Street Cop Training

According to the Idaho Supreme Court, the answer is yes. State v. Howard, 496 P.3d 865 (Idaho 2021). Under the United States v. Jones (2012) physical trespass test, when the dog enters the interior of the vehicle, however slightly, a “search” has occurred. This is regardless of whether the officer directed or influenced the dog’s entry. Therefore, if there was not pre-existing probable cause or consent, the search would be unlawful. The rationale of the holding would likely extend to an inadvertent touch of the vehicle as well. The The Idaho Supreme Court's decision is definitely the minority view. In fact, it appears that Idaho is alone in holding this precise conduct was a search. The majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held that if the dogs entry was inadvertent, no search has occurred. Some of the courts taking the majority position or the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 10th circuits.

More info coming soon. Tickets will go on sale Oct 14.

Mark it on your calendar! May 27-29, 2025. Ticket sales will be available on October 14, 2024 --> WWW.STREETCOP.COM - Monday, May 26 - First day of event check-in, happy hour reception + new merch sales will be open - Tuesday, May 26 - Conference Day 1, Event TBA - Wednesday, May 27 - Conference Day 2, First 250 Private Event with live entertainment followed by event at JBJ Downtown Nashville - Thursday, May 28 - Conference Day 3, Event TBA If you are a Street Cop University member and/or attended our previous conference in Orlando, please check your email!

Here's what you need to know about vehicle inventory searches.

We know some of you know this, but a lot of you don't. We hope this helps.

The answer to yesterday's quiz was C. The officer should have informed the driver of his Miranda Rights after he failed field sobriety testing, was placed under arrest and brought to the police department for processing. Once he blew the .02 and you began to question him about other narcotics he was entitled to his Miranda rights before answering any incriminating questions. Miranda applies to custodial interrogations involving minor traffic offenses. Routine questioning of motorists detained pursuant to traffic stops is not custodial interrogation under Miranda. A person is entitled to receive Miranda warnings before any questioning when they are under arrest. The court will view when that time occurred based on previous existing case law and when a normal person will believe they were officially under arrest. The court ruled that a traffic stop is similar to a Terry stop in that it’s more of an investigation detention that does not warrant the necessity to read Miranda while somebody is temporarily detained. Police officers are permitted to ask question designed to elicit and incriminating statement without reading someone Miranda rights and it was not a constitutional violation.

You follow a vehicle for speeding in excess of 19mph over the posted speed limit. While behind the vehicle you see that the driver seems to be swerving quite a bit. You make the traffic stop and as you approach the vehicle to make contact with the driver you smell the odor of alcohol. As you begin to speak with the driver you see bloodshot watery eyes, hear slurred speech and see that his hand /eye coordination is not good. You tell the driver to step out and then ask “Have you drank any alcohol or ingested any narcotics?” The driver responds by stating “I had 4 or 5 beers.” The driver fails field sobriety tests is placed under arrest and transported to police headquarters. When the driver is instructed to provide a breath sample he blows a .02 which is inconsistent with the level of intoxication he’s displaying. You suspect that the driver may have used narcotics so you ask him what has he taken. He admits to smoking meth earlier. All of these statements are collected and used against him in a court of law. At what point were you required to provide the driver with his Miranda rights before asking incriminating questions? A. As soon as you smelled alcohol and saw the bloodshot watery eyes, heard slurred speech and saw bad hand/eye coordination. That was enough to know that he was probably going to be arrested so that’s when you have to read Miranda before continuing. B. At the point you asked how much he had to drink and he responded 4 or 5 beers. That’s a confession under the law and now establishes PC for the police officer to arrest him. C. After he failed field sobriety testing. Was placed under arrest and brought to the police department for processing. Once he blew the .02 and you began to question him about other narcotics he was entitled to his Miranda rights before answering any incriminating questions. D. Never, it was a DUI which is a traffic violation so at no point did you need to read Miranda.

Do you think the media tells you the truth about everything or only shows you what they want you to see? When someone tells you something do you think “there’s gotta be another side to this?” Or are you dumb enough to believe everything you see and hear.

The firearm can be seized and stored by the police under the community caretaking doctrine. Securing a firearm in a vehicle towed by police is the quintessential caretaking endeavor. The Supreme Court first recognized the community caretaking exception in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973). There, the police lawfully searched a crashed vehicle where they had a reason to believe the vehicle contained a firearm.

You have to treat every day on this job like it could take your life. Start taking shit seriously. Be hard to kill. Train all the time and don't take anything for granted.