|
|
| Re: Dayton Police foul-up? (1857675) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Dayton Police foul-up? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Oct 11 18:45:43 2021, in response to Re: Dayton Police foul-up?, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 11 13:02:54 2021. Owensby has prior drug convictionsHow did the officer know that at the time he stopped Owensby's car? The officer responds by saying he will call his superior, but Owensby must get out of the car first. … Why is it necessary for a car's occupant to get out of a car before an officer can call his supervisor? Looks like normal procedure. Really? What is normal procedure in Dayton? Here's a link to the police procedure that appeared in the article: https://daytonohio.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9609/204-2-Police-Canines#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20policy%20of,to%20control%20or%20disperse%20crowds.&text=a.,-An%20outside%20agency&text=When%20the%20Canine%20Unit%20responds,will%20complete%20any%20necessary%20reports Look at Section III (DRUG DETECTION CANINES) subsection B. B. Prior to deployment of a drug detection canine to search a structure, vehicle, or enclosed area, in which another person has an expectation of privacy, law enforcement officers must have either: 1. Consent to Search signed by the appropriate person; or 2. Have developed a level of probable cause that would support the issuance of a Search Warrant, or a warrantless search by an officer. So what was the level of probable cause that would have supported the issuance of a search warrant? According to the article: "Owensby received a citation for failure to restrain a child and for having tinted glass as a result of the incident, according to court records." Is a drug sniffing dog is required to verify child restraints and glass tint? |
|
|
|