have a legitimate question, no problem, I'll be happy to answer. I can see you might want to start going in a different direction.


 


 



Thanks for the answer. I am not sure I understand it. I believe what you are saying is as follows:


 


 


You personally think that a k9 hit that yields no drugs should be considered as probable cause for arrest because the perp probably committed the crime of drug possession. However, the courts disagree and have held that a K9 hit that yields no drugs is not probable cause to arrest. These court rulings are the reason why policemen do not make arrests on K9 hits that yield no drugs.


 


 


This is what I take from your latest reply.  I hope I got it correct.

Sg_max50

1626 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says ... 



Thanks for the answer. I am not sure I understand it. I believe what you are saying is as follows:


 You personally think that a k9 hit that yields no drugs should be considered as probable cause for arrest because the perp probably committed the crime of drug possession. However, the courts disagree and have held that a K9 hit that yields no drugs is not probable cause to arrest. These court rulings are the reason why policemen do not make arrests on K9 hits that yield no drugs.


 This is what I take from your latest reply.  I hope I got it correct.



Wrong!

Th_germanshepard_max50

1941 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Clean_Tziabatz says: You personally think that a k9 hit that yields no drugs should be considered as probable cause for arrest because the perp probably committed the crime of drug possession.


 


That is inaccurate. Actually, I stated just the opposite of what  you said; I said, in an earlier post: "How the law is applied isn't within the purview of the police officer. I don't know why you can't understand why a person is not arrested when a dog responds and nothing is found. Personally, I'm glad there are safeguards in our justice system that prevent such things happening just because "I" or some other officer think it's the right thing to do."


I actually said I'm glad there are safeguards that prevent an officer from doing what  you suggest. Perhaps you need to completely read the answers you are given. It's not a good practice to misstate a persons position as you are attempting to mine.


 If you have further questions relative the use of K9, feel free to ask. Other than that, I've answered this question to the best of my ability. I would only ask if you are going quote me, make sure you quote me properly.


Clean_Ziabatz says: "I hope I got it correct."


 


DFrost says: You did NOT. Please reread my comments.


Beyond fatigue lies compensatory hypertrophy

Mr-natural_1__max50

2178 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

This is a classic example of someone sees/reads/hears what he wants to see/read/hear.


you: "The sky is blue!"


him: "I think you said the sky might be purple. I hope I got that right."


 


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Photo_user_banned_big

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

DFrost says ...



Clean_Tziabatz says: You personally think that a k9 hit that yields no drugs should be considered as probable cause for arrest because the perp probably committed the crime of drug possession.


 


That is inaccurate. Actually, I stated just the opposite of what  you said; I said, in an earlier post: "How the law is applied isn't within the purview of the police officer. I don't know why you can't understand why a person is not arrested when a dog responds and nothing is found. Personally, I'm glad there are safeguards in our justice system that prevent such things happening just because "I" or some other officer think it's the right thing to do."


I actually said I'm glad there are safeguards that prevent an officer from doing what  you suggest. Perhaps you need to completely read the answers you are given. It's not a good practice to misstate a persons position as you are attempting to mine.


 If you have further questions relative the use of K9, feel free to ask. Other than that, I've answered this question to the best of my ability. I would only ask if you are going quote me, make sure you quote me properly.


Clean_Ziabatz says: "I hope I got it correct."


 


DFrost says: You did NOT. Please reread my comments.


This just brings back the question:

Why isn't it probable cause?

If a hit that does not yield drugs still means that drugs were probably there, then it should be probable cause to arrest. You are saying that a fruitless hit means that drugs were probably there, but this still should not be considered probable cause somehow. Why do you take that position? If courts take that position, then why do courts take that position?

Cot_max50

3423 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says ...



