|
|
| Re: Dayton Police foul-up? (1857680) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Dayton Police foul-up? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Oct 11 19:48:36 2021, in response to Re: Dayton Police foul-up?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Oct 11 18:45:43 2021. How did the officer know that at the time he stopped Owensby's car?It's unclear whether or not that was known prior to the stop. The police claim that he was stopped because he left a known drug house that was under surveillance. Why is it necessary for a car's occupant to get out of a car before an officer can call his supervisor? The police claim that it was because they had already called for a drug sniffing dog and their procedure is for the driver to exit for safety reasons. Really? What is normal procedure in Dayton? The police claim that it is normal procedure for drivers to exit when drug sniffing dogs are called. So what was the level of probable cause that would have supported the issuance of a search warrant? The police claim that a drug sniffing dog was called to sniff outside the ar. They claim that a search warrant is not needed to sniff the air around a car. 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? The police claim that they could see a child unrestrained in the back seat. The search for drugs and the use of a dog was a separate issue. |
|
|
|