The dog/probable cause connection is one of the most problematic pieces of legal mythology around. As it’s a firmly embedded concept, and as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to recognize that it’s as much probable cause as a coin toss, there appears to be no argument of sufficient persuasiveness to end the terror of the dog hit.
Reason has put together another excellent video connecting the problematic dog sniff with the even more problematic investigative use of fingers in people’s anuses.
The courts often use the phrase “shock the conscience,” which is itself a peculiar test since the degree of outrage needed to shock varies markedly from person to person, and the question of conscience, how much disgust we can tolerate before we hit the wall, makes for a line that no one can see.
The video refers to the case of Timothy Young, who found out the hard way what it means to have a cop decide that he’s going to rape you because he can. Shocks the conscience? No more than so than the cop who did the same to David Eckert. Or the cops who loved Dr. Michael LaPaglia, who never met an anus he didn’t want to penetrate upon request. Then there are women, who have an additional orifice to penetrate.
These reflect two separate problems, but also reflect the synergy created by egregiously bad law, sick cops with guns and a judiciary unwilling to confront the fact that their approval enables this to happen. Judge, if you’re not cool with the idea that police are penetrating people’s bodies, why does it become acceptable because a dog said so?
Or to put it differently, would you shrug it off as an unfortunate necessity in the war on whatever if it was your kid? Or your wife? Or you? Or is it okay because you know it would never happen to one of your own, because you believe that no police officer would be so crazy as to make your lovely wife endure a “digital probe” on the side of the road?
What does it take to shock your conscience? Start with the dogs. There’s a reason dogs like to sniff butts, but that isn’t a reason for you to close your eyes to the fact that a dog sniff is all it takes for a cop to justify the anal rape of a human being. This has got to stop. It is horrific and disgusting, and you are responsible for it happening.
Your dog can sniff my behind and my vehicle if and only if my dog can sniff yours. Fair is fair.
Excellent video. This should put to rest the “common sense” notion that LE canines are infallible.
And nothing more than pretexts for search and seizure by overly motivated and zealous LE with too much time on their hands.
Don’t forget the Eighth Circuit says seven to eight minutes is de minimis.
I usually respond with woof, woof times up. But I don’t recommend that for those adverse to spending a night in jail.
SHG,
Your well known refusal to give belly rubs now applied starkly to living beings who deserve it the most (those who eagerly sniff our butts for free) hurts my feelings and offends my well developed sense of the cosmos. What is worse, you weren’t even civil.
All the best
RGK
Trigger Warning: Brown collar humor ahead.
A good mechanic never blames his tools. It’s not the dog’s fault, judge.
SHG,
Greatest photo ever!
Thanks.
RGK
I’ll start my pipe dream rant here…”shock the wallet” would be very effective used on a handler whose “trained” dog was cued for a false alert. If no drugs are found in the field check, that jurisdiction can settle and agree to write a check for violating your 4th amendment rights without you filing a lawsuit. If the jurisdiction really believes in the dog’s ability and officer’s integrity, and wants to double down and start to dismantle the car, then, after no drugs are found, they just bought themselves a car. All dismantles would also be observed by someone selected by the defense attorney, just to keep the cops honest. Bottom line, a manipulated alert is the equivalent to a search without probable cause and or permission. After writing a few checks, behavior would be quickly modified. Just imagine Collinsville, Il having to cut a check every time Officer M. Reickert cued his dog! I know it sounds too simple but it would be a place to start. Police departments in the U.S. need to learn the cost of violating an innocent citizen’s rights. On the anal probes, never justified, just write the check out to “Cash”, the amount can be filled in later.
You left out the part where they give you a foot massage.
When Collinsville, IL has to “write the check” it’s the same as you and me writing the check because in reality, that is who is paying (once again)…the taxpayer. The “offending” cop has no skin in the game at that point.
In your prescribed scenario (which I agree with) it should be the cop writing the check. (imho) that would put an end to these “fake bust shakedowns” real quick.
Just sayin…
Collinsville can shut down Reikert any time it wants. It would be great if cops didn’t have qualified immunity and had to pay or share in their malfeasance, but if you don’t like writing the check for his conduct, elect new officials.
As a resident of Washington State, where marijuana was recently legalized for recreational use, this is of particular concern to me. If I leave the state in my vehicle, or even with my clothing or handbag, which has possibly been in contact with marijuana, it is possible that a law enforcement canine will alert on me or my vehicle. I worry about this same issue when I visit a BOP facility and am subjected to ion spectrometry drug testing. Or if I go up to Vancouver BC to see an NHL game, and have to cross the border.
Because everything in Washington State has weed on it now. The entire state is covered in marijuana residue.
I agree that it is never really appropriate for LE to finger bang you because a dog said so. That excuse did not work for Son of Sam, not sure why they get to use it. I am just even more concerned because the risk of said alerts has now gone up.
You raise a great many significant issues here. The residents of Washington and Colorado run a very significant risk.
A related risk that happened to me even before pot legalization – a rent car that had previously carried dope. In the instant case the car smelled so bad that I refused it but what if it hadn’t been so prominent – something only a dog can smell . . . .
Another excellent point.