The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of
a police dog against liberty interests; they unanimously overruled the Florida Supreme
Court [not an excessively pro-defendant body, by the way!], supporting instead
the work of a drug-sniffing German shepherd named Aldo, ruling that police do
not have to extensively document a dog’s field experience to justify relying on
the animal to search someone’s vehicle. [Florida v. Harris, 11-817, decided 2/19/2013.]
Let me show you the danger of heeding what the cops say about their
police dogs, and how irresponsible the supreme court is [again] in this
pro-government ruling.
There was this police dog. The courts were repeatedly told by its
handlers that he was a wonderful and reliable drug sniffing canine, and he
sported a badge. He had been in loyal and
“effective” service for a few years, with a reputation based on cops’ representations
spreading far and wide. We’ll call him
“Fido,” which is not his real name, to protect the innocent.
Real
Stories of the CHP was filming on a stretch of an
interstate highway in a jurisdiction in which I was working, and they got
permission to accompany the cops on a highway interdiction drug bust. The cops needed them for publicity; they
needed the cops for ratings; Lady Justice needed honesty, and she was almost
disappointed.
The cops started patrolling, in two cars, with
cameraman and reporter riding in one, and they eventually pulled over some
hapless soul for speeding. What follows
was on the videotape. The cops
surrounded him and started the stock “where are you coming from; where are you
going; do you have any guns, money, or drugs in the car,” and so forth that has
nothing to do with speeding. After
holding the motorist there for an extended period for a non-speeding grilling
[read “prolonged detention”], the cops asked if they could search his car.
[Editor’s Note: the answer should ALWAYS be “no.”] He reluctantly said ok.
They opened the trunk and the handler cop
commanded the dutiful Fido to jump in.
Another command was to search, but the well-trained Fido wasn’t quite
sure what he was talking about. The one
cop kept banging on the insides of the trunk while the other one talked to the
reporter. Fido ran back and forth
frantically, and then hysterically, in response to the banging, finding
[“alerting on”] nothing, so they let the poor creature jump out.
The two cops started talking on camera to the
reporter, when one of the cops hoarsely whispered to the other “Get your
dog.” “Huh? “Get your f---ing dog!” The camera panned around in the direction of
both cops’ gaze, and off in the distant desert there was a speck of Fido.
“Fido, Fido, Come!” Fido was having too much fun. The handler cop then barked a command more
snarlingly than Fido could ever sound, and he finally trotted back, with the
prize in his mouth: Fido had alerted on a dirty baby diaper he happily found in
the desert! “Drop it, Fido!” Fido could not quite understand why his
master was so grouchy. “DROP IT,
FIDO!” He finally did.
The search roust resumed. They headed to the passenger compartment, and
the handler commanded Fido to get in and search. Fido ran back and forth, wistfully recalling
his baby diaper. Back, forth; back,
forth! No diaper; no alert on anything
else, either.
Apparently sensing televised calamity or
embarrassment, the other officer then went to the hood, opened it, and,
obviously to distract the cameraman and reporter, who were still looking for
televisable fruits in the passenger compartment, cried out “oh, look; there is something
here.” The cameraman and reporter ran up
there, leaving the handler and Fido to work their efforts on the passenger
compartment. Of course, there was
nothing up in the hood, but then the handler, still back at the passenger door,
expostulates: “Look what we found.” In
the one to two minutes the others were looking in the hood!/?
The reporter and cameraman rushed back to the
passenger compartment, and now there had appeared, on the floor of the front
passenger seat, a stainless steel vacuum canister, with its top off, and
packages of suspected cocaine sitting next to it. The incredulous reporter inquired “Did Fido find
that?” “Yep, he ‘alerted’ on it.” Well, could we re-enact that for the
camera?” The handler was obviously
uncomfortable with the idea, but with the camera and sound rolling, he
hesitatingly obliged.
The cops put the suspected drugs back in the
canister, screwed on the top, and the handler gave Fido the command to find the
stuff. Fido did not have a clue what he
was being told to do. The cops banged on
the canister with their Billy-clubs, and Fido looked quizzically from one to
the other. They then banged and banged
and banged to the point that the poor dog damn-near peed himself [and so too
the reporter, we suspect], and he then gave a fear-induced quiver, and the
handler then said “see, he alerted; let’s see what’s in there.”
They opened the canister, and Zounds!, there were
drugs, so the motorist [now being held on a speeding beef for over half an
hour] was arrested for trafficking drugs.
Of course, the resulting police report did not
read that way. It related that there was
a traffic stop, the trusty Fido walked around the car and immediately “alerted”
while the speeding ticket was being processed, which gave the cops probable
cause, because of Fido’s proven, court recognized track record[!], and they
searched, and found a stash of cocaine.
Bing, bing, bing, bing. Any court
would believe it! Knowing how things are
in that drug enforcement arena, I did not.
After reading that report and talking to my
client, I started to subpoena the
complete tape and outtakes from the Hollywood producer, but my investigator
called them first. He spoke to the
executive producer and said “Sir, Mr. Kennedy is furious and he wants….” The producer interrupted and respectfully
blurted out “he can have whatever he wants; what is it?” Why so cooperative? You see, that producer
had given me grief about a similar outtake show 6 months before, when I was
litigating a Fourth Amendment attack in Needles. My investigator had called and had politely
asked for the tape, and the same producer told him to pound sand. I served a subpoena duces tecum on him, commanding him to appear in Needles,
in August, with the tape. He thought
about it and tried to get out of the subpoena
by then offering to send the tape to me.
I allowed that he had screwed with the wrong person and that he could now
sit in Needles until I was ready for him.
I got that tape, and it showed police dishonesty too, and that case was
dismissed.
So this time, when my investigator said “Mr.
Kennedy wants….,” there needed not to have been said any more. Mr. Kennedy got.
The tape was a goldmine of police overreaching and
corruption and duplicity, and of false representations about the prowess of a
renowned police dog, and it was, of course, 180 degrees off of the substance police
report that had triggered the filing against my client.
I told the judge that I would share a secret with
him and the DA in chambers, and I strongly hinted what it was, and I said that
I wanted a dismissal with a promise of no refiling, but if we went to formal
hearing, I would contact 60 Minutes. The judge said that if the tape came close to
what I said it was, I would get my dismissal.
It was not only close, it was utterly congruent with my representation. The case was, of course, dismissed. The DA did not file false police report
charges on the cops. Real Stories did not air that segment,
but we suspect many they did would have similar outtake revelations: two out of
two that I examined did.
While dealing with another matter in the
courtroom, I left the tape in the judge’s chambers for 10 minutes, and the only
people in there were the judge, the DA, and two cops. When I returned, the tape was missing. Everyone feigned ignorance about where it
went! They, of course, honored the
dismissal and non-refiling, because they knew I could get another tape. And Lady Liberty wept, because the shepherds
proved themselves really to be the wolves.
And those cops, and judge, and DA were as
honorable as many we have now, and Fido was as competent, if not more so.
For this current supreme court, “a sniff [would
be] up to snuff” for probable cause; unfortunately, our supreme court is not up
to snuff for what the Framers envisioned would be their role of protecting us
from overweening government. They are
increasingly the overweeners themselves!
Ahh the things I've seen and heard law enforcement officals talk about. Trust me Mr. Kennedy is on track with his ruminations about abuses of the law by those supposed to protect us..... G
ReplyDelete