Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBladeZ
It's your typical Law Professor Hypo, I had to do all the legal research myself. The circumstances had it where a guy got on a train, a k-9 team using their random selection formula comes on. Their primary purpose is to search for explosives or dangerous weapons. They were supposed to adhere to an "every 10th person formula" but the facts made it seemt hat when the dog approached the appellant and barked he was then "selected." He opened his backpack there was nothing of interest and but his wallet was what had the dog intention. Now here is the central issue. A suspicionless search must be limited to containers that are reasonably able to contain explosives or dangerous weapons, would a normal sized wallet fall in that category. The "Team" asked him to open the wallet and he had some marijuana and was arrested. He sought to suppress the evidence Under Criminal Procedure Law Rule 12(b). I had the State side, one of my many points was a reference to the Christmas bomb attempt, you could hide 20gram or less in a wallet. We're doing oral arguments next so lets see how my argument holds up.
|
Interesting. Can you argue that it is now bumped up to reasonable suspicion? I find it hard to believe that a k9 unit can be that selective with every 10th person. That's asinine. They should just do a sweep or blitz and target whatever the dog alerts to. That alert in itself is an articulable fact that should allow the officers to act on it.
Also, if the dog can alert to residue of explosive compounds, then they could possible argue that the suspect was tainted or contaminated with said residue which needed to be investigated further. Like you stated, small amounts can be stored anywhere on the person and mixed at a later time. Who says that he wasn't going to meet another conspirator to combine those compounds?
I'm probably preaching to the choir.
Please keep us in the loop. I'd like to read the other arguments from your opposition.