Encounter with State Police and K9 Today WOW

I Purchased, New York States Gun Laws Book, by LooseLeaf Law Publications.Written by Lt. Leo Thomas Retired New York State Police Which has all the Laws, and Regulations of NYS.www.looseleaflaw.com
 
I agree with LCDR. The fuzz hassled you for no legitimate reason. In my state, the CCW regs specify no alcohol or ILLEGAL drugs. Also agree that you should steer clear of ANY fuzz when packing. The only LEO I'm comfortable being near when packing is a close relative of mine. Semi OK with the county Sheriff since I've known him a long time and we've already had a long talk about the subject.
 
Question, Just how old are you that you call LEO'S the FUZZ I have not heard anyone call LEO'S that since my children were little.
Are you even old enough to have a CCW.
Bill
 
carrying when w/ meds

I do not believe we should forgo our 2nd ammemdment rights when we have prescription drugs. or are using prescription drugs. I believe the troopers that gave you a hard time were out of line
 
As NavyLCDR said "After they VERIFIED that there was prescription medicine in the bag and that you were the proper person to which that medicine belonged, at that point any RAS that they had of a crime being committed was settled. Everything after that was a clear violation of your 4th amendment rights."

Glad it ended with the kid's not to upset!. Hope they do not turn against officers over this incident. We see so many children loose respect for LEO these days. (Some of it our fault and some of it the situation fault) There are bad apples in every society. Don't know if the Troopers actions were intentional of he just did not know the laws involved in this incident. "or thought he knew"
 
NCIC105 said:
Glad it ended with the kid's not to upset!. Hope they do not turn against officers over this incident. We see so many children loose respect for LEO these days. (Some of it our fault and some of it the situation fault) There are bad apples in every society. Don't know if the Troopers actions were intentional of he just did not know the laws involved in this incident. "or thought he knew"
Click to expand...

I see two basic thoughts among kids regarding police. Either, as you stated, they have no respect at all for ANY authority, and that extends to police. Or they buy into the propaganda that the uniform and badge makes the person automatically trustworthy and to offer blind compliance to their requests without question.

I don't see many kids today with a healthy middle ground. My daughter (15 years old) and my wife have seen and heard many discussions about dealing with police. My wife (we've been together for 3 years) always grew up with the police can do no wrong mentality. When we started discussing the reality of things, and what rights she really does have, mostly under the 4th amendment, she said, "It just never crossed my mind to say no to a police officer. I was taught to ALWAYS say yes." Scary, eh? When my daughter sees a police officer, I can see the twinkle in her eye - she just hopes she gets to see dad in action, who simply and politely declines to have any voluntary encounters with police officers, especially if such encounters are predicated by my lawfully carried and possessed firearm.
 
pastor t said:
This will not be the end, but I will not allow the police to harass me as their personal security anymore! They will not speak to me without a lawyer again. I will not answer the smallest question. I'm not sure what more I can do to stop this, but I have been pushed all I am going to be! O and I had my 9 mil on me the whole time and the leos had no clue!


I'll start and assume that everything you said is true. If you feel this way, you have justification, however, public statements like this will send you to jail if it comes to light during your trial, even if the shooting is otherwise righteous.
Prove that your neighbor lied to the cops about your activities and the problems you are having will be your neighbor's problems.

To the OP, I've taken narcotics every day since 1981 due to back damage suffered in an automobile accident. I feel very much better to keep alert, aware of what's going on around me, and able to respond to problems that arrive with the pain meds than I can without them.
Click to expand...
 
You guys r missing what the officers were doing asking questions. I'm retired LEO and here's what was going down. The officers removed the weapon from the citizens control for the next move. That move was questioning you on you using the meds that day not for the pistol sake but for driving there. What they were also doing was chatting with you some to see if you was in your right mind and not under influence of drugs. People get nervous if they r guilty of hiding something which when they discovered u was ok you was released. But to be a cop u see a lot of stuff happen in a moments notice. I've seen prescription bottles that belonged to the person u was checking out but upon opening the bottle, drugs would be in that bottle that were not prescribed to them. So all sorts of things are in the mix. Yes they might of blowed a bit of a smoke ur way but you walked. If they did not check you out in front of those 40 some witnesses standing there as their drug dog was hitting on ur bag and they did nothing they would have been the fool not to do nothing. Just think of what they saw, possible drugs in a bag hidden, children under ur control, and the weapon. Yes they could have taken u in for that urine / blood test, but like I stated earlier they talked with u some to see if u was ok. I have been in situations like this and u start talking with the actor and they will break and run. Later on u run a check on them, they have outstanding warrants and all sorts of stuff so u never know. Like I said they were just removing the weapon out of the mix before things went further.
 
This may have been answered by the six other pages of postings between this page, and the original.

In the original posting it was stated,
trophyhunter said:
The lead Trooper said to me that if i was alone and didnt have my kids with me they would of taken me to their barracks and have my urine tested.
Click to expand...

