At a dinner party someone mentioned a set of facts from a case but
can't remember whether there is such an actual case or whether it was
just a law professor's hypothetical for an exam. If there is such a
case, I would like the citation. It is most probably a Florida case,
but I'm not sure. Facts: A police officer stopped a vehicle for a
routine traffic violation involving a broken tail light. The officer
asked the driver to step out of the vehicle and was going to issue a
warning. The officer's phone rang and when he realized it was his
pregnant wife, he answered and asked the driver to step into the back
of the police vehicle. A second officer drove to the scene. The
officer had a dog which sniffed the driver's car. The dog became
agitated and started barking at the rear of the driver's vehicle.
They opened the trunk and found a dead body. Legal issue: But for the
officer's breaking policy and taking a personal call during a
detention, and then placing this same person not under arrest into his
police vehicle, the driver would have been issued a citation or a
warning and been on his way long before the dog unit arrived at the
scene. Issue: Is the detention unlawful and therefore all evidence
must be suppressed? |
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
20 Feb 2006 14:16 PST
I know of no such case right off hand, though there might be one. As a
former police dog handler myself I might be able to answer your
question about admissability though. First, the officer's alleged
violation of department policy is moot for the purposes of the case.
It did not infronge on the right of the detainee and therefore play no
role in the discovery. Your question assumes that a warnign would have
been issued had the officer not taken the call. On this basis you also
assume that the detention was unwarranted. It is not. If the initial
stop was valid then the detention was valid and as such whatever
discovery might have occured in the course of the stop is valid.
Courts have repeatedly affirmed and re-affirmed that an exterior
examination of a vehicle by a police dog is not considered a dearch,
but the alert of a police
dog on the exterior of a vehicle is deemed to be probable cause. Cases
in point (and this is just to name A FEW of them):
United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit
United States v Spetz (721 F. 2d 1457 (1983) Ninth Circuit
United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
United States v Dicesare (765 F. 2d 890 (1985) Ninth Circuit
United States v Hamilton (792 F. 2d 837 (1986) Ninth Circuit
United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987) First Circuit
United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit
United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit
United States v De Soto (885 F. 2d 354 (1989) Seventh Circuit
United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit
United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit
United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit
United States v Taylor (934 F. 2d 218 (1991) Ninth Circuit
ASCT K9
http://www.asct-nationalk9.com/generic22.html
With that said the dog handler would have been well within his right
to direct his dog to perform a cursory sniff of the vehicle. Even if a
VERBAL WARNING were issued the evidence discovered in the course of
that examination would be still be admissable in court.
Does this answer your question?
tutuzdad-ga
see also:
POLICE LAW INSTITUTE
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/pli.htm
|
Clarification of Question by
jw57-ga
on
21 Feb 2006 10:29 PST
Hello. Thank you. The person who presented the hypothetical "swears"
it comes from an actual case. I doubt it, but was trying to find out
for sure. I guess it doesn't exist, and I was right. All the points
you bring up were discussed at the dinner party as most of the guests
were attorneys. I'm just looking for the actual case, if it exists.
Thank you so very much. jw57-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
21 Feb 2006 14:17 PST
I guess it all boils down to how well you trust what an attroney says
over dinner and drinks. Shall we consider this one answered then?
tutuzdad-ga
|
Request for Question Clarification by
tutuzdad-ga
on
23 Feb 2006 06:39 PST
So, what's the verdict? :)
tutuzdad-ga
|
