Knock knock. "This is the police. May we search your home?"

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

In response to another post, I said 'especially the poor and uneducated' because they lack the means to defend themselves in court. Rich dumb people can hire smart lawyers.

Solution - don't even open your door. Without a warrant, they have no recourse.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Why, John - you sound downright... ... liberal! Bestill my heart.

I disagree with your implication that conservatives are in favor of violating the constitution.

1. It was a joke.
2. You're right, conservatives should also be presumed to respect the Constitution, just as much as liberals. I guess I've been on the receiving end of one too many comments from some conservatives (not from you), in response to my complaining about unconstitutional govt action, that say, "you whining libs all think...", etc.
Anyhow, it was a joke. I don't really think you're a liberal.

[billvon 3,132]

>I disagree with your implication that conservatives are in favor of
>violating the constitution.

Recently, they've certainly been the ones doing all the violating. A recent restriction on Habeas Corpus comes to mind.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Lawrocket where are you man we need you

See, that really hurts.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

Good question, I don't know the answer. I do know of someone that had their property (apartment) searched because an officer stated that they could smell marijuana outside of the apartment.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I do know of someone that had their property (apartment) searched because an officer stated that they could smell marijuana outside of the apartment.

so shouldn't they have searched 'outside of the apartment'?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

Good question, I don't know the answer. I do know of someone that had their property (apartment) searched because an officer stated that they could smell marijuana outside of the apartment.

They shouldn't have answered the door. They can't kick the door down because they 'smell something'.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

Good question, I don't know the answer. I do know of someone that had their property (apartment) searched because an officer stated that they could smell marijuana outside of the apartment.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In some states that would be probable cause, AND enough exigency of circumstances (imminent destruction of the evidence if you take the time to get a warrant) to allow a warrantless search. In other states, it would still be probable cause, but only enough to support a search warrant.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

Good question, I don't know the answer. I do know of someone that had their property (apartment) searched because an officer stated that they could smell marijuana outside of the apartment.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In some states that would be probable cause, AND enough exigency of circumstances (imminent destruction of the evidence if you take the time to get a warrant) to allow a warrantless search. In other states, it would still be probable cause, but only enough to support a search warrant.

I'm convinced those dogs are trained to 'hit' whenever the cops want them to. that way it gives them an excuse to violate the rights of citizens. They can just say, if they find nothing, "Oh well, blame it on the dog."

Are there any actual cases of dogs being used to initiate a warrantless search?

Whenever I read thread like this I feel an urge to run out and join a militia. I don't..... but I do get the urge.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I voted 'NO'!
#-1 On what gronds do they want to search my home or vehicle?
#-2 Show me a warrant stating what they are looking for.
Besides, I don't feel like straightening-up the mess they're going to leave when they're done!

do you mean you'd tell them "no" if they ask?

or do you mean they shouldn't even be allowed to ask unless they already have a warrant?

__________________________________

Yes! I would tell them NO! If, they want to search my vehicle or home, they'd better have a warrant.
I would be well within my rights.


Chuck

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

There are a couple of differences. First, the cops already have the person pulled over for something and the Terry search rules apply.

If a cop is knocking on my door to try to ask for weapons, I would tell the cops respectfully, "No, officer." They've not go probable cause for a search.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

The question is, do you want a government policy encouraging the police to routinely ask people to waive their constitutional rights?

"You don't mind if we ask you a bunch of questions about this crime without your lawyer present, do you?"

"You don't mind if we search your house for contraband, without a warrant, do you?"

"You don't mind if we hold in jail for months, without ever bringing charges against you, do you?"

Why, John - you sound downright... ... liberatarian!
Bestill my heart.

There I fixed it for you.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

What I support greatly is that the people be educated abotu their absolute right to say "No" to the search.

Doesn't this seem to be one step closer to "papers, please?"

Wo ist der papieren?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The question is, do you want a government policy encouraging the police to routinely ask people to waive their constitutional rights? no

"You don't mind if we hold in jail for months, without ever bringing charges against you, do you?"

We already do this if a citizen is considered an enemy combatant. But i would rathere that no one would be held without charge.

