|
|
| Re: Dayton Police foul-up? (1857706) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 21:50:53 2021, in response to Re: Dayton Police foul-up?, posted by Easy on Mon Oct 11 19:48:36 2021. Why is it necessary for a car's occupant to get out of a car before an officer can call his supervisor?[Your answer]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. According to the article: "The officer tells Owensby he will assist him in getting out of the vehicle, but Owensby tells the officer not to touch him and requests the officer call a superior. The officer responds by saying he will call his superior, but Owensby must get out of the car first." While leaving the car for using a drug sniffing dog might be Dayton's procedure, the officer stated that leaving the car was a precondition for calling his superior. The article continues: "So you can cooperate and get out of the car, or I will drag you out of the car. You see your two options here?" the officer yells at Owensby, who repeats his request for the officers to call a superior. Seconds later, two officers grab Owensby, and a struggle ensues." Obviously, there was urgency in not calling a supervisor. 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 Dayton's Police Procedures Section III Subsection D C. Ambient Air Sniffs 1. A drug detection canine may be utilized to sniff the ambient air around a vehicle on a traffic stop as long as it does not extend the duration of the stop. 2. The vehicle must be turned off during the ambient air sniff. 3. For the safety of the Canine Officer and the occupants, all occupants must be removed from the vehicle prior to the ambient air sniff Only subsection 1 specifically refers to sniffing ambient air around the car. Subsections 2 (turn off the motor) and 3 (remove occupant from the car) refer only to ambient air, not ambient air around the car, as does the Section III title. The ambient air for subsections 2 and 3 could also be inside the car. Subsection 3 (removing the occupants) does not make any sense, if the dogs are sniffing only the ambient air around the car on public property. It makes a lot of sense, if the dogs were called to sniff the ambient air within the car. Also, if the dogs were called to sniff the ambient air around the car, as per subsection 1, then calling the dogs would have extended the stop. This would violate the prohibition against extending the stop provision within subsection 1. Either the police officers were violating the extending the stop provision in subsection 1 to sniff the air around the car or they were violating the provision of section B subsection 2 by not having probable cause for a search warrant for a canine search of the car. The police claim that they could see a child unrestrained in the back seat. Ah yes, they saw the unrestrained child in the back seat through excessively tinted glass. |
|
|
|