The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

I'm Anthony Bandiero with Blue to Gold law enforcement training. I want to make a quick video on a question that was asked to me by two different officers in two different states very recently. And it's a great question. And so now I want to share the answer with you, folks. So the question is, is Ken police run a drug canine around a car in a parking lot?

The answer is yes. Because under those facts, the police did not conduct a Fourth Amendment search. And now here's why. A running a canine first of all, a drunk canine that canine picks up the scent of narcotics, narcotics are illegal to possess. Therefore, a suspect does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in that, that sense that's emanating from their car, you know, that's gonna be, you know, during the free air sniff. So that's, that's the first part. The second part is that the dog is lawfully present. When cars are in parking lots, whether it's Wendy's Motel Six is lovestruck stops, and so forth. The suspect can be there, but so can police. Nothing prevents a police officer from being from looking into a car. Now, I wouldn't want to touch the car and manipulate anything, but right to be right to see. And so there because the officer can be outside the car, so Can his best friend, the canine, the canine can also be outside the car. And that is the epitome of a free air sniff requiring no legal justification. And so that is what's going on. Now, you do want to make sure that the dog is lawfully present. So, for example, we have a case called Jardins, where police brought Frankie, the drug-sniffing dog onto the curtilage of a suspect presumed or who was allegedly growing marijuana. Now he was growing marijuana, but at the time was allegedly because they got an anonymous tip. The police brought the dog onto the property while doing a knock and talk, and the dog alerted. The US Supreme Court found in that case that that that was a search under the Fourth Amendment because the police had no implied consent, essentially, to bring that dog onto curtilage. During a knock and talk that was something that most people would not implicitly allow police to do. And it makes sense. And so because the police were trespassing while they brought the dog because they brought the dog, they're trespassing because they brought the dog that therefore it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. But take that same scenario in the parking lot of Wendy's, right, or the motel is, you know, where cops are probably gonna deploy the dog more often. Police can be there just like the suspect can again, and also, you do not need the manager's permission to be on the property. Whether or not, please get it that's a totally different issue. But the suspect has no right to exclude police officers from this side from that parking lot. So it's irrelevant whether or not police got consent from the manager, right? That person even if there's no, even if the manager did not consent. Right. And the suspect brings that up in court. The problem with that is that the suspect has no legitimate privacy interest in that parking lot because there's no right to exclude anybody else...