At Techdirt, Tim Cushing writes about a doggie search on an Amtrak train from Chi-town to the left coast.  During a stop in Nevada, Detective Madhu Kurup decided to take advantage of Shaun Estes’ desire for a quick smoke.

Shaun Estes, who was traveling by train from Chicago to California, was confronted by Amtrak detectives (yes, there is such a thing) while smoking a cigarette during a brief stop in Reno, Nevada. Detective Madhu Kurup approached Estes based on nothing more than the fact that Estes’ one-way ticket had been purchased with a credit card belonging to someone else. Seeing this on the passenger manifest, Kurup requested the assistance of local officers and their drug dog. That’s when things went from bad to worse to farcical.

Estes was asked if he was carrying any drugs, weapons or [cash register noise] “large amounts of money.” Estes claimed he wasn’t. Kurup asked for permission to search Estes’ cabin and belongings. Estes refused. Kurup then informed him that a drug dog was on the way and that his belongings would be seized while a warrant was obtained if the dog alerted.

Nothing out of the ordinary here, so Kurup did what brave law enforcement officers do every day. He lied.

When the police dog was led down the hallway by Estes’ room, it showed some interest outside of the room, but did not “alert” on the room. The officers knew they could not seize Estes’ belongings and obtain a search warrant due to the lack of a positive alert by the dog.

That’s what the detective knew. But this is what he actually did.

However, Kurup did not advise Estes that the canine had not alerted on Estes’ room. Instead either Kurup or Moore told him that the dog had shown strong interest in the room. According to Kurup, Estes then responded that he had a small amount of marijuana in his room and he then gave his consent to Kurup to search the room and Estes’ baggage. According to Kurup, Estes opened his luggage bag in the room and removed a small bag of marijuana and Kurup then, with Estes’ consent, searched the remainder of the bag and found a 9mm Kel-Tec handgun.

The bizarre part of the story has yet to come.

And, just like that, the marijuana baggie and illegal weapon are gone. The average citizen isn’t going to know the difference between “interest” and an “alert” when watching a drug dog in action — something officers like Kurup are more than happy to take advantage of.

Exactly.  The use of lies and manipulation is suddenly wrong?  These are the primary arrows in the law enforcement quiver. They’re used constantly, in a million different ways, from obtaining confessions to consent to search to tricking crazies to become terrorists.

If cops can lie about why they stopped a vehicle, why can’t they lie about the doggie did? If they can trick suspects by telling them their already-dead baby is about to die, his only chance being confession, why not that the doggie found drugs when it didn’t?

The list of lies and manipulative techniques can go on and on. It is a “necessary tool of law enforcement,” as courts like to explain when endorsing government deception that might otherwise be found slightly offensive to ordinary folk. It’s an accepted part of the game, even if the defense contends otherwise.

So why does the lie present a problem here?

Perhaps it’s because Kurup decided that lying to Estes wasn’t good enough, and decided that lying to the judge was a good idea.

Kurup described a very consensual and casual conversation with Estes on the train platform. The fact is that the encounter with Estes had been carefully planned by the drug interdiction team composed of Kurup, Detective Moore, and canine Officer Hill. The only purpose of their being together at the Reno train station was to confront Estes and to act within an approximate ten to fifteen minute period of the train’s temporary stop. When Kurup approached Estes on the train platform, there was an obvious immediacy in the encounter. The denial by Kurup of Estes being involved in a cell phone conversation on the train platform, of directing Estes to get off the phone and not hearing repeated return calls by Erika Dean in the several minutes following the conversation, raises serious questions concerning Kurup’s description of a seizure-free atmosphere surrounding Estes as well as Kurup’s credibility in general.

And District of Nevada Judge Larry Hicks details other aspects of Kurup’s testimony that he finds a little shy of credible.

Kurup’s credibility is further strained by the consent then attributed to Estes. Although Kurup and the two police officers were at the train stop together for the ten to fifteen minute period for the specific purpose of investigating Estes and his possible involvement with drugs, Estes’ voluntary consent to search testified by Kurup was not witnessed at any time by either of the two police officers. No attempt was made by Kurup to have Detective Moore or Officer Hill witness or confirm the alleged consent by Estes, no attempt was made to create an audio recording of Estes’ consent, and no attempt was made to obtain a written consent from Estes although a consent form is a standard form used in Reno police investigations.

While the substantive explanation of what Kurup lied about is the court’s focus, there is nothing about lying that presents a problem, per se, until the singular aspect of his lying to the court is factored into the mix.  Had Kurup wrapped up his lies and manipulation of Estes in the ol’ “gots to lie to catch these sneaky bad dudes, yer honor,” would suppression have followed?

But if Judge Hicks got a little bent out of shape about being treated as much like a fool as Estes, it’s better than the shrugs other judges have given in response to being lied to.  What seems to remain outside the analysis is that the law has embraced the law enforcement tool of lying, not merely allowing cops to lie but encouraging them to engage in whatever manipulation they can get away with.

Yet, do judges think that lying cops were going to miraculously turn truthful when seated in their presence? Because if lies work so well that the law upholds them for everyone else, they would never lie to the court? You created this monster, judges, and you’re surprised it turned around and bit you on the butt?