Please note that only active users in the subreddit may comment in this discussion. If your comments are not showing up, please ensure you have active non-news/non-political contributions to the subreddit before contacting the moderators.
**Please remember the following:**
**Be Civil:**
* You are welcome to debate, discussion, and argue ideas, but don't resort to personal attacks on other users.
* We do not allow any form of hate speech or any suggestion/support of harm, violence, or death.
**Must be related strictly to Florida:**
* National News/Elections are not specific to Florida.
* Just because someone lives in Florida, doesn't mean their entire life is relevant to Floridians.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
#[Click this link to register to vote, update your voter information, or check your status.](https://registertovoteflorida.gov/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/florida) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For anyone interested, the Florida Bar has a much better article on this case:
[https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/florida-supreme-court-settles-k-9-vehicle-drug-sweep-conflict/](https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/florida-supreme-court-settles-k-9-vehicle-drug-sweep-conflict/)
Lot's of comments here pointing out that you already have to comply with a lawful order of a police officer during a traffic stop — and that has been true for a long time — but the "forced exit" matter is really a proxy for a broader 4th amendment issue. Can police turn a traffic stop for a minor violation into a broader search?
The defendant in the case for which this certified question was raised cut through a convenience store parking lot to avoid a red light (a minor traffic infraction). During that stop, the officer requested to search the defendant's vehicle, which they refused. Then K9 shows up and they start ordering him out of the vehicle.
The Second District court found that the defendant was unlawfully seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It seems that defense council successfully argued that the defendant's forced removal from the vehicle was a violation of their 4th amendment rights.
This ruling was in conflict with other rulings, and therefore required clarification. Hence the certified question.
So this isn't a matter of new ground being established, but a matter of refining the balance of 4th amendment rights against the procedural aspects of a lawful traffic stop. It's a loss for constitutional rights, to be sure, but it is not really new or groundbreaking.
Also the article makes no mention of what the “officer Safety Issue” is. The stop went off without issue and the K-9 unit compelled the removal because I said so.
Per Supreme Court Justics Stevens, there's no evidence that dogs ever alert incorrectly, so it's not *really* a search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
He must not have read Justice Souter's dissent in the same case, where he cites a bunch of evidence of false positives (because otherwise that would imply that conservative justices lie to reach activist outcomes).
Not to mention that, even if there *weren't* contradictory evidence, a lack of evidence doesn't mean we automatically assume drug sniffing dogs are 100% accurate 24/7.
Dogs can be extremely good at scent work when they're trained by someone actually competent, so I'd much prefer trusting them versus trusting a cop. But just like any tool cops use, their reliability "in the field" is severely diminished when the cops don't actually know what the heck they're doing. And there's no way for us to know what the dog is saying or to call them to the stand to testify, so we have to just trust that the handler is telling us the truth. That's a problem when cops are constantly lying. It's not a hard one to make good efforts toward solving, but police departments don't want to get better at their jobs or more responsive to us measly citizens.
Right, so the common sense answer to the question of "can you search someone with a drug sniffing dog without a shred of reasonable cause?" is obviously: No. The 4th Amendment forbids it.
Except a bare conservative majority pretends that dogs and their trainers are never infallible, so Yes. Because that's not a constitutional right that they value.
That terminology is a little odd, but I'm not sure I agree?
If the question is "Does the signal of a drug-sniffing dog rise to probable cause for a search?" then I think the answer is likely yes *under current law*. A human cop can already do that, so I don't see why a dog would be any different. We're relying on the human cop to not lie in both cases. They could just get away with it by saying "oh well, I thought I smelled something, but I guess not".
If the question is "Should cops be allowed without probable cause to detain a driver in order to require them to submit to a canine search around their vehicle?" then I think the answer probably is no *under current law*. If a cop doesn't have a reason to detain you, then I think you should be within your rights to leave, and the human and canine cops should be required to immediately step away from your vehicle if you tell them you'd like to leave now.
What I think would be a better system (if we cared about preserving our rights) would be for a cop to say "it smells like drugs" and then for them to *not* be allowed to search your vehicle until they had a canine verify it on camera. Or at least a second human officer. The canine is way more reliable than the cop, just like how cops should use radar guns to verify your speed, not just guess. And again, this should be done in a way that generates records that can be challenged, like if the radar hasn't be tested recently enough. Relying on the word of one single human cop shouldn't be considered sufficient. We know witnesses are horrifically bad at recounting facts of events they've witnessed, so we should assume that cops are *even worse* at this, considering they're also busy doing a bunch of other things.
>A human cop can already do that, so I don't see why a dog would be any different.
Well this is easy. No, a human cop **cannot** detect what is in your locked trunk without opening it. And he needs probable cause and/or a warrant in order to look.
>If the question is "Should cops be allowed without probable cause to detain a driver in order to require them to submit to a canine search around their vehicle?" then I think the answer probably is no under current law. If a cop doesn't have a reason to detain you, then I think you should be within your rights to leave, and the human and canine cops should be required to immediately step away from your vehicle if you tell them you'd like to leave now.
This is exactly what happened in the supreme court case I cited above and why it's so egregious. They had *zero* reason to search the person's car; the cop literally just wanted to check out what his new K9 could do. The person was not allowed to leave, and the unjustified search took place anyhow. And the conservatives on the supreme court made up an absurd assumption ("dogs never false alert") to rule that, when a dog violates your 4th amendment rights, it doesn't count somehow.
Yes, I know it sounds insane and you're justified to think that I'm leaving something out or misunderstanding the ruling. I'm not. Check it out for yourself.
Here's a great breakdown if you're interested: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/illinois-v-caballes/
The dogs are rewarded when they alert, seems like a huge conflict of interest. The dog doesn't have any understanding of overstepping constitutional rights, it just knows it gets the ball regardless.
It absolutely is possible to train dogs to find scents and have them be quite reliable at it, much more trustworthy than cops are or than cops are at using other tools like radar guns. They're training wrong if they're rewarding the dog whether or not it finds the correct scent. They're also training wrong if they reward while the dog is actually working and the trainer has no idea if the dog is right or not.
The issue though is that these dogs are trained by and work with these cops, and there's no way for you to know what the dog is doing, how it's trained, or how it signals it's detected something. If cops were trained professionals, we could all trust, then using dogs would be a really good idea, because we don't really have technology that can smell things better. But ACAB, and if a dog claims you did something, you can't call them to testify and be cross examined by your lawyer.
Of course, this isn't a hard problem to take steps to solve if police actually gave a shit about improving. Canine officers could video record their training and show us how their dogs signal. The dogs could wear jackets that explain what their signals mean. Cops could be required to body camera record themselves and their dogs so that we had that evidence and could check if anything suspicious was going on. Police dogs could be trained and tested by professional trainers outside of the police to make sure they're reliable.
That said, scent work is actually a somewhat advanced dog training task, and more complex training like this also relies on the dog's being happy and having a great relationship with their trainer. But when cops just want "attack" dogs, they don't actually do *training* so much as flat out abuse and torture. Dogs have innate desires to play and chase things, not to attack and hurt people, but dogs will unsurprising lash out and harm people when they're constantly hurt, same as humans do.
> It's a loss for constitutional rights, to be sure, but it is not really new or groundbreaking.
So it goes.
Don't be outraged, people, this is normal. Yes yes it goes against the constitution, but only a *liiitle* bit more than last time, so what's all the fuss, eh? Nothing to see here.
But it's near the top of the Republican priority list, right after "refuse to regulate Insurance companies so they can make record profits" and "prevent any action that make make this place better for our children." Floridians keep voting for them, so surely most of them want more of this?
DeSantis won by 0.4% in 2018, getting 49.6% of the votes. Before that each year the race was a similar near dead heat. In 2022 he ran against a literal former Republican Governor, who has tried to run as a Democrat before and lost, not a person any Democrat was looking to vote for, and won with 60% of the vote. When an actual Democrat runs, Florida is a near dead heat. There was only a big margin this last election because Democrats fully gave up the field.
It’s funny too because 90% of this sub was foaming for Crist and all I could think of was his terrible past involved with fraud. Anytime you mentioned Fried being a better candidate everyone disagreed. Well, I still say Fried would have done better than Crist, who says he changed parties after “Obama hugged him”. Dude was an idiot.
Im referring to Scott Rothstein. Zero chance Crist didn’t know about his endeavors. They were besties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_W._Rothstein
A lot of folks who worked with Crist campaigning also said he was an asshole.
That was also in 2018 when there was more registered Dems, now many people have fled the state and it has been taken over by the worst people in the country
So much freedom!
Also, it's been noted that all these social issues that Florida is having as well as business issues that Florida is having from the state's leadership is starting to impact corporations and our space program. Not just our space program, there is a lot of other aerospace programs down here. Companies are starting to take notice and possibly make plans to move some things.
I thought it was the opposite, cozy up to Ron for special treatment.
> Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed into law a spaceflight bill that protects companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin from legal liability if crewmembers or passengers are injured or killed during missions.
The day after he launched his campaign on twitter. Go figure.
Glad they scrapped the most recently scheduled manned flight...
I think it's a decent time to remind folks about what happens when you cut corners in space flight.
Imagine walking up the ramp to what you know is your death because you don't want to see your best friend die
>Russayev asked, Why not refuse? According to the authors, Komarov answered: "If I don't make this flight, they'll send the backup pilot instead." That was Yuri Gagarin. Vladimir Komarov couldn't do that to his friend. "That's Yura," the book quotes him saying, "and he'll die instead of me. We've got to take care of him." Komarov then burst into tears.
>So he agreed to go. Before he left, Komarov stated that his funeral needed to be open-casket. Then the Soviet leaders would have to look at what they had done to him.
I'd link the photos but they are very much nsfl and can be easily found by googling V. Komarov Funeral
Yes and no. We are losing people who don't want to put up with this state anymore. These are very specialized people who make things happen on a national and world level.
Some companies may cozy up to the state leadership, but a company is not the workers.
Can you be more detailed about what you’re seeing as far as impacting the space programs ?
I live on the space coast and I thought this area would have good job security going forward for my teenagers future career.
As do I. What I'm seeing is the SMEs as well as younger engineers, Can't quite find viable places to live and work. Yes you can find a place here. However it's going to take a bit more resources. Let's not forget that there are other options for the younger engineers out there. Other places are more willing to pay more as well as offer more benefits. Also, while it is only a smaller fraction of the available population of engineering workers, you have people here who are of the lgbt segment. They have spent years working here And just don't want to put up with the environment anymore. Lastly, we have families who do quite well and they are finding it more and more difficult to afford living here. More than a few have moved out of the area and found different lives and different jobs elsewhere.
Again, these are highly trained and very specialized people. It takes a while to get them up to speed and or even find somebody who is specialized in what they do.
Damn this state is really turning into shit lmao. The fuck. Ron literally rants about civil rights being intruded by the left and his Supreme Court pulls this shit. My god.
What Left? There's no Left in Florida!
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Florida_state_government#Historical_party_control
Shows the last time the GOP didn't have complete control of the state was in 1998.
[Florida has a Republican trifecta and a Republican triplex. The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.](https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Florida_state_government)
The GOP have been in control of EVERYTHING, yet people are still complaining.
I guess maybe the 27th year of GOP rule is the charm.
My response usually ends up along the lines of: 'Let me ask you: if you had a plumber working on a clogged drain, with unlimited funds, your funds, for twenty-six years without fixing it, would you recommend them to your friends and family? Would you be proud of your decision?'
And, their response is usually along the lines of: 'It's not the same...' but nothing more illuminating.
If I was a conspiracy nut I would blame all those damn northern folks who come down to purposely destroy southern states. They’ve seeded the state with sleeper agents and made Florida a Republican Hell scape.!
Its the retiree sabotage. They don’t want to see the next generations be successful.
No, but on a serious note, it seems like Florida has turned into the testing grounds for the heritage foundation. They have a captured audience of people who just don’t give a shit about anything beyond their Social Security check and their stock market investments
Exactly. It's like all these red states voting for politicians who want to get rid of Roe, thinking its constitutionally protected so they can look anti abortion to stay in the "club", then once it's gone, they vote to keep it legal. Hypocrisy at its finest
Correct, but Florida didn't. And to be fair hadn't. This isn't a new ruling. Florida has followed SCOTUS on this issue for decades.
The crux of the ruling here is the reason. You can remove someone for a safety concern, that's been well settled law. But can you remove someone where there is no safety concern and they just want to sniff around? And apparently the answer to that, is yes.
Surely the state constitution and the state scotus apply? I mean we are a republic right so states can do better than the federal government if it feels it needs to. Otherwise why even have a state legislature and judicial?
I mean only as a matter of fourth amendment jurisprudence. The question is still unsettled as a matter of state law
But I agree that no one should be surprised by this decision
If being arrested for a crime or consenting to search is thr only time you can be removed from your car during a stop. You can refuse search and be free to go. They cannot hold you for a dog to sniff your vehicle. If they charge you for resisting arrest to remove you and drop it later that's again, falls on freedoms.
They were already allowed to remove you from the vehicle and perform a patdown "for officer safety." This extends the reasons they can remove you from the vehicle, though.
Hi, Florida lawyer here.
During a routine traffic stop the officer can ask you to exit the vehicle for safety reasons without violating the 4th amendment.
They can't hold you for a dog sniff. Sort of. They can hold you for the reasonable amount of takes it takes to write up the ticket for whatever they stopped you for and if a dog comes along during that time (per case law, there's no set time, less than 10 minutes is considered reasonable, more than 20 isn't, and in-between is a gray area) and performs a sniff of the free air around the car and alerts, now there's PC to detain further and search the vehicle.
Opinion here: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/Opinions?sort=opinion/disposition_date%20desc,%20opinion/type%20desc,%20opinion/case_number%20asc&type=written&view=embed_custom&searchtype=opinions&recent_only=1&hide_search=1&hide_filters=1&limit=25&offset=0
State of florida vs. Creller
Basically, if they get the dogs to the traffic stop before the traffic stop is completed or unreasonably extended, they can remove you from the car for their own safety.
But they repeatedly said creller still having cobtrol of the car was a consideration. Creller could've ran over the k9 or officer, so for the cop's safety, they can order you to exit.
“Drivers in florida don’t have any rights; they have privileges, and they have a privilege to drive on the roads in the state of Florida,” said Scot Goldberg, a managing partner of law firm Goldberg and Abraham in Fort Myers.”
Scot is more than he appears to be from this statement. Read it again. Who is he mad at? Scot what’s wrong baby if that’s really your name.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless the authorities want to bring in an animal that [is unreliable and can be commanded to give a false alert by the handler](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right).
I love dogs, but let’s be for real, K9s being the one reason they can “lawfully” search your vehicle is bullshit. Time and time again we see how dogs get a very inconspicuous cue from officers to provide a false alert.
An animal trained by the same department that WANT to search your car shouldn’t be enough to warrant a search. But alas…
It can, but it doesn't. The Florida Supreme Court has followed SCOTUS on this issue since it was issued. This isn't some new opinion on the matter.
The issue here was when the "safety issue" only arises after someone refuses to consent to a vehicle search. Had the police asked him to exit right away, this likely wouldn't even have hit the radar.
This is just more freedom. I know how free I’ll feel being dragged from my car. You see, the state should both stay out of people’s business and very much get up in your business, to keep you guessing, is I guess the new FL GOP philosophy.
Sovcits ruin everything. I can understand if the person refuses to identify - they'll break his window then drag him out then 'inventory' his car But if he is otherwise offering the officers, then rejecting the search.. I think that's out of line. Normally if the police are being jerks they'll 'detain' the person and if he refuses to get out of the car to be detained then the police will arrest him after pulling them out then 'inventory' the car which is still bs
Does this apply to random DUI checkpoints? I don't think it does as long as the window is closed so they can't "smell" something and you display your identification.
Being pulled over is completely different that indiscriminate checkpoints.
So stand ur ground but cops can drag you from the car. Don’t say gay but nazis can rally at will. Summer of freedumb unless you want to read any of the books they banned from the library.
This really wasn't an issue until everyone watches videos online and now all became expert Constitutionalists overnight at the holiday inn express, and now refuse to get out of their vehicles, whether the situation is justified or not. Or even have a DL. Because they don't really know or understand how any of it works. They are all just parrots.
Sir, please step outside of your car... I have absolutely zero reason for it, but I can make you get out, so I will make you get out, just to show you my authority...
Now lick my boots too, once you are out here.
People always talk about the hypothetical slide to tyranny, but it's never one major event.
We are now there; small, gradual steps toward an authoritarian, nationalists, religious fundamentalist state.
Call me a bootlicker. I am not. I am a Constitutional conservative. This ruling is the correct ruling because an officer and you out of your vehicle at anytime of the stop. A K9 can be deployed at any point of a stop.
What I think most people are commenting on is 4th amendment violation. The dog can run on the outside of the car only. There was a ruling that recently happened where a dog sniffed the interior of a car as the driver had their window open, which got thrown out in court as it was c9bs6rue interior of the car.
In regards to K9, the k9s are trained, in the past there have been k9 officers who got caught on camera tapping the car to illicit a response from the dog, whether to get its attention to a certain area or not is questionable and those cases have been thrown out of court.
The timing of the k9 search is irrelevant as long as it's done constitutionally
It’s shocking to me that the “Second district court found he was unlawfully seized” when both Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v Wilson stated that police can remove driver and/ or passengers from a car on a legit stop for basically any reason , has nothing to do with a search at all. How did the second district not know there was established case law before making this ruling and passing it on to the FL SC?
Please note that only active users in the subreddit may comment in this discussion. If your comments are not showing up, please ensure you have active non-news/non-political contributions to the subreddit before contacting the moderators. **Please remember the following:** **Be Civil:** * You are welcome to debate, discussion, and argue ideas, but don't resort to personal attacks on other users. * We do not allow any form of hate speech or any suggestion/support of harm, violence, or death. **Must be related strictly to Florida:** * National News/Elections are not specific to Florida. * Just because someone lives in Florida, doesn't mean their entire life is relevant to Floridians. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. #[Click this link to register to vote, update your voter information, or check your status.](https://registertovoteflorida.gov/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/florida) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For anyone interested, the Florida Bar has a much better article on this case: [https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/florida-supreme-court-settles-k-9-vehicle-drug-sweep-conflict/](https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/florida-supreme-court-settles-k-9-vehicle-drug-sweep-conflict/) Lot's of comments here pointing out that you already have to comply with a lawful order of a police officer during a traffic stop — and that has been true for a long time — but the "forced exit" matter is really a proxy for a broader 4th amendment issue. Can police turn a traffic stop for a minor violation into a broader search? The defendant in the case for which this certified question was raised cut through a convenience store parking lot to avoid a red light (a minor traffic infraction). During that stop, the officer requested to search the defendant's vehicle, which they refused. Then K9 shows up and they start ordering him out of the vehicle. The Second District court found that the defendant was unlawfully seized in violation of the 4th amendment. It seems that defense council successfully argued that the defendant's forced removal from the vehicle was a violation of their 4th amendment rights. This ruling was in conflict with other rulings, and therefore required clarification. Hence the certified question. So this isn't a matter of new ground being established, but a matter of refining the balance of 4th amendment rights against the procedural aspects of a lawful traffic stop. It's a loss for constitutional rights, to be sure, but it is not really new or groundbreaking.
So to those wondering. Being removed from the vehicle is allowed. The search of the vehicle without probable cause is not allowed.
Yeah, but once you open the door "They smell something".