Aha! I see that you detected my hidden meaning, which I aimed specifically at you, based upon another thread you started. And you got both answers correct. Because if you had said "yes" for one, and "no" for the other, then that would have been an inconsistency. You passed this test. Congratulations.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Doesn't this seem to be one step closer to "papers, please?"

They already do that....license and Insurance....ask things like where do you work... can I search your vehicle...slippery ass slope that some seem to want to give up all to easily...

Or passport when travelling...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Help for the stupid and uneducated.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aclu+search&search=Search

[tbrown 26]

Of course if you say no, the cops will get a warrant and then deliberately trash your house. So once you've said no, get on the damn phone and call every eagle eye award winning news TV station in town and have them camped out on your doorstep when the cops come back - it MIGHT save your grandmother's wedding picture in the livingroom from being smashed to pieces.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

In response to another post, I said 'especially the poor and uneducated' because they lack the means to defend themselves in court. Rich dumb people can hire smart lawyers.

Solution - don't even open your door. Without a warrant, they have no recourse.

IIRC, searching a vehicle requires reasonable suspicion, whereas searching a residence requires probable cause. The standard is a lot higher.

To search a home, you need a warrant, permission, or specific circumstances. While a dog alert may provide probable cause [United States v Sokolow (490 U.S. 1 (1988) U. S. Supreme Court.], without the right circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the home, they'd still need to get a warrant.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Well, that is just it. Many actions of the police are unconstitutional, and they know their acts are in direct conflict of the document, but they will do it anyway because they know that it takes years for an answer of "No" to get through the court system.......Thank God for watchdog groups such as the ACLU who fight this sort of corruption for us!

Personally, if the police knock on my door and I have not called them, no way in hell I am going to open that door or even speak to them.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ever watch cops? The cops pull over a car and ask the driver if they can search the vehicle. The driver declines the search. The cops become suspicious and call for another cop w/ a dog to see if the dog will mark the car so that they can search it.

PS: Dogs are not always right, I know this from experience.

So, could they show up with a dog barking at your house and use that as probable cause?

In response to another post, I said 'especially the poor and uneducated' because they lack the means to defend themselves in court. Rich dumb people can hire smart lawyers.

Solution - don't even open your door. Without a warrant, they have no recourse.

IIRC, searching a vehicle requires reasonable suspicion, whereas searching a residence requires probable cause. The standard is a lot higher.

To search a home, you need a warrant, permission, or specific circumstances. While a dog alert may provide probable cause [United States v Sokolow (490 U.S. 1 (1988) U. S. Supreme Court.], without the right circumstances justifying a warrantless search of the home, they'd still need to get a warrant.

What you speak of is idealistic theory.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Of course if you say no, the cops will get a warrant and then deliberately trash your house. So once you've said no, get on the damn phone and call every eagle eye award winning news TV station in town and have them camped out on your doorstep when the cops come back - it MIGHT save your grandmother's wedding picture in the livingroom from being smashed to pieces.

I have seen this happen, but no news crews where interested.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just like with the warrantless wiretaps, if you aren't doing anything bad, you don't really have anything to worry about now do you?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Wiretaps yes, data mining no.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yes! I would tell them NO! If, they want to search my vehicle or home, they'd better have a warrant.
I would be well within my rights.

so you voted "Yes" in the poll? They can ask anything they want (the poll specifically notes "voluntary"). You have the right to say yes or no to the request as your choice.

This is a stupid poll, people aren't reading it completely.

Lawrocket has the right answer, people need to know their rights. Then it doesn't really matter at all if a cop asks or is restricted from even asking. We can always say "no, come back with a warrant, thanks for the warning".

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes! I would tell them NO! If, they want to search my vehicle or home, they'd better have a warrant.
I would be well within my rights.

so you voted "Yes" in the poll? They can ask anything they want (the poll specifically notes "voluntary"). You have the right to say yes or no to the request as your choice.

This is a stupid poll, people aren't reading it completely.

Lawrocket has the right answer, people need to know their rights. Then it doesn't really matter at all if a cop asks or is restricted from even asking. We can always say "no, come back with a warrant, thanks for the warning".

I agree that you should know your rights. I disagree that figures of authority should walk from house to house asking if anyone will waive their rights. (This does not appear to be the best thing they can do with their time and our money.)

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch