[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

Thu May 21 20:53:06 PDT 2009

Ted,

I always tell people never to consent to a search.  Yes, as I've said before, the Fourth Amendment is more thong that toga. Nonetheless, the searches are not always upheld, and by not consenting you still give your lawyer a chance.  If you consent it's usually over, unless the consent isn't really voluntary.

Paul's advice is on the money.

Sunil

Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:26:33 -0700
From: starbliss at gmail.com
To: godshatter at yahoo.com
CC: donaledwards at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

Police can "search" a vehicle in a traffic stop just for speeding, according to the legal information below, regarding a case in Illinois, that went to the US Supreme Court.  They are legally allowed, thanks to the US Supreme Court's sell out of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, to assemble the drug dogs with minimal suspicion, etc. As if your phrases uttered to the police have legal force to stop a search?  And who decides what exactly defines whether or not a drug dog "alerts" to the smell of drugs?  Officer discretion?  You can announce you do "not consent to a search" all you want.  They have the legal right to "search" your vehicle regardless, with minimal pretext, given the current state of law regarding the boundaries of the protections provided by the eroded state of the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure:

http://www.jmls.edu/facultypubs/oneill/oneill_column_1208.shtml

In 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court examined the use of drug-sniffing dogs in People v. Caballes, 207 Ill.2d 504 (2003) (''Caballes I''). There the state police, without any reasonable suspicion that drugs were present, used a drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop for speeding. The dog alerted and drugs were found in the car. The Illinois Supreme Court suppressed the drugs. It began its analysis by conceding that the dog sniff itself was not a ''search'' under the Fourth Amendment. But the ''scope'' of a traffic stop must be restricted by both the ''duration'' and the ''manner'' of the stop. The court conceded that the dog sniff did not improperly increase the ''duration'' of the stop. But the problem was the ''manner'' of the stop: the police could provide absolutely no reason why they shifted their interest from the speeding charge to whether the car contained drugs. Therefore, the use of the dog meant that the police activity impermissibly changed the ''manner'' of the stop from a focus on speeding to a focus on drugs. Because the police thus improperly expanded the ''scope'' of the stop, the court suppressed the drugs.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). First, the court held that in considering the proper scope of the stop ''manner'' was irrelevant; the only relevant consideration was ''duration.'' Since the dog sniff was not a search and it did not improperly extend the ''duration'' of the stop, it was proper.

On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court simply acquiesced in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision and held for the prosecution. People v. Caballes, 221 Ill.2d 282 (2006) ('' Caballes II'').

------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/20/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

Yet another good reason why you should never talk to the police.  Remember the phrases "I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to go?"

Paul

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Warren Hayman <whayman at roadrunner.com> wrote:

From: Warren Hayman <whayman at roadrunner.com>

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
To: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>, "donald edwards" <donaledwards at hotmail.com>

Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 10:55 AM

Not long ago someone told me that he has hated police ever since he was 
pulled over a few years ago. When asked if he had been drinking, he said no, 
that he smoked a joint about an hour before. He was astonished and 

infuriated when arrested.

Warren Hayman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>

To: "donald edwards" <donaