tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post110666830302658360..comments2023-10-16T06:06:25.012-04:00Comments on TaoSecurity Blog: US Supreme Court Rules on Real False PositivesRichard Bejtlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512184196416665417noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-62518097238842459872010-08-24T12:38:05.140-04:002010-08-24T12:38:05.140-04:00Re the mock trial involving "Chris Smith"...Re the mock trial involving "Chris Smith":<br />If a reasonable person in "Chris Smith's" situation would have felt that he was not free to leave, then the officer was detaining "Chris Smith" for Fourth Amendment purposes. Detaining someone longer than needed for the original stop (or allowed by consent or by probable cause for a vehicle) is unconstitutional. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case on that, though I forget the cite.David Forthofferhttp://www.David.Forthoffer.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-2393087338896723022010-08-24T12:28:56.906-04:002010-08-24T12:28:56.906-04:00Justice David Souter said, "In practical term...Justice David Souter said, "In practical terms, the evidence is clear that the dog that alerts hundreds of times will be wrong dozens of times."<br /><br />Not true.<br /><br />It could be MUCH less accurate. A dog that alerts hundreds of times may be wrong hundreds of times.<br /><br />The dog-handler officer in Paster Stevens trial, shown at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zps7k_p1mko&feature=grec_index, testified that he keeps no record of when his dog alerts to drugs or smuggled passengers and a search finds no drugs or smuggled passengers. He further clarified that he has no idea how often his dog alerts in situations without actual drugs or smuggled passengers, though he did say his dog never "false alerts" because his dog always responds to the SCENT of illegal drugs or smuggled passengers. (He did not say how he confirmed that such scents were always there on alerts.)David Forthofferhttp://www.David.Forthoffer.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-8044581375045250852009-02-10T03:29:00.000-05:002009-02-10T03:29:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1161796193174189632006-10-25T13:09:00.000-04:002006-10-25T13:09:00.000-04:00If a dog sniff results in an indication from the d...If a dog sniff results in an indication from the dog, you do not need judicial authority to search. This is (and should be) probable cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1161795824903267612006-10-25T13:03:00.000-04:002006-10-25T13:03:00.000-04:00I doubt that the justices can lay claim to a highe...I doubt that the justices can lay claim to a higher degree of accuracy and integrity than can a trained police canine. <BR/>In a case where a vehicle is parked or stopped on a public street, it is acceptable to walk a canine around the vehicle. This falls under the plain view doctrine (plain smell) that allows an officer that is lawfully present and observes unlawful activity, to act. The dog has the same authority and a dog sniff is NOT a search.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1138389208109687952006-01-27T14:13:00.000-05:002006-01-27T14:13:00.000-05:00I am doing a Mock trial for class and the case inv...I am doing a Mock trial for class and the case involves a drug sniffing dog. Basically, the arresting officer came upon a civilian, with their car on the side of the room with emergency lights flashing, and cones to warn oncoming traffic "Chris Smith" finishing up changing a car tire do to a flat. It was a humid hot night and "Chris Smith" was sweating, the Officer asked if Chris needed help. Chris refused, stating" No, I am almost done." So the officer then asked" May I search your car" Chris then stated " No, I know my rights" with that the officer called for backup, and a drug sniffing dog came onto the scene, and started sniffing Chris's car, where he argued" This is an illegal search". But the Officer said" It is not illegal unless the dog are officer's touch his car". <BR/><BR/>I am the defense attorney in the case, and this seems like some Bull. The officer had no reason to call for backup, nor suspect drugs, nor was this traffic stop, or traffic violation. My client, Chris Smith, was acting legally, even more reasonably then most who handle flat tires. <BR/><BR/>So my question is, what right does that officer have to treat this like a traffic stop? The officer was acting purely on prejudges because of my client’s youthfulness rebellious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106846402552129492005-01-27T12:20:00.000-05:002005-01-27T12:20:00.000-05:00Regarding this comment:
"The details of this wer...Regarding this comment:<br /> <br />"The details of this were not discussed in your post, but the officer <I>had to get an order from a judge to search the car, or get consent from the driver</I>. If he had not, this case would not have gotten to the Supreme Court and would have been thrown out at a lower court. When going before the judge (probably with a phone call), the officer only needs to give his reasoning as the alert from the dog to be granted the search order."<br /> <br />The Supreme Court opinions state that Caballas did not give consent. There is nothing in any of the Supreme Court opinions regarding getting approval from a judge. The <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.il.us%2Fcourt%2FOpinions%2FSupremeCourt%2F2003%2FNovember%2FOpinions%2FHtml%2F91547.htm">Illinois Supreme Court decision</A> says nothing about getting approval from a judge either. It appears the cops denied Caballas' refusal to give consent based on the dog's alerting action.<br /> <br />Justice Souter's dissent provides details on the unreliability of drug dogs. Law enforcement officials have also shared similar concerns with me about drug dog reliability. That is a major problem for me; unreliable indicators are being used as the basis for investigating potentially law-abiding people. This is similar to labelling any bank transaction over $10,000 as suspicious per the <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.privacilla.org%2Fgovernment%2Fbanksecrecyact.html">Bank Secrecy Act</A> (<A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.occ.treas.gov%2Fhandbook%2Fbsa.pdf">.pdf</A>).Richard Bejtlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512184196416665417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106844457634652552005-01-27T11:47:00.000-05:002005-01-27T11:47:00.000-05:00Caballes is a Spanish name, and he is Filipino. An...Caballes is a Spanish name, and he is Filipino. And he was driving a 1998 Grand Marquis. Not a very suspiscious looking vehicle, considering the arrest was made in 98... Read the details of the case before you speculate and pull the "race card".