Be sure to read today's article in the Chicago Tribune about drug-sniffing police dogs.
The reporters gave considerable space to McHenry County Sheriff's Department deputy Jeremy Bruketta and his dog, Sage.
See in particular just how effective the dogs are. From the article,
"The McHenry County's sheriff's department had the most dog alerts, finding drugs or paraphernalia in 32 percent of 103 searches. In the eight searches on Hispanic drivers, officers reported finding drugs just once.
Since September 2008, Deputy Jeremy Bruketta has handled Sage, one of the McHenry County department's two drug-sniffing German shepherds. Officers sometimes come up empty-handed in searches of vehicles that clearly once contained drugs, he said, recalling a traffic stop in which a man, reeking of pot, had a marijuana stem stuck to his shirt but no drugs were found in the car."
I've never liked the idea of walking a dog around a car and then an officer's right to search the car based on an "alert" by the dog. Just as I've never liked it, when officers "ask" permission to search a vehicle, but threaten the driver with arrest if he doesn't give permission.
See the portions of the article that address false alerts, officer competency, continual dog training, and possibility for the officer to cue the dog to alert.
The article can be viewed at www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105,0,7119364.story?page=1&utm_source=feedburner&track=rss&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20netvibes%2Flocal%20%28NetVibes%20-%20Local%20news%29&utm_medium=feed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If asked to exit your car simply roll up all the windows, lock the vehicle and put the keys in your pocket. Permission to search = NO regardless of what a dog does.
Are you related to Andy Rooney of CBS 60 Minutes? He never likes anything either.
MUG- You need to educate yourself. Read IL v. Caballes (543 U.S. 405 (2005)), wherein SCOTUS notes that as long as the duration of the traffic stop is not lenthened by the dog sniff, there is no constitutional issue. See also U.S. v. Place (462 U.S. 696 (1983)), where SCOTUS affirms that a dog sniff is not a search-thereby not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Read up before you get yourself in a bind...
"Really", thanks for your comment.
So it sounds to me like there is a constitutional issue, if a driver is required to wait while the dog and its handler come from miles away for a "sniff"...
Post a Comment