Jump to content

2019-20 CFL Offseason


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now to get Brandon Banks on an off - season program that will give him the cardio needed when he's targeted 3 times in a row...

We must never mess with the 'Rouge' - it may serve no real purpose but most importantly it is not American and it confuses the **** out of Americans... therefore it is critically important to the Cana

I still think with a different OC, Streveler could be a top tier QB in this league. 

2 hours ago, Geebrr said:

Again, the dog whose sole job is to identify the presence of drugs doing alerting an agent seems like more than enough probable cause to search the vehicle without consent. 

I don't get the procedural error. Why have the dog at all?

The dog sniffing for drugs is IN OF ITSELF considered a search so the police can't use the dog alerting as probable cause for making a search.

I.E. police can't walk up and down streets with a drug sniffing dog and when the dog alerts at a house, use that alert as probable cause for obtaining a warrant to search the house for drugs.

It's a little less clear with dogs alerting during routine traffic stops - IF a driver has committed some other driving offense AND the dog alerts while the officer is dealing with that offense then the search for drugs is OK.  Checkpoints further complicate the question, from what I understand at checkpoints police need to have pre-determined that they will pull over every nth car (every 2nd car, 5th car, 10th car, etc) to check for whatever the checkpoint is there to check for.  They can't actually change their rules for the checkpoint mid-stream.

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

 

Edited by BomberfanMKS
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BomberfanMKS said:

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

That's the sort of technicality a good lawyer is going to exploit in favour of his client and I'm sure Mr. Robinson will be able to afford a good lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J5V said:

The dog did his job correctly. The question is, did the agents? All it takes is a technicality.

Actually, there have been several cases in the US where it was proven in court that the dog handler had trained the dog to respond to a covert signal from the handler and react as if the dog had actually detected drugs. With that amount of ganja, it wouldn't take much for even a comatose dog to detect it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tracker said:

Actually, there have been several cases in the US where it was proven in court that the dog handler had trained the dog to respond to a covert signal from the handler and react as if the dog had actually detected drugs. With that amount of ganja, it wouldn't take much for even a comatose dog to detect it.

My buddy's dog ate a large quantity of his black hash once. Talk about a comatose dog.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BomberfanMKS said:

The dog sniffing for drugs is IN OF ITSELF considered a search so the police can't use the dog alerting as probable cause for making a search.

I.E. police can't walk up and down streets with a drug sniffing dog and when the dog alerts at a house, use that alert as probable cause for obtaining a warrant to search the house for drugs.

It's a little less clear with dogs alerting during routine traffic stops - IF a driver has committed some other driving offense AND the dog alerts while the officer is dealing with that offense then the search for drugs is OK.  Checkpoints further complicate the question, from what I understand at checkpoints police need to have pre-determined that they will pull over every nth car (every 2nd car, 5th car, 10th car, etc) to check for whatever the checkpoint is there to check for.  They can't actually change their rules for the checkpoint mid-stream.

So the border agent whose dog alerted him OUTSIDE of the checkpoint might not actually have the right to tell the checkpoint to do a further search because his dog alerting outside of the checkpoint is actually an illegal search by the dog.

 

We are making some pretty big assumptions here. Until some actual informatiomation comes out staring otherwise, safe to assume the dog was being used in an authorized/legal way. 

I havent seen any actual report stating the dog was used outside of  what it is legally intended for as of yet. 

Cops are pretty aware of what the procedure is to follow, particularly special units.

 

Edited by Geebrr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...