I am in no way defending their actions as a whole. As stated in the original post - the artificial ‘hit’ they generated with the drug sniffing (supposedly) dog was basically planting evidence to justify further searching. That was wrong. It should be investigated. And likely some sort of disciplinary action applied. Because that was, without any doubt, over the line.
I do not question the officers for getting tough when he refused to roll his window down. That was act of hiding or deception given it was a simple request - and a likely legitimate one from a pure communications aspect. The officer should have said ‘Its noisy out here, please roll down your window some more.’. Keeping the window up or most of the way up shows a possible intent to hide the smell of alcohol or other substances. The driver intentionally created the appearance of deceit or hiding to trigger the extended detainment. When you go through a ‘DUI checkpoint’ the officers want to stick their nose in your car, smell if your stinking drunk or if you have a 12-pack of empty cans on the floor. If you will not roll down your window it looks like you are hiding these two elements. That is what he did and that is why he got the extra treatment - and he knew it. He had been through these checkpoints before and know they just want to observe for the obvious elements of DUI.
If the driver is correct about them causing the dog to generate a ‘fake hit’ that is bad.
I also find the officers overall reaction to the discovery of the video interesting. They clearly did not destroy it and did did not seem alarmed by what it might have caught.
I have been the ‘victim’ of an over aggressive police detainment. waiting for over an hour for a breathalyzer/paddy-wagon to show up. When it did, the results were an embarrassment to the officers on-scene and the situation quickly resolved.
These were local deputies on a big summer drinking holiday in mostly rural Tennessee where people will party hard doing what they do. They possibly crossed a line if they did generate a ‘fake hit’ with the dog and there is no excuse for that and that should be investigated.
Now if we start getting Federal DHS officers doing this on any old day at any time in the name of public safety or stopping terrorists....that is a very, very different story.
By not rolling down his window the driver was asserting his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. Assertion of 5th Amendment is not a basis for probable cause. The officer knew that. The officer used K-9 team to create probable cause.
The most troubling aspect is he didn’t even have to ask the K-9 officer to provide probable cause. The K-9 officer knew his roll without being asked. It is an unspoken SOP in that unit that the dog will be used that way. Disgraceful, but SOP all over the country.