[Politech] Anti-drug attorney's critique of police using "drug dogs" to invade privacy [priv[

Declan McCullagh declan at well.com
Thu Mar 17 21:29:23 PST 2005

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Drug dogs curbed by state supreme court after US supreme court
let dogs out
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:12:52 -0500
From: rex <rexy at ij.net>
To: <lawyer at rexcurry.net>

Florida's Supreme Court let stand restrictions on drug dogs, after the U.S.
Supreme Court loosened leashes. http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsmain.html   The
nation's top court let cops take dogs fishing for drugs in Illinois v
Caballes.  Florida allows other avenues for relief in Florida v Matheson
http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsflorida.pdf (3-3-05) and the very libertarian
decision at http://rexcurry.net/drugdogs2dca.pdf (the appellate case

I am the attorney who argued the original motion to suppress for Matheson.

Drug dogs are covers for lies.  Here's how -

1.  Cops tell drivers that they should consent to a search of their car
because radio dispatch "has a drug dog on the way over."  It is often a lie
told to induce drivers to consent to search.  There is no dog on the way.

2.  If a dog is or is not "on the way," cops add additional lies to make
drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay
until a dog arrives.  Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that
evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to
complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to
consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies.

3. If a dog is enroute, cops let drivers think that they are obliged to
even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. The cop's
rationalization is that drivers loiter roadside with cops for no apparent
reason or because drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage
of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go,
so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving.

4.  Cops lie about how long it is taking to write a ticket or to obtain a
radio response on a driver's license or tag check.  If a dog is actually on
the way, the cops will make sure that the ticket is written very slowly,
until the dog arrives.

5.  After the dog arrives, cops will lie and say that the dog alerted, even
if it didn't.   In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not dogs are
well-trained or accurate, because dogs are often ruses for lies to violate
constitutional rights.

6. If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record
that as
an error, but will claim that the dog detected lingering odors of
that were recently present.  Cops will testify that dogs never make
mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful
detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband.

Government's attitude toward your liberty is like a dog at a fire hydrant.

It is a reminder of the police-state tactics in the infamous Goose Creek
videotape of the government school in South Carolina where children were
forced to the floor in handcuffs and terrorized by dogs and cops with guns
drawn.  Nothing was found.

In other government schools, classes have been interrupted and the children
were marched out and lined up to be harassed by a dog.

yours in liberty,

Rex Curry
Attorney At Law

Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

----- End forwarded message -----
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list