It also highlights the need for people to understand that they don't have to consent to a search.
bobbo | 10.02.07 - 10:06 am | #

Agreed. But in this case I'm guessing the drug dog provided the probable cause. Doesn't take much to search your car.

I would still not consent if asked, and then argue that they didn't have the probable cause.... but unless you had a good lawyer, you would most likely be fucked in this type of case.
Rob | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 10:15 am | #

Maybe you could argue that a drug task force pulling you over and conducting a drug search on the pretense of changing lanes without signaling is unconstitutional.
z | 10.02.07 - 8:54 pm | #

One thing to keep in mind - my understanding of the law (my research on the topic is related to carrying a weapon, but the principle would be the same) is that a car is considered an extension of the home in Louisiana.
In states that DO differentiate between a car and a house, it takes MUCH less to search the car than the house. So my assumption is that they might need a little more - after all, if they don't, why bother asking for permission?
The thing is, depending on how enshrined the car=home thing is in LA law, there IS SCOTUS precedent (can't remember the name of the case) basically saying that cops need a warrant to do a search like this. In the SCOTUS case, it was some kind of infrared scan or some such looking for, I believe, a hydroponic farm in a basement; I'd imagine that would be quite analagous to a drug dog sniffing around the outside of a car (in a jurisdiction where the car is an extension of the home, that is).
Displaced New Orleanian | 10.03.07 - 12:40 am | #