 Often I read about high school drug sweep stories where the K9 officers hit on several lockers, but no drugs are found. 



just curious, where are you "often reading" about this?  i have been in law enforcement for over 15 years and never read or heard of an article about K9 searches in high schools, hitting on lockers, and no drugs found.  just me though.


also.... if your messing with DFrost,  you are barking up the wrong tree.  the man definitely knows his K9 so you can take what he says to the bank!


MODERATOR #7

Sg_max50

1626 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Cleanville_Tziabatz says ...



DFrost says ...



Clean_Tziabatz says: You personally think that a k9 hit that yields no drugs should be considered as probable cause for arrest because the perp probably committed the crime of drug possession.


 


That is inaccurate. Actually, I stated just the opposite of what  you said; I said, in an earlier post: "How the law is applied isn't within the purview of the police officer. I don't know why you can't understand why a person is not arrested when a dog responds and nothing is found. Personally, I'm glad there are safeguards in our justice system that prevent such things happening just because "I" or some other officer think it's the right thing to do."


I actually said I'm glad there are safeguards that prevent an officer from doing what  you suggest. Perhaps you need to completely read the answers you are given. It's not a good practice to misstate a persons position as you are attempting to mine.


 If you have further questions relative the use of K9, feel free to ask. Other than that, I've answered this question to the best of my ability. I would only ask if you are going quote me, make sure you quote me properly.


Clean_Ziabatz says: "I hope I got it correct."


 


DFrost says: You did NOT. Please reread my comments.


This just brings back the question: Why isn't it probable cause? If a hit that does not yield drugs still means that drugs were probably there, then it should be probable cause to arrest. You are saying that a fruitless hit means that drugs were probably there, but this still should not be considered probable cause somehow. Why do you take that position? If courts take that position, then why do courts take that position?

I'm a Non-LEO.


K-9 finds drugs = Probable cause to arrest


K-9 Does NOT find drugs = Reasonable suspicion that drugs were present but no probable cause to arrest.


Arrests are not made based on reasonable suspicion. There is no law against smelling like drugs therefore an arrest is not made and courts are not involved.  


You're just not getting it.

Mr-natural_1__max50

2178 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

From what I understand (which you have to realize is very little--but seemingly more than you (OP) do), "probable cause [for arrest]" varies from state to state, but "heresay" is usually excluded. While evidence of a "scent" isn't strictly "heresay", it doesn't take much of a leap to realize why it's excluded or how that concept could be abstracted to include "the hit" that didnt result in finding collectable physical evidence.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Silver_warrior_max50

1463 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

Probable cause to arrest. . . . .on what?  The dog hits on an odor. . . .police officer has probable cause to take it a step further. . . .if that step further (whatever that step may be) comes up empty (i.e. no drugs) then there is no reason to arrest.  HOWEVER, the odor does lend itself to further investigations down the road if it happens again.  You are not taking your rational far enough "down the road" so to speak.  If someone has "the odor" on/about their clothing. . . .there is a good chance of possession you are correct.  A couple of weeks later, if the same person has "the odor" on/about their clothing. . . .it is another step further down your path of rational thinking to believe that the first time was not an accident and maybe we ought to be focusing on this individual a little bit more, as in "where are they hiding it. . . .outside on school grounds?".  Then again, what is the purpose of the K9 searches. . . .to keep the drugs out of school or to catch people with the drugs?  If all they are getting is odors and no drugs, then the purpose has been successful.  If it is to catch people with them. . . .well, then there is going to be a little more leg work (i.e. investigatory work) to make that happen.


I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.

John Bernard Books, from "The Shootist"

White_shirt_max50

4926 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

I am highly suspicious of this line of questions. DFrost I appreciate this information as you have taught me something as my knowledge of K9's is very minimal. Thank you Sir.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

8070 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 3 years ago

 

As I understand, police officers in Tijuana may arrest and submit suspect to a drug test merely when the odor of marijuana has been detected on the suspect's hands. 


Here, the plain smell doctrine is sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion, but other evidence is required to provide probable cause leading to an arrest. 

Next Page >