The "people" still lack knowledge of the due process of law.

The "people" still lack knowledge of the due process of law. This is why attorneys make good money off of the "people".

Folks, its been a common law of search and seizure since the constitution was signed in 1787. The fourth amendment to the bill of rights clearly states that a person shall be guarded against unreasonable searches and seizures to include arrests. However, and this its where y'all mess it up, if probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to warrant a search or seizure, by due process of that beautiful fourth amendment, law enforcement is entitled to search for and or seize. What does reasonable suspicion mean and how is it acquired?

I was asked this question numerous times by defense attorneys. Reasonable suspicion is short of probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is similar to way it sounds; reasonably suspicious. This is a talent developed by police officers and must include a variety of experiences, first hand knowledge and credible intelligence. As civilians, we can't control that.

There are more than one way to enter and search a vehicle for evidence of the aforementioned suspicion. In 10 years of law enforcement, I would guess that I asked for "consent to search" hundreds of times. I can recall only 5 times I was told "no" to a consent search. During those "no" times, I simply bit my tongue, took note and moved on. No arrest was ever personal. I could name the occupant refusals on here but I won't. Out of those 5, I was honored enough to encounter them again in circumstances in which their right to refuse a search wasn't an option (probable cause, inventory, incident to arrest).

During this search, my suspicions were confirmed and a friendly reminder was given of that day I was told, no. Now, in regards to a free air sniff of a vehicle, you are stuck with that one. During the course of a traffic stop our while the vehicle is stationary on public property, without reason, suspicions, intel, etc., a police K-9 can be deployed to sniff the exterior of any vehicle. If a positive indication is given by the dog to the odor of narcotics, a search can be conducted without your consent.

This raises the current question. Why would a dog indicate and nothing be found? Was the dog "lying"? Was the officer cueing the dog? This situation came up a few times with K-9 Blitz and I. Often times I found that defense attorneys, the general public, prosecutors and even judges lacked the vast knowledge of the way these four legged beasts functioned.

Well, to put it simple, their olfactory system is complex and unique. Man has attempted to create instruments to compete with the nose of a dog to no avail. Lets consider their abilities to ride in a boat on a body of water with their noses toward the water. A cadaver dog can indicate they location of a dead body that is submerged beneath the water several feet below. During my K-9 handling and training, we conducted several experiments just to determine the abilities of our dogs.

A flannel shirt was exposed to burning marijuana but not "saturated". This shirt was placed in a vehicle about 12 hours later. The vehicle doors and windows were closed and remained closed for at least an hour. At the end of the hour, are dogs were sent to sniff a total of 5 vehicles, including the vehicle with the flannel shirt. Each dog gave a clear indication to the shirt vehicle but showed no changes in behavior while sniffing the blank vehicles. Obviously, the "shirt" vehicle contained nothing of evidentiary value to effect an arrest except a shirt that smelled like marijuana.

I would also urge you to consider that while all police officers search vehicles, not all are as good as some. This could have very well been the case in this sniff. The dog done his job but a simple case of human error allowed the hidden narcotics to remain hidden.

And for the straight up cop haters; you are what makes the world go around. You produce and raise the next society that will be just like you and that my friend only ensures that police officers will always have a job.

Tagged: Search, Columbus Police Department, law enforcement, defense attorneys, suspicion, fourth amendment, bill of rights