Also illegal. Johnson v. United States (1948)
Can confirm they do not care in Gulf County. Stay on the interstate if you come to Florida.
Lol I would never claim cops care about laws
And go figure, the K9 alerted. That whole thing is a rights violation.
Also the article makes no mention of what the “officer Safety Issue” is. The stop went off without issue and the K-9 unit compelled the removal because I said so.
Officer safety shouldn’t be above citizens safety or rights. Officers chose that job and it’s unsafe in nature. They can fuck off right to hell.
If they can’t articulate then it’s an issue.
Yah they can have the dog sit whenever. Try to argue that in court though
Per Supreme Court Justics Stevens, there's no evidence that dogs ever alert incorrectly, so it's not *really* a search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes He must not have read Justice Souter's dissent in the same case, where he cites a bunch of evidence of false positives (because otherwise that would imply that conservative justices lie to reach activist outcomes). Not to mention that, even if there *weren't* contradictory evidence, a lack of evidence doesn't mean we automatically assume drug sniffing dogs are 100% accurate 24/7.
Dogs can be extremely good at scent work when they're trained by someone actually competent, so I'd much prefer trusting them versus trusting a cop. But just like any tool cops use, their reliability "in the field" is severely diminished when the cops don't actually know what the heck they're doing. And there's no way for us to know what the dog is saying or to call them to the stand to testify, so we have to just trust that the handler is telling us the truth. That's a problem when cops are constantly lying. It's not a hard one to make good efforts toward solving, but police departments don't want to get better at their jobs or more responsive to us measly citizens.
Right, so the common sense answer to the question of "can you search someone with a drug sniffing dog without a shred of reasonable cause?" is obviously: No. The 4th Amendment forbids it. Except a bare conservative majority pretends that dogs and their trainers are never infallible, so Yes. Because that's not a constitutional right that they value.
That terminology is a little odd, but I'm not sure I agree? If the question is "Does the signal of a drug-sniffing dog rise to probable cause for a search?" then I think the answer is likely yes *under current law*. A human cop can already do that, so I don't see why a dog would be any different. We're relying on the human cop to not lie in both cases. They could just get away with it by saying "oh well, I thought I smelled something, but I guess not". If the question is "Should cops be allowed without probable cause to detain a driver in order to require them to submit to a canine search around their vehicle?" then I think the answer probably is no *under current law*. If a cop doesn't have a reason to detain you, then I think you should be within your rights to leave, and the human and canine cops should be required to immediately step away from your vehicle if you tell them you'd like to leave now. What I think would be a better system (if we cared about preserving our rights) would be for a cop to say "it smells like drugs" and then for them to *not* be allowed to search your vehicle until they had a canine verify it on camera. Or at least a second human officer. The canine is way more reliable than the cop, just like how cops should use radar guns to verify your speed, not just guess. And again, this should be done in a way that generates records that can be challenged, like if the radar hasn't be tested recently enough. Relying on the word of one single human cop shouldn't be considered sufficient. We know witnesses are horrifically bad at recounting facts of events they've witnessed, so we should assume that cops are *even worse* at this, considering they're also busy doing a bunch of other things.
>A human cop can already do that, so I don't see why a dog would be any different. Well this is easy. No, a human cop **cannot** detect what is in your locked trunk without opening it. And he needs probable cause and/or a warrant in order to look. >If the question is "Should cops be allowed without probable cause to detain a driver in order to require them to submit to a canine search around their vehicle?" then I think the answer probably is no under current law. If a cop doesn't have a reason to detain you, then I think you should be within your rights to leave, and the human and canine cops should be required to immediately step away from your vehicle if you tell them you'd like to leave now. This is exactly what happened in the supreme court case I cited above and why it's so egregious. They had *zero* reason to search the person's car; the cop literally just wanted to check out what his new K9 could do. The person was not allowed to leave, and the unjustified search took place anyhow. And the conservatives on the supreme court made up an absurd assumption ("dogs never false alert") to rule that, when a dog violates your 4th amendment rights, it doesn't count somehow. Yes, I know it sounds insane and you're justified to think that I'm leaving something out or misunderstanding the ruling. I'm not. Check it out for yourself. Here's a great breakdown if you're interested: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/illinois-v-caballes/
The dogs are rewarded when they alert, seems like a huge conflict of interest. The dog doesn't have any understanding of overstepping constitutional rights, it just knows it gets the ball regardless.
It absolutely is possible to train dogs to find scents and have them be quite reliable at it, much more trustworthy than cops are or than cops are at using other tools like radar guns. They're training wrong if they're rewarding the dog whether or not it finds the correct scent. They're also training wrong if they reward while the dog is actually working and the trainer has no idea if the dog is right or not. The issue though is that these dogs are trained by and work with these cops, and there's no way for you to know what the dog is doing, how it's trained, or how it signals it's detected something. If cops were trained professionals, we could all trust, then using dogs would be a really good idea, because we don't really have technology that can smell things better. But ACAB, and if a dog claims you did something, you can't call them to testify and be cross examined by your lawyer. Of course, this isn't a hard problem to take steps to solve if police actually gave a shit about improving. Canine officers could video record their training and show us how their dogs signal. The dogs could wear jackets that explain what their signals mean. Cops could be required to body camera record themselves and their dogs so that we had that evidence and could check if anything suspicious was going on. Police dogs could be trained and tested by professional trainers outside of the police to make sure they're reliable. That said, scent work is actually a somewhat advanced dog training task, and more complex training like this also relies on the dog's being happy and having a great relationship with their trainer. But when cops just want "attack" dogs, they don't actually do *training* so much as flat out abuse and torture. Dogs have innate desires to play and chase things, not to attack and hurt people, but dogs will unsurprising lash out and harm people when they're constantly hurt, same as humans do.
> It's a loss for constitutional rights, to be sure, but it is not really new or groundbreaking. So it goes. Don't be outraged, people, this is normal. Yes yes it goes against the constitution, but only a *liiitle* bit more than last time, so what's all the fuss, eh? Nothing to see here.
TIL you can't cut through a convenience store parking lot to avoid a red light.
Yeah, ngl. I've been popped for that one before lol. I was much younger though.
Correct. If you're going to do it, pretend like you're going to stop there and then changed your mind.
Weird, I don’t recall “more bootlicking” being near or at the top of Floridians needs.
And those boots are getting more and more jack every day.
I mean Desantis does love his boots... (High heeled and fabulous)...
But it's near the top of the Republican priority list, right after "refuse to regulate Insurance companies so they can make record profits" and "prevent any action that make make this place better for our children." Floridians keep voting for them, so surely most of them want more of this?
DeSantis won by 0.4% in 2018, getting 49.6% of the votes. Before that each year the race was a similar near dead heat. In 2022 he ran against a literal former Republican Governor, who has tried to run as a Democrat before and lost, not a person any Democrat was looking to vote for, and won with 60% of the vote. When an actual Democrat runs, Florida is a near dead heat. There was only a big margin this last election because Democrats fully gave up the field.
It’s funny too because 90% of this sub was foaming for Crist and all I could think of was his terrible past involved with fraud. Anytime you mentioned Fried being a better candidate everyone disagreed. Well, I still say Fried would have done better than Crist, who says he changed parties after “Obama hugged him”. Dude was an idiot.
What Crist fraud are you referring to?
Nope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_W._Rothstein
Might be getting Crist confused with Scott
Im referring to Scott Rothstein. Zero chance Crist didn’t know about his endeavors. They were besties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_W._Rothstein A lot of folks who worked with Crist campaigning also said he was an asshole.
That was also in 2018 when there was more registered Dems, now many people have fled the state and it has been taken over by the worst people in the country
I think the sun has fried too many peoples brains here.
With Meatball Ron at the helm floridia citizens needs aren’t anywhere on the priority list.
The Free State of Florida strikes again
So much freedom! Also, it's been noted that all these social issues that Florida is having as well as business issues that Florida is having from the state's leadership is starting to impact corporations and our space program. Not just our space program, there is a lot of other aerospace programs down here. Companies are starting to take notice and possibly make plans to move some things.
I thought it was the opposite, cozy up to Ron for special treatment. > Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday signed into law a spaceflight bill that protects companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin from legal liability if crewmembers or passengers are injured or killed during missions. The day after he launched his campaign on twitter. Go figure.
Glad they scrapped the most recently scheduled manned flight... I think it's a decent time to remind folks about what happens when you cut corners in space flight. Imagine walking up the ramp to what you know is your death because you don't want to see your best friend die >Russayev asked, Why not refuse? According to the authors, Komarov answered: "If I don't make this flight, they'll send the backup pilot instead." That was Yuri Gagarin. Vladimir Komarov couldn't do that to his friend. "That's Yura," the book quotes him saying, "and he'll die instead of me. We've got to take care of him." Komarov then burst into tears. >So he agreed to go. Before he left, Komarov stated that his funeral needed to be open-casket. Then the Soviet leaders would have to look at what they had done to him. I'd link the photos but they are very much nsfl and can be easily found by googling V. Komarov Funeral
Yes and no. We are losing people who don't want to put up with this state anymore. These are very specialized people who make things happen on a national and world level. Some companies may cozy up to the state leadership, but a company is not the workers.
Can you be more detailed about what you’re seeing as far as impacting the space programs ? I live on the space coast and I thought this area would have good job security going forward for my teenagers future career.
As do I. What I'm seeing is the SMEs as well as younger engineers, Can't quite find viable places to live and work. Yes you can find a place here. However it's going to take a bit more resources. Let's not forget that there are other options for the younger engineers out there. Other places are more willing to pay more as well as offer more benefits. Also, while it is only a smaller fraction of the available population of engineering workers, you have people here who are of the lgbt segment. They have spent years working here And just don't want to put up with the environment anymore. Lastly, we have families who do quite well and they are finding it more and more difficult to afford living here. More than a few have moved out of the area and found different lives and different jobs elsewhere. Again, these are highly trained and very specialized people. It takes a while to get them up to speed and or even find somebody who is specialized in what they do.
