Recently a dog owner was stopped in Jefferson County, AL; home of Birmingham, AL. You can see the woman’s version of the story and the full response from Lt. Randy Christian, spokesperson for the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, here. Lt. Christian has verified directly to me that this is indeed his email so here we go.
While I agree with the blogger at that site that the truth generally lies somewhere in between, for the sake of argument, I’m going to take Lt. Christian’s version as gospel, critique it, and then ask all of you to BOYCOTT BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA.
Lt. Christian: “The Facts:
“She was stopped driving a Truck with a Camper Shell. Multiple dogs were
visible in rear camper window. This Captain is familiar with people who
run "puppy mills" and these were all
the same breed and were puppies.
The 3 visible in the back window were visible panting.
“Our Captain was in an unmarked unit so he called for a marked unit to
stop them. 2 showed up (not the 6 described) and initiated the stop.”
On what freaking grounds? Dogs pant, so what, big deal. All the same breed? Duh, lots of us have multiple dogs of a single breed. That just means we know what kind of dog we like! “Truck with a Camper Shell”??? And?????? And what’s with the extra capital letters? Is that supposed to impart something, some super secret clue? The dogs were visible. And??? When did it become a problem to put one’s dogs where they could see, enjoy the ride, get some fresh air? “This Captain is familiar with people who run ‘puppy mills’.” What does that mean? NOTHING since he says nothing that is indicative of indicia of being a puppy miller. Did this “knowledgeable” Captain bother to show up at the stop? Don’t know because he doesn’t say but I’m guessing not.
By this point in reading Lt. Christian’s email, I was PISSED. Let me share the whys and wherefores of that PISSED.
Contrary to popular belief, an officer doesn’t need “probable cause” to stop you. S/He DOES need a “reasonable suspicion” that you have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime. This is called a Terry Stop. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit ALL searches and seizures, just unreasonable ones. If stopped, you have been “seized”. Memorize this phrase now: “Am I free to leave?” If the answer is no, then you continued to be “seized” and you have the right to ask this multiple times but you need to understand when. First let’s go back to what is “reasonable suspicion”.
“Reasonable suspicion” is specific and articulable facts and
inferences. An officer has to be able to spell it out,
add it up, 1 + 2 + 3 = 6; anything less and it fails the test. Reasonable suspicion is what Lt. Christian is
trying to articulate. Sorry Dude but “I
knows it when I sees it” which is what “This Captain is familiar with people
who
run ‘puppy mills’.” amounts to is mere hunch; NOT
reasonable suspicion. All of facts above
simply do not add up to reasonable suspicion of anything except of someone
traveling with 3 puppies.
With “reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time”. Id.
Lt. Christian: “The entire
stop lasted 17 minutes (certainly not the 45 minutes
described) as documented via our communications bureau. The delay was
because the driver did not have any documentation showing where the dogs
were being taken, no registration for the show, etc. Our Captain called
the Animal Cruelty officer who advised that the shows require
pre-registration and she should have some type documentation. She
provided web site and once it was verified there was a dog show and this
person was a participant, then she was only verbally warned about the
blocked car tag and the untaxed case of liquor that was stored under the
dogs.”
I said I’d take Lt. Christian’s statements as gospel but I do have a bit of difficulty doing so here. If the entire stop lasted 17 minutes, what delay is he referencing? Is he perhaps saying that he’s excluding the time taken to do those other things (driver’s search for documents, calling AC, checking the website)? I suspect he is as the total time taken would certainly take more than 17 minutes when added to the time to pull a vehicle over, ask for license, registration, insurance…, the usual. Interesting question. Does that time “count”? It certainly does in my book.
Reasonable suspicion is also the minimal grounds necessary for a Terry search. Once you’ve been seized, an officer has the right to ensure his/her safety; “may conduct a patdown of the suspect's outer garments to search for weapons. Pursuant to the 'plain feel' doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband's identity is immediately apparent at the time of the frisk”. “If it is a violent crime [that’s reasonably suspected] (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officers [sic] safety is paramount and have allowed for a ‘frisk’ of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only.” However, refusing to answer questions, refusing to consent to a search, and being of “suspect” race or ethnicity may NOT be amongst the “articulable facts and inferences”; exercising one’s rights is not supposed to be considered “suspect”. Id.
Now I’ll urge some caution because you need to know some of the laws in the areas in which you travel. Of course, you can refuse to answer all questions but there are questions you can be arrested for refusing to answer. If you’re pulled over for a traffic violation or vehicle equipment problem/issue (like a covered tag and they can ALWAYS find SOME technical violation), you may well have to produce a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and insurance. Even lacking that, in many jurisdictions, one is required to identify oneself. That may mean producing a license, an ID of some form, or simply giving your name and address without overtly squirming like you’re obviously lying.
Throughout this process, keep in mind that the officer is actively looking for anything illegal or at least probably cause. The officer is looking for the upper hand, the ability to search you, your companions, your property, your vehicle. Each stage gets you closer to a jail cell and your vehicle and property closer to impoundment. Your fear of these is what officers prey upon. Of course, that fear is heightened if your property includes live, precious animals. But back to the story at hand…
Lt. Christian: “The Welfare of the dogs was checked and the
driver was advised that the
stop was to check the welfare of the dogs”
WTF??? I almost want to say
that’s none of the officer’s bloody business!
Actually, I will say it. THAT’S
NONE OF THE OFFICER’S BLOODY BUSINESS; not at this stage of the game. That isn’t how American criminal law
works. FIRST, you need at least
reasonable suspicion. To get to
“checking the welfare” of the dogs, you need reasonable suspicion that their
welfare was in danger and panting while traveling just doesn’t come close! In fact, I’ll bet this officer actually
needed reasonable suspicion (maybe probable cause) of abuse to get to this point and, from what Lt.
Christian has articulated, NOT!!!
Lt. Christian: “Finally, she was found to be in possession of a case of untaxed liquor.” That is a whole other can of worms way beyond today’s scope because it very likely involves a stop at an Indian reservation. Of course, it’s tossed in here to make us think poorly of the person that was pulled over. Personally, I couldn’t care less; wouldn’t care if it were moonshine! A case of booze in the bed of a truck on a trip concerns me not at all; not even close to being the same as an open bottle within reach of the driver while driving. I do love the “finally” which kinda confirms just how long and extensive this stop was; not exactly a Terry Stop to my mind at this point!
Lt. Christian: “The Captain, an actual animal lover, owner of a registered purebred
daschund, and an investigator who has headed up several animal
cruelty
investigations, including "cock"
fighting was only verifying the well
being of the dogs.” Who cares? That’s far, far from the point. Last I checked, dog owners were the ones
primarily responsible for their wellbeing.
Seriously, go do your primary job and protect us from the real criminals
and stop harassing the tourists and travelers!
I realize most dog owners are easy targets and you must get your jollies
out of being able to harass us all but GET OVER IT. Go find the actual puppy mills out there,
shut down the illegal fighting of animals.
3 puppies travelling in a truck does not a mill nor fighting ring make.
Lt. Christian: “It has been my experience that true animal lovers appreciate that we would take the time to
investigate the well being of man's best friend.” No sir.
You are not talking about animal lovers.
You are talking about animal rights activists. The vast majority of TRUE animal lovers and
owners are ALSO fond of the US Constitution and it certainly looks to me like
you and the officers involved in this stop have a complete and utter disregard
for the US Constitution and well established rights and laws. Do not cloak your disregard of our rights, our foundation principles, in animal rights activist speech.
I call upon those of you who cherish your animals, your rights to care for them
without being harassed for daring travel with your beloved companions, to BOYCOTT
Birmingham and Jefferson County, Alabama. I urge the local breed clubs to move their
business/their shows beyond the bounds of Jefferson County,
Alabama until the Jefferson County
spells out what it considers the potential articulable facts and inferences
which will result in travelers being stopped on suspicion of animal abuse.
I know boycotting is an old fashioned idea but I suspect it’s effective when the economy is in its current state.