My question is why would a law enforcement officer use that logic and say that? So, if you're alone I would arrest you, but since you're going to drive home with your children and possibly kill them, I'm going to give you a break.

Did I miss something or does anyone notice that sounded a little weird on the officers part? If I was there and heard that, I would have brought up my previous point and ask they quit their job.
 
G50AE said:
Garbage, unless they had probable cause to let the cainine conduct a search, that's what a dog does when it sniffs around, or that search was consented to, then anything resulting from that search is "seeds of a poison fruit" and inadmisable. You can't use one bad search to get probable cause to perform another search.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A canine search falls under the "plain sight" rule so long as the canine does not actually enter anything possessed by the subject. Can a police officer DETAIN me for the purpose of a canine search, absent any other indications of a crime/violation? No, certainly not. However, if the police officer has lawfully detained me already, such as at a traffic stop, and the canine is already there, then sniffing the outside of the vehicle would be considered plain sight.

Can the officer detain me longer than necessary to write a speeding ticket because they want to wait for a canine to show up? Without probable cause of something other than speeding, no. That would be an illegal detainment and the future search by the canine resultant from the illegal detainment would be inadmissable.

If I walk by a police canine and it alerts, can the officer detain me? Certainly, under the plain sight rule.

Now, just because there is probable cause for a search does not give the officer free reign to conduct a search without a warrant or consent. The only time a police officer can conduct a search without consent or a warrant due to probable cause is if there is a reasonable and articulable reason to believe that evidence of the crime for which the subject is detained will be destroyed or lost before a search warrant can be obtained. If the officer truly has probable cause, they can detain the subject until a judge grants or denies a search warrant.
 
Now here's a question:

Let's say I wanted to fight a search based on probable cause because a dog alerted to something. In court, let's say that I prove (as in the OP's case) that the dog would alert on a narcotic that was prescribed and being carried in a prescription container in the prescribed amount. Would the probable cause then get tossed out in court, because obviously the dog could not discriminate between legal and illegal drugs? Just like carrying a firearm by itself provides no probable cause for a stop, just because the police officer wants to verify the person carrying the firearm is not prohibited.
 
Well the OP did say "Troopers were all very professional not at any time did they treat me badly. "
Maybe they went to far? But they still had the right to make sure he wasn't using?? Think of it through there eyes. They get all kinds of sob storied, excuses ectt. Probably unusual for them to find the OP who seemed to have his stuff together. Point is if a K9 is a tool of theres. Dogs don't like ect. There always a reason and few mistakes. Maybe when they saw the percription and CPL they shoulda just let it go after seeing he wasn't using at the time or seemed not to??
 
ironmike86 said:
Well the OP did say "Troopers were all very professional not at any time did they treat me badly. "
Maybe they went to far? But they still had the right to make sure he wasn't using?? Think of it through there eyes. They get all kinds of sob storied, excuses ectt. Probably unusual for them to find the OP who seemed to have his stuff together. Point is if a K9 is a tool of theres. Dogs don't like ect. There always a reason and few mistakes. Maybe when they saw the percription and CPL they shoulda just let it go after seeing he wasn't using at the time or seemed not to??
Click to expand...

Here's my take on it. Dog hits on the napsack. Since there was no unlawful detention ocurring at the time, I would say the "search" with dog would fall under plain sight rules. Once the cop verified that the dog hit on prescription drugs, carried in the prescription container all probable cause for anything immediately goes out the window, unless the cop can prove the dog would not hit on those prescription drugs and, therefore what was in the bottle MUST be something else.

Given the fact that the drug in the bottle was exactly what it was supposed to be, and legal to be possessed by the person whose name was on the bottle, all probable cause is out the window.

Let's say the cop proceeded to arrest the OP for operating a car under the influence of the drug, or carrying the firearm under the influence of the drug. Would the charge stick in court? I think only one way - the OP consented to the search. If the OP did not consent to the search, I don't think any charge would stick in court. Why? Because the dog could not differentiate between illegal drugs and perscription drugs, therefore the dogs initial hit on the prescriptions could not establish probable cause for a search.

That is why you never, ever give consent to a search - because it takes away one vital element in your defense - the possibility that the search without your consent was illegal.
 
NavyLCDR said:
Now here's a question:

Let's say I wanted to fight a search based on probable cause because a dog alerted to something. In court, let's say that I prove (as in the OP's case) that the dog would alert on a narcotic that was prescribed and being carried in a prescription container in the prescribed amount. Would the probable cause then get tossed out in court, because obviously the dog could not discriminate between legal and illegal drugs? Just like carrying a firearm by itself provides no probable cause for a stop, just because the police officer wants to verify the person carrying the firearm is not prohibited.
Click to expand...

No the probable cause would not get thrown out. The dog was trained to alert on drug's. There is no way to train a K-9 as to illegal or non illegal drug's.
More so then that you would only need Reasonable Suspicion about the drug's to go further in an investigation.
BILL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 125 (members: 0, guests: 125)

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top