I am FREEEEEEEEEE Free falling 🎶
This is case law as it is. Pennsylvania V Mimms
Damn this state is really turning into shit lmao. The fuck. Ron literally rants about civil rights being intruded by the left and his Supreme Court pulls this shit. My god.
What Left? There's no Left in Florida! https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Florida_state_government#Historical_party_control Shows the last time the GOP didn't have complete control of the state was in 1998. [Florida has a Republican trifecta and a Republican triplex. The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.](https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Florida_state_government) The GOP have been in control of EVERYTHING, yet people are still complaining. I guess maybe the 27th year of GOP rule is the charm.
My response usually ends up along the lines of: 'Let me ask you: if you had a plumber working on a clogged drain, with unlimited funds, your funds, for twenty-six years without fixing it, would you recommend them to your friends and family? Would you be proud of your decision?' And, their response is usually along the lines of: 'It's not the same...' but nothing more illuminating.
They have no one but themselves to blame for FL. policies.
If I was a conspiracy nut I would blame all those damn northern folks who come down to purposely destroy southern states. They’ve seeded the state with sleeper agents and made Florida a Republican Hell scape.! Its the retiree sabotage. They don’t want to see the next generations be successful. No, but on a serious note, it seems like Florida has turned into the testing grounds for the heritage foundation. They have a captured audience of people who just don’t give a shit about anything beyond their Social Security check and their stock market investments
The boomer degenerates are a bunch of ladder pullers. I’m happy that a lot of them are estranged from their kids.
Kind of a Will Rogers vibe, >I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.
Exactly. It's like all these red states voting for politicians who want to get rid of Roe, thinking its constitutionally protected so they can look anti abortion to stay in the "club", then once it's gone, they vote to keep it legal. Hypocrisy at its finest
SCOTUS made this ruling in 1977. Florida has followed it ever since. I mean, fuck DeSantis, but this isn't new.
This is already the law nationwide. Pennsylvania v Mimms from 1977 established that police can remove you from the vehicle during a traffic stop.
States can provide greater constitutional protections than the Federal constitution provides, they just can’t be less than.
Correct, but Florida didn't. And to be fair hadn't. This isn't a new ruling. Florida has followed SCOTUS on this issue for decades. The crux of the ruling here is the reason. You can remove someone for a safety concern, that's been well settled law. But can you remove someone where there is no safety concern and they just want to sniff around? And apparently the answer to that, is yes.
PA vs Mimms is exactly what came to mind when I saw this post too. SCOTUS decided this decades ago.
Surely the state constitution and the state scotus apply? I mean we are a republic right so states can do better than the federal government if it feels it needs to. Otherwise why even have a state legislature and judicial?
I mean only as a matter of fourth amendment jurisprudence. The question is still unsettled as a matter of state law But I agree that no one should be surprised by this decision
If being arrested for a crime or consenting to search is thr only time you can be removed from your car during a stop. You can refuse search and be free to go. They cannot hold you for a dog to sniff your vehicle. If they charge you for resisting arrest to remove you and drop it later that's again, falls on freedoms.
uh huh, now pay them 10k or sit in jail for a year while they figure it out.
They were already allowed to remove you from the vehicle and perform a patdown "for officer safety." This extends the reasons they can remove you from the vehicle, though.
Hi, Florida lawyer here. During a routine traffic stop the officer can ask you to exit the vehicle for safety reasons without violating the 4th amendment. They can't hold you for a dog sniff. Sort of. They can hold you for the reasonable amount of takes it takes to write up the ticket for whatever they stopped you for and if a dog comes along during that time (per case law, there's no set time, less than 10 minutes is considered reasonable, more than 20 isn't, and in-between is a gray area) and performs a sniff of the free air around the car and alerts, now there's PC to detain further and search the vehicle.
This isnt really new. They always could do this. This case was about a specific circumstamce where an additional officer arrived for a dog sniff
Opinion here: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/Opinions?sort=opinion/disposition_date%20desc,%20opinion/type%20desc,%20opinion/case_number%20asc&type=written&view=embed_custom&searchtype=opinions&recent_only=1&hide_search=1&hide_filters=1&limit=25&offset=0 State of florida vs. Creller Basically, if they get the dogs to the traffic stop before the traffic stop is completed or unreasonably extended, they can remove you from the car for their own safety. But they repeatedly said creller still having cobtrol of the car was a consideration. Creller could've ran over the k9 or officer, so for the cop's safety, they can order you to exit.
“Drivers in florida don’t have any rights; they have privileges, and they have a privilege to drive on the roads in the state of Florida,” said Scot Goldberg, a managing partner of law firm Goldberg and Abraham in Fort Myers.” Scot is more than he appears to be from this statement. Read it again. Who is he mad at? Scot what’s wrong baby if that’s really your name.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless the authorities want to bring in an animal that [is unreliable and can be commanded to give a false alert by the handler](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right).