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106841765215145212005-01-27T11:02:00.000-05:002005-01-27T11:02:00.000-05:00Hmm, a car pulled over for going a mere 6 MPH over...Hmm, a car pulled over for going a mere 6 MPH over the limit? I wonder what the car looked like. Wanna bet it wasn't a Lexus, Jaguar, or BMW? Oh, a driver named "Caballes"? I wonder how dark his skin tone is.<br /><br />The fact that the case involved a "true positive" drug alert is irrelevant. This decision sets precedent. This gives police free reign to bring on the dogs whenever they have a "hunch" about a driver's drug use. Drivers of VW buses, cars with Grateful Dead stickers, and any used car leaving a Dave Matthews concert, you better get used to dogs sniffing around your car."Radical" Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00404623505399760347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106839184158391812005-01-27T10:19:00.000-05:002005-01-27T10:19:00.000-05:00Actually no, it probably was not a bored cop. This...Actually no, it probably was not a bored cop. This is a common practice in law enforcement, so it is not uncommon for an officer to provide assistance at a traffic stop. On the subject of false positives, a K9, although not infallible, does give rise to "reasonable doubt". An alert from the dog does give the indication that something may be amiss. Just as an IDS system gives an alert to a possible incident that warrants further investigation by an analyst, a drug-sniffing dog does the same thing. The details of this were not discussed in your post, but the officer had to get an order from a judge to search the car, or get consent from the driver. If he had not, this case would not have gotten to the Supreme Court and would have been thrown out at a lower court. When going before the judge (probably with a phone call), the officer only needs to give his reasoning as the alert from the dog to be granted the search order. The courts recognize drug-sniffing dogs as a valid indication of “reasonable doubt”. In the past, there have been attempts to "suppress the evidence" which have been dismissed by judges, so this is nothing new. Also the details of the dog and his handler were not given. He may be a drug dog that has been through the courts already and been recognized, nor do we know the history of the dog and his success rate in detecting contraband. He may have a 100% conviction rate in cases where he has detected narcotics. These things play a factor in a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant based on the indication given by a dog, and these details were not given in the article. Given that all of these issues have been addressed at lower courts numerous times with good reasoning, and also by more educated individuals in the area of law than you or I, I’m not surprised the Supreme Court would not overturn these rulings. <br /><br />As far as the officer’s presence, remember he is allowed in any "legal" place. You have to remember, he is a "peace officer" and he is backing up another "peace officer" at a traffic stop. <br /><br />Besides all of that, in this case this was not a false positive. This is a true positive and as far as I can tell, the ruling does not address the issue of false positives since that is out of the scope of the Supreme Court to rule on. The Supreme Courts function is only to rule on the constitutionality of laws. And besides, I only read from this the ruling pertains to the use of drug dogs and if it violates the Fourth Amendment, which if I am not mistaken, has been ruled on in the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106781544093822452005-01-26T18:19:00.000-05:002005-01-26T18:19:00.000-05:00Note that Justice Ginsburg's statement said "Altho...Note that Justice Ginsburg's statement said "Although Gillette requested no aid, Graham decided to come to the scene to conduct a dog sniff." This sounds like a bored cop to me, not one acting out of suspicion or probable cause.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments!Richard Bejtlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512184196416665417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106776728981783552005-01-26T16:58:00.000-05:002005-01-26T16:58:00.000-05:00I'm not familiar with any aspect of the case you a...I'm not familiar with any aspect of the case you are reffering to but the facts as you describe them suggest a chain of events more likely than a random K9 search. Being pulled over for traveling six miles per hour over the posted limit is not unheard of but is not that common either. That pretext for the stop in conjunction with the officer's request to search the vehicle implies he was suspicious in the first place but did not have enough to perform a search without permission. I really doubt the K9 unit just happened to be in the area at the time. I suspect the officer found a creative way to confirm his or her suspicions within the letter of the law. As with all forms of security, even basic law enforcement, your activities are sometimes directed and influenced by what can only be described as a "hunch". Over my fifteen some odd years as a security practitioner, I've learned to trust mine because they're usually right.<br /><br />It's a huge jump from getting creative to test a hunch and walking drug dogs around cars at stop lights. I can't image any K9 unit thinking that would be a good idea!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1106755150464684752005-01-26T10:59:00.000-05:002005-01-26T10:59:00.000-05:00I doubt that there will be any increase in the fre...I doubt that there will be any increase in the frequency in the use of drug sniffing dogs at traffic stops. This is something that has gone on for a long time, its only now that someone has brought it to the Supreme Court to rule on it. The ruling only states that use of drug sniffing, a resource that law enforcement has only a finite amount of, in this instance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. It only adds that State and Local laws do not trample the rights granted to citizens. Drug sniffing dogs will not be included in every squad car, nor will there be K9 units dispatched to the scene of every traffic stop for one very simple reason, resources. There are only a limited number of K9 units, and that’s assuming that department X even has K9 units to begin with. And yes, there are false positives with dogs, but there are false positives with polygraphs as well, and IDS systems. This ruling indicates that the use of the drug dog in this case was a passive indicator that something malicious has taken place, not an intrusive one, and not a violation of the rights of citizen. Remember, indicators and warnings are a signal that further investigating is necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com