This one is from Huntington, West Virginia.

This starts off in the middle of a traffic stop by a K-9 officer.  The passenger in the car has refused to identify himself, and has that right since he is not suspected of a crime.  The officers are going to run a dog outside of the car, which is legal, and they order the driver and the passenger out of the car (also legal).  As soon as the passenger gets out, the second officer tells him he is going to pat him down (at 1:44).

The passenger then asks what crime he is suspected of, and the officer says he’s not suspected of a crime.  The passenger then asks why he is being searched and the officer replies that a lot of people carry weapons and don’t like the police.  He then tells the passenger that he has a “right” to pat him down for officer safety.

That is not correct and is a violation of the passenger’s rights.  The standard is based on reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity and that the individual is armed and dangerous.  See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The Supreme Court has not varied from this standard.  “To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.”  Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009).

The officer does explain a few seconds later that “for all those out on Youtube, this is called a Terry frisk.”  Yes, it is, but the fact that the officer knows what it is called does not mean that he has justification to conduct the frisk.

The same problem exists when the handler runs the dog around the car.  At about 4:30 and again at 5:27 in the video, you can see the dog sticking his head in the car, which is why you should roll your windows up.  In any event, without consent, neither the handler nor the dog can enter the car.  See generally United States v. Taylor, No. CR-2:12-00216, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68388, 2013 WL 2102698 (S.D.W.V. 2013) (“law enforcement entering private property without probable cause — and against the property owner’s explicit instructions — plainly illustrates the unreasonable nature of the search”).  The officers claim that the dog “hit” on the car, which I did not see, but I suppose it could have happened.  In any event they claim that they found “kernels” from smoked marijuana in the car.  WTF?  “Kernels”?  LOL, that means they didn’t find anything, and are making stuff up.