Drug dogs catch grower

[billy_m100]

My friend said that a guy was only gorwing 2 plants (i believe he said it was about 1-3 oz. per plant in his closet, and a cop was driving with a drug dog and the dog smelled him out.

I was just wondering if that would even be possible for a dog to even be able to smell it out from outside like that because it sounds like a load of bull to me.

 

[Wise420]

It's possible, espeically if the guy wasnt using any air filters to rid the smell.

 

[dimetaltrypafiend]

I'm skeptical of this, but I have no evidence to support either side.

 

[MrFaust]

how did it get from k9 unit walking by to cops knocking on the exact door and busting the guy with two plants?

 

[Vader]

^Yes, a drug dog responding to an odour would in no way mean that the police could enter your home without a warrant. Given that drug dogs are wrong most of the time, I doubt they'd get a warrant without additional evidence. On top of that, this didn't happen to anyone you know, or anyone your friend knows, but "a guy". Pinch of salt, guys.

I'm skeptical of this, but I have no evidence to support either side.

I'm skeptical of the idea that toys come alive when no-one's looking, but I can't prove it's not true. The burden of truth ought to lie with those making the claim, not those doubting it.

 

[panic in paradise]

caution in the wind?

 

[dimetaltrypafiend]

I'm skeptical of the idea that toys come alive when no-one's looking, but I can't prove it's not true. The burden of truth ought to lie with those making the claim, not those doubting it.

I fully agree. I meant that it is not true due to lack of any evidence.

 

[Jibult]

^Yes, a drug dog responding to an odour would in no way mean that the police could enter your home without a warrant. Given that drug dogs are wrong most of the time, I doubt they'd get a warrant without additional evidence. On top of that, this didn't happen to anyone you know, or anyone your friend knows, but "a guy". Pinch of salt, guys.


I'm skeptical of the idea that toys come alive when no-one's looking, but I can't prove it's not true. The burden of truth ought to lie with those making the claim, not those doubting it.

I don't know about England, but in the United States K-9 units are often used to circumvent getting a warrant, especially with regards to a traffic stop. A trained drug dog "hitting" on you or your property in the United States serves as probable cause in most situations.

With a residence, though, I'm not entirely sure they could just run in... but if they're just walking by the front stoop of a city home on a public city sidewalk and the dog alerts and leads to the front door.... well, I'm confident that would fall under the "plain view" exception and would lead to a legal warrantless search.



Again, this is in the United States.

 

[Vader]

OK, I'm not claiming to be an expert (because this is what 10 minutes and Google has led me to believe), but:
There is an exception to the fourth amendment concerning automobiles that does not apply to homes. The "plain view" exception stipulates, apparently, "plain senses" (i.e. equipment to augment the natural senses must not be used). I really don't think a dog "hitting" would let them search your house. Even if they have PC, they have to get a warrant, right?

 

[Jibult]

Not necessarily. This is kind of discussion makes me wish I had chosen to study law more thoroughly.

The "plain view" has to do with all 5 senses, yes. If a government official, in this case a police officer and his K-9 trained specifically for the detection of controlled substances, is in a public place where he needs no consent from a private party to be and sees, hears, smells, tastes or touches what he, as an officer of the law, and/or his drug-detecting canine believes to be illegal activity taking/has taken/is about to take place then it's an exigent circumstance to the search warrant requirement.


This is along the lines of a person growing pot in their window with no blinds drawn.




The dog "hitting" is always probable cause to search persons and property and seize persons and property should any contraband be found or any illegal activities taking place discovered. They do it in parking lots, city streets, university campuses, traffic stops, through apartment buildings-- all that good stuff.





Maybe that just expedites the process to get a warrant, but I believe the drug-detecting K-9s walking by your front door and alerting would most definitely initiate an investigation, and, to my understanding of the law, would allow a legal warrantless search of whatever is in question. You have to remember that the dog is considered a police officer, fully equipped with pay and grade. The courts accept a trained dog's nose as probable cause, though it is possible to scrutinize the credibility of the dog (i.e. the dog's training, background, and investigative reliability in the past). I wouldn't recommend that, however, because the only time you would have to scrutinize the dog is when the dog's caught you with something you're not legally allowed to have.

 

[ech0s85]

a dog could definitely smell a grow from the street. I had one small plant budding in a bathroom in one end of a huge house, and you could clearly smell it all throught the house. Or if youve ever walked or driven by a med clinic, you can smell weed from pretty far away and a dogs nose is thousands of times better.

 

[Vader]

The "plain view" has to do with all 5 senses, yes. If a government official, in this case a police officer and his K-9 trained specifically for the detection of controlled substances, is in a public place where he needs no consent from a private party to be and sees, hears, smells, tastes or touches what he, as an officer of the law, and/or his drug-detecting canine believes to be illegal activity taking/has taken/is about to take place then it's an exigent circumstance to the search warrant requirement.

But that seems entirely analogous to an officer using a parabolic listening dish. If the officer can't smell it himself, but requires external assistance, then it's not in plain view, right?

Maybe that just expedites the process to get a warrant, but I believe the drug-detecting K-9s walking by your front door and alerting would most definitely initiate an investigation, and, to my understanding of the law, would allow a legal warrantless search of whatever is in question. You have to remember that the dog is considered a police officer, fully equipped with pay and grade. The courts accept a trained dog's nose as probable cause, though it is possible to scrutinize the credibility of the dog (i.e. the dog's training, background, and investigative reliability in the past). I wouldn't recommend that, however, because the only time you would have to scrutinize the dog is when the dog's caught you with something you're not legally allowed to have.

I imagine that it would only speed up the process of getting a warrant, because if probable cause was all that was needed to search someone's home, they wouldn't need to bother with warrants at all really, would they?

 

[The Network]

That's like going to an old people home and smelling everything the old ladies are cooking from 2 floors down. It's not that hard and dogs can smell 1000x better than us.

 

[Jibult]

But that seems entirely analogous to an officer using a parabolic listening dish. If the officer can't smell it himself, but requires external assistance, then it's not in plain view, right?

No, because the dog is considered a police officer specifically trained to accurately and only detect controlled substances.


The courts view police dogs as unbiased with no ulterior motives... they either find drugs or they don't.

I imagine that it would only speed up the process of getting a warrant, because if probable cause was all that was needed to search someone's home, they wouldn't need to bother with warrants at all really, would they?

To enter someone's home an agent of the government almost always needs either consent from the homeowner or a search warrant. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement called exigent circumstances. In a lot, if not most, situations you're completely right-- but not all situations, though.

Probable cause is the standard of proof used to make an arrest, but at the same time it's the standard of proof used to conduct a search of persons and property (however, if the object of the search is a person concealing a firearm in public then the standard of proof is reasonable suspicion). I always thought that was kind of strange but there you have it.

 

[Vader]

No, because the dog is considered a police officer

That is fucking ridiculous. It's so farcical that it'd be hilarious if it didn't result in ordinary people getting fucked over.

 

[Jibult]

That is fucking ridiculous. It's so farcical that it'd be hilarious if it didn't result in ordinary people getting fucked over.

It's crazy. Even the dogs that the US military employ are ranked higher than their human-counterparts/handlers.


We're a society that really trusts dogs, I guess.