- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 days, 8 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[ARCHIVE ANSWER]
I am certain Steve Nicely agrees with the following: He and I are testifying in these courts to ultimately cause the Supreme Court to re-examine the power given to drug dogs. Until the War on Drugs is repealed, it is our goal to change the law
making dogs a tool to assist kops in finding drugs but taking away the dog’s power to decide a 4th Amendment issue and then relay that to the handler. It is too easy for a K-9 to make a mistake for their scratch to say "you are allowed to search this
American citizen."
The evidence the Supreme Court had when ruling a K-9's alert is probable cause for search was manipulated and incomplete. Since the exposure of false alerts and others providing testimony such as Steve Nicely, we expect the courts to re- examine their past ruling.
The first lower court case that decides a dog false alerted will make it to the
Supreme Court. The lower court judges know this and most are unwilling to open that can of worms.
I believe in time we will find the judge with enough integrity to rule in our favor based upon the true facts regardless of the legal race it will cause.(I agree 100% with you Barry! I saw the injustice caused by courts ruling that legally owning a
gun locked in your house was a felony if you get caught committing a drug offense. Five additional years in prison for that. That law was eventially rewritten to describe its true intent of punishing criminals who actually USE a gun IN THE COMMISSION of a crime and not legal gun owners who happen to sell pot. It took a great deal of time, money, and perseverence to see that law changed. It was upheld in the supreme court once and then finally was rewritten the second time.
Noone got that time back. Noone was released. The abuse by prosecutors of that law cost literally thousands of people, thousands of years in prison time.)
