I watch the COPS tv show reruns. ?
When police ask someone if they have consent to search a vehicle, the person says no, the cops say, ok no problem , we’ll just get a K-9 dog to check the vehicle. Doesn’t this defeat a person’s right to refuse a search of their vehicle? I thought no means no and then police aren’t allowed to go any further.
- NeilLv 41 month ago
No.By your logic, no one could every be arrested. One can give or withhold consent. Consent is only one of the circumstances allowing search.
- CeeLv 71 month ago
Probable cause... If you're not co-operating they naturally think you've go something to hide.
- RICKLv 71 month ago
Technically a dog sniffing is not searching
If the dog alerts they have probable cause
- StephenWeinsteinLv 71 month ago
It only means that they can't search. Having a dog stand outside the vehicle and smell isn't a search.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- KiethLv 71 month ago
The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional, but didn't say the police had to stop doing it. They use it to have leverage against someone to get them to plea bargain for a lesser offense, which is still a victory for them. A plea bargain gets you to wave your right to trial, which would never happen if you refused to plea and used an attorney to defend you against the charges. A prominent black attorney was coming home from the pistol range and was stopped by the police. They asked the trunk question and he said no. They took his keys and opened his trunk and found the pistol in a locked case. According to his rights, he refused to answer any of their questions, and they charged him with several crimes. He sued for a civil rights abuse, and it went up to the supreme court.
- STEVEN FLv 71 month ago
Yes means the police don't have to prove cause.
No, means they do. The dog detecting the odor of contraband around the vehicle provided probable cause.
- GypsyfishLv 71 month ago
The police always have the right to enter IF they have reason to believe that the law is being broken. If, for example, they hear someone screaming inside a house, they can enter the house. The k-9 dogs give them sufficient evidence that illegal drugs are in the car, and they can then enter without the owner's consent. I used to watch Live PD, and I never understood why so many people were carrying drugs around in their cars! It's much harder for the police to enter a home than a car.
- regeruggedLv 71 month ago
Wrong. In real life, if a driver refuses to let a police officer inspect, the officer has to call a supervisor to the scene. Meanwhile the driver waits at the scene. If the driver refuses the supervisor, then he waits until the supervisor gets a warrant.
- Eugene DLv 61 month ago
a dog sniffing a car is the same as visually inspecting from afar. so no, it's not the same.
- SordenhiemerLv 71 month ago
They can have the k-9 walk around the car. If the k-9 alerts, they can use that to try and get a warrant from a judge. The dog walking around the car is not searching the car, so the police are not violating the rights of the driver.