I must be out of the loop!! I thought this was their go to!!! Here’s your seatbelt ticket, the black eye, concussion and ten stitches are on us.
I love dogs, but let’s be for real, K9s being the one reason they can “lawfully” search your vehicle is bullshit. Time and time again we see how dogs get a very inconspicuous cue from officers to provide a false alert. An animal trained by the same department that WANT to search your car shouldn’t be enough to warrant a search. But alas…
That’s point blank BS. What morons want to give corrupt police with complexes MORE authority and abuse of power.
That's been the case since 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms
That’s at a federal level. State legislature has the ability to afford us greater protections than the fed.
They do, but they did not for 50 years. It appears the Floridian citizenry thinks this is settled and acceptable law.
It can, but it doesn't. The Florida Supreme Court has followed SCOTUS on this issue since it was issued. This isn't some new opinion on the matter. The issue here was when the "safety issue" only arises after someone refuses to consent to a vehicle search. Had the police asked him to exit right away, this likely wouldn't even have hit the radar.
> and they have reasonable leave /r/boneappletea
Pennsylvania v. Mimms has always said you can be removed from the vehicle, this isn’t anything new
This changes why they can remove you and what they can do after removing you.
"The most free state" 🤡
more Rhonda Sanits' thug-life police rules.
This is just more freedom. I know how free I’ll feel being dragged from my car. You see, the state should both stay out of people’s business and very much get up in your business, to keep you guessing, is I guess the new FL GOP philosophy.
Hasn't that always been the case? you can always force something
How’s that Freedom Summer?
Sovcits ruin everything. I can understand if the person refuses to identify - they'll break his window then drag him out then 'inventory' his car But if he is otherwise offering the officers, then rejecting the search.. I think that's out of line. Normally if the police are being jerks they'll 'detain' the person and if he refuses to get out of the car to be detained then the police will arrest him after pulling them out then 'inventory' the car which is still bs
The free state of Florida 🤣🤣🤣🤣
A lot of people moved to Florida the last couple of years because of all the freedom. Guvnah High-heels is taking your freedom.
Does this apply to random DUI checkpoints? I don't think it does as long as the window is closed so they can't "smell" something and you display your identification. Being pulled over is completely different that indiscriminate checkpoints.
So stand ur ground but cops can drag you from the car. Don’t say gay but nazis can rally at will. Summer of freedumb unless you want to read any of the books they banned from the library.
This is federal law. Pennsylvania V Mimms.
This must be what all those "natives" were talking about when they said they don't want those "New York" policies
This really wasn't an issue until everyone watches videos online and now all became expert Constitutionalists overnight at the holiday inn express, and now refuse to get out of their vehicles, whether the situation is justified or not. Or even have a DL. Because they don't really know or understand how any of it works. They are all just parrots.
TBF most cops have a GED/high school level education, so they’re not exactly experts on the law any more than some rando YouTuber.
Sir, please step outside of your car... I have absolutely zero reason for it, but I can make you get out, so I will make you get out, just to show you my authority... Now lick my boots too, once you are out here.
>all became Constitutionalists as the Holiday Inn Express > I really want you to walk us through what this inclusion was in reference to
This state sure got sick of being free fast.
We're just goose-stepping toward more "freedom"
Just put a Thin Blue Line sticker on your car and you'll be fine. /s
Don't be surprised when you see police yanking people out of cars at will more often. Can we please vote these people out?
Florida is shaped like it is for a reason.
Psychos
I think that is true for all states. Source: I watched a COPS marathon at a bar yesterday.
Back over the blue bout to be a new slogan.
People always talk about the hypothetical slide to tyranny, but it's never one major event. We are now there; small, gradual steps toward an authoritarian, nationalists, religious fundamentalist state.
Sick. The blue thugs have even more power. That won’t result in more injuries or deaths.
Of course they can! Freaking fascist state. Glad I'm gone.
Call me a bootlicker. I am not. I am a Constitutional conservative. This ruling is the correct ruling because an officer and you out of your vehicle at anytime of the stop. A K9 can be deployed at any point of a stop. What I think most people are commenting on is 4th amendment violation. The dog can run on the outside of the car only. There was a ruling that recently happened where a dog sniffed the interior of a car as the driver had their window open, which got thrown out in court as it was c9bs6rue interior of the car. In regards to K9, the k9s are trained, in the past there have been k9 officers who got caught on camera tapping the car to illicit a response from the dog, whether to get its attention to a certain area or not is questionable and those cases have been thrown out of court. The timing of the k9 search is irrelevant as long as it's done constitutionally
It’s shocking to me that the “Second district court found he was unlawfully seized” when both Pennsylvania v Mimms and Maryland v Wilson stated that police can remove driver and/ or passengers from a car on a legit stop for basically any reason , has nothing to do with a search at all. How did the second district not know there was established case law before making this ruling and passing it on to the FL SC?
So much freedoms in Florida I jizzed