I beleive my car was illegaly searched today. I had some non drug bussiness to take care of which is near the state line. I figued i would run into this considering i do have a record. i was pulled over by a k9 suv i was going with the flow of traffic he was in the right lane going somewhat slower he gets behind me and flashes his lights so i pull over. I asked what seems to be the problem officer. He asks for my license registration insurance. He then says you were speeding 74 in a 60. He then states i swevered near the under pass. I said i didnt notice. He asks hows my driving record i tell him ok i guess he then says im going to go check your record and if it checks out no suspended license ect ill let you off with a warning. he comes back and says im give you a warning come back here and walks to the back of the car. Now I know this isnt too cool but i dont want to coroperate considering i do have a record and i dont want any trouble. He starts talking about drug trafficing and do i do drugs or have drugs and all that. He asks about pot i say yeah i ocassionaly smoke it but havent in 3 weeks. he asks if he can search my car I tell him I dont have anything to hide but id rather you not search. I tell him im sure you seen my record i learned my lesson. He says no i only did a driving record check. He says thats fine you have a right to refuse. Im going to let my k9 do a walk around. He makes the k9 do 2 walk arounds in my windows and near the under area of the car. as he is walking back to put the k9 back in the car he says whens the last time you smoked in the car i said over 3 weeks. He walks back and says well my dog indicated( I seen no indication at all) well he lightly searchs my car lifts back seat cushion up looks around the inside of car looks under the hood and in the trunk he then say well there must of been some residue still in the car because the dog indicated i just drove over 300 miles with the windows down and i havent smoked in the car for over 3 weeks. I will be honest there was a marijuana but in the ashtray area i rolled a joint a a few weeks ago with a cardboard filter it was just the cardboard and zigzag but no weed i smelled it later and it did smell like weed but he didnt see it or he would have told me this is why the dog indicated ect. As i drove down the Interstate i noticed my glovebox had been unlucked and when i got back into the car my keys were not in the ignition anymore so he unlucked my glove box and searched my glovebox my 500 dollars was still there though. ( I seen the videos i know i should have taking the keys with me) i have a warning with his information on it and also on it states CAT Combined anti drug team was i violated should i file a complaint or should i leave it alone since i admitted smoking weed in the car 3 weeks ago giving him something to fall back on and also i will be going back out that way a few more times over the next few months i dont want to be hassled framed or have drugs planted on me as he walks
file a complaint he cant do shit about what you done in the past. If he searched illegally than he will be suspended and wont be out there buggin you and than if he tries anything else file another complaint that his is hassling you and he can get kicked off the force. Good luck man hope you dont get beat by the cops
There were a lot of things you did wrong when you were pulled over. You should never admit to smoking weed, even if it was 3 weeks ago. You should never bring up your CRIMINAL record, you are just digging yourself deeper in the hole and give him more reason to search your car. And of course you shouldn't file a complaint, the man let you go with a warning. Are you really trying to complain about that?
the only thing that really gets me is my record is mainly from illegal searchs very similar to this im sure hes busting people from illegal searchs so a complaint will difinitly suck for him however can i really prove he illegaly searched me I think if i didnt admitt to him i smoked marijuana in the car 3 weeks ago id have his ass lol he felt kinda stupid at the end there hes like you have any questions about that warning what you have to do...nothing thats all it is a warning you dont have to do anything " somthing to that effect and had a jive ass look on his face
There's nothing you can do about filing a complaint. Because when it all comes down to it, it's the cops word against yours. Who do you think the judge will believe?
saying you smoked weed gave him reasonable suspicion to search your car. since you denied him to search but for the damn k9, he weaseled his way into searching your glove box. let it be, you got off easy. next time now you know better.
Reasonable suspicion?? WTf are you talking about. You need PROBABLE CAUSE to search the car. Next time the cop comes back with your license and says "Hey Im letting you off with a warning..." YOU ARE FREE TO GO. You do not have to go to the back of your car with him. Just say "Sir, you gave me my warning, Am i free to go now?" He cannot legally hold you there. And ya his dog false indicated which is not allowed. That would not hold up in court. Dont ever ride around with roaches in the ashtray either! One more thing, download the "never get busted again" torrent from btjunkie.com or sumthing. It will cover every aspect about car searches and shizit...
Cops need "probably cause" to make an arrest or get a search warrant, they only need "reasonable suspicion" to search your person or vehicle. And I seriously doubt that the dog false indicated, given that the OP admitted that he could even smell weed in the ashtray, and an indication from a drug dog is plenty of reason to search a car. Even if the dog didn't really indicate, there would be absolutely no way for you to prove it, so filing a complaint would get you nowhere. However, I'm betting the dog did indicate. It isn't always obvious, many dogs are trained to just sit and look where the smell is coming from, rather than bark or point. That way the cop is alerted before the suspect.
Neither of you do. They can search your car if they feel like it. Sure, legally, they need a reason, but how hard would it be to make up? And why wouldn't they if they found something? If they don't, and you file a complaint, you're just going to cause more problems for yourself. You got out ahead, leave it be. Fact is, when they have a dog with them, they can make up anything. You don't know the dog's exact indications, or how they show them. The cop could say whatever he wanted in court and most likely get away with it. A couple people here still seem the be under the assumption that (most) cops don't take advantage of their authority every chance they see, when they clearly do, and clearly get away with it almost every time.
I'm sorry, but could you clarify? "Probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are both legal terms, referring to standards by which law enforcement can be conducted. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, meaning that law enforcement would need greater reason to search a home or make an arrest than to search a person or vehicle. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, I'm going to have to ask you why you think I'm wrong, and then cite something to prove it. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are both defined in every State's law, and everything I've said about it can be backed up by that. So... where is it that we disagree?
We disagree at the SUSPICION whether its resonable or not its just suspicion. Probable cause to search a vehicle would be something along the lines of plain view whether it be drugs, drug paraphernalia, or the smell of marijuana or even marijuana smoke coming from out the vehicle resonable suspicion is notohing that warrents a search period lets say someone is pulled over on the interstate the officer asks where that person is coming from and the person says the next state over and hes acting very nervous and really fumbles with his story that to me would be resonable suspicion sure they can ask you to step out the vehicle and ask if you mind if they search but you still have a right to refuse wether that right is granted or not in the middle of nowhere when dealing with the police its still the law sleepyshoegazer im totaly aware of the fact that the police can do anything they want to and im aware of the fact that they fabricate evidence and their police reports thanks for stateing the obvious
It seems I had to state the obvious. You're doing the same. We're not in disagreement over what is probable cause. It's how it's used that we disagree. What is and what is not offical law doesn't matter. If a cop wants to search your car, your car is getting searched my friend. I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to get across. I, as well as most other people on GC know the laws surrounding Marijuana (and searches as well, by proxy), but thats hardly an issue. The fact is, the OP got searched for reasons unknown, but I highly doubt it was unlawful. He refused the search by the officer, that's fine. But if the dog indicated something (or even if it didn't, and the officer just lied about it, it doesn't matter), thats all the reason he would need to go through the whole car, let alone just the glovebox. The original question was should he do something, and the simple answer is no. The more accurate answer would be "Yes, but what?" Technically, he broke the law (albeit an unjust law, but a law nontheless) by having Marijuana residue in the car with the ashtray and the roach in it. He said himself he could smell it. So why in the world would a trained drug dog NOT smell it and indicate that it's found something? The OP got very lucky, and even if it was an illegal search (which I doubt, honestly), there's nothing he can do about it. It would be like someone calling the police because someone robbed them when they tried to buy Crack off the person. That's what the topic is about. We're debating over a side-issue that doesn't matter for this question.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. "Reasonable suspicion" gives an officer the power to search your person (i.e. frisk) or vehicle for weapons. Legally, the officer should only be searching for weapons, but if drugs or paraphenalia are uncovered during the search, then it is admissable as evidence and you can be charged. "Probable cause" gives law enforcement the power to search your person or vehicle specifically for drugs, and in the Supreme Court case Illinois v. Cabelles, it was ruled that a drug sniffing dog may be used in any routine traffic stop without reason, and any alert by the dog can be classified as probable cause to search your person or vehicle for drugs. I still don't see where we are disagreeing. I never said anything that implied that I thought that a cop couldn't illegally search a car and get away with it. It happens all the time. The only point that I'm trying to make is that in this particular case, the cop was in the legal right.
What you fail to realize is that "suspicion" will hold up in court as "cause".. Suspicion IS probable cause in the court of law when referring to a police search. Don't say I'm wrong on it, because I've been in a situation where suspicion was cited as a reason for my search and it held up in court, even after I tried your faulty argument. And what you're saying isn't at all in conflict with what I was saying anyways. If a dog can be used at any traffic stop, without reason (which we agree on), and it indicates a find, you can get searched up and down. What the fuck are you disagreeing with me on? I agreed the dog probably indicated a smell, and he got searched. Not a bit of that was unlawful. Explain to me where you are seeing a disagreement on what we're saying? Edit: Nice edit, PohTayToez
I think I see where were off here wether a search is legal or not it doesnt really matter if drugs are found technicaly it should be dismissed but thats up to a judge and all bets are off now if my car is unlawfully searched and no drugs are found i can file a complaint if the dog indicated on the car and no drugs are found then that dog needs to be recalibrated lol by the dog indicating on the car that gives problable cause but if no drugs are found i was subject to an unnessary search which goes against giving probable cause to search a vehicle due to an indication from a k9 and i was the op and if I was not to have admitted smoking weed in the car 3 weeks ago and i didnt have that butt in the car (my car would have still been searched im sure of it) im sure id have a legit complaint but due to the mistakes i made i dont have a solid complaint which i realized after posting