There is case law that allows for vehicle searches (Carroll vs. U.S.) if probable cause exists to do so. That is assuming the vehicle is not in a controlled environment and could be moved at any time. A drug dog is probable cause under every circumstance I have ever seen. In the case you described I think the judge is 100% wrong. There are judges that are fair and practical regardless of the circumstance, there are some that are pro police and usually side with them on most cases, and then there are some that literally do not like police and will do anything to fuck them over, even if the cost is releasing a legitimate criminal. The first judge of the three I listed does not exist as far as I have ever seen. Impartial judges do not exist in my experience. You either get one or the other.

P.S. If you want to argue that judges are more impartial in your area that may be true, but it definitely wasn't here. I sat through hundreds of cases with the same judges and I could predict the results without any problem.

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote: A drug dog is probable cause under every circumstance I have ever seen. Not when the dog only has a 30% success rate.

You know, that is my bad. I actually misread the initial post the first time. I thought the dog had a 70% success rate, which would be an acceptable level of accuracy with the case laws I am familiar with. A 70% failure rate is pretty damn bad though. I can't argue that point. The department should have retired the dog if that was truly the case to avoid situations like this. I suppose they actually did bite the fruit of the poisonous tree in that case. The dogs in the department I worked for retired their dogs for far less than that.

UsaSatsui wrote:

Quote: . I suppose they actually did bite the fruit of the poisonous tree in that case. I'm going to nitpick. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is something else. It means that even legally acquired evidence must be thrown out if the cause for the search can be traced back to improperly acquired evidence. For example, police arrest someone for theft, and question them, but refuse to let him see his attorney. They suspect tells police the stolen goods are in a warehouse. The police get a warrant, search the warehouse, and find the stolen goods. Not only is the confession not admissible (because the suspect was denied Miranda rights), but the evidence they found is out as fruit of the poisonous tree, since the cause was derived from a bad interrogation. Here's the bitch: Even if the police would have eventually found the merchandise without the confession, it's out...because he told them about it.

I disagree that it is not the fruit of the poisonous tree. While the officer that called the drug dog was making the search and seizure based on the good faith that the dog was properly trained, the fact is the dog was not. There was a ruling earlier this year regarding that very circumstance (United States v. Clarkson). It was that decided that good faith exception cannot be used as an exclusionary rule just because the arresting officer was unaware of the drug sniffing dogs poor qualifications. Given that circumstance then probable cause would not exist and it could deemed as an unreasonable search. It could be argued that somebody should have known that the drug dog in question had such a low success rate and the continued use was to gain access where it should not be warranted. If that was successfully argued then it certainly would be the fruit of the poisonous tree. The recent case law was established to prevent dogs from being used as a means to commit illegal searches.

It was stupid and irresponsible for them to use that dog. Cases like that could lead to tighter restrictions on their use and eliminate one of the best tools a police officer has for drug cases. In just the seven years I was a police officer the rules became more and more strict to the point where it doubled the time it took to do some of the same tasks. All of it stems from one dumb ass officer doing something stupid and making every other officer in the country pay for it. I most cases a good police officer should play devil's advocate for their own actions and be able to anticipate the arguments that will arise in court. That prevents the creation of tighter restrictions being placed on their actions.

The fact that it didn't immediately lead to additional evidence for other crimes does not necessarily mean it wouldn't have eventually. We do not know that drugs were the only evidence confiscated. And let us add another potential situation. When I was on the department we were taught that simply smelling marijuana was considered enough probable cause to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle. In the couple of cases I used that as my probable cause and found marijuana they were convicted. So what is to stop an officer from saying they smell marijuana even if they don't just to gain access. It would be difficult to say they are lying just because they didn't find any marijuana in their search. The driver or passenger could have it on their clothes, in their hair, or on anything else contained in the car. I would say the record of the officer's integrity is what comes into play in that situation. If an officer were to lie and say that they smelled marijuana every time they wanted to search a vehicle then that officers credibility would certainly come into question at some point. When that happens and they are proven to have abused the system their searches would certainly be ruled illegal. Using an unreliable dog with a 30% success rate is no different to me. Sure, dogs don't have the mental capacity to lie, but their unreliability could definitely be exploited by the officers using them. If the dog that unreliable was regularly used to gain access to vehicles then I certainly think a case could be made against the integrity of the officers using it. I'm not saying that the officer in the original post was crooked or was trying to circumvent the fourth amendment in any way. I'm just saying it's certainly not in the realm of impossibility that a good defense attorney could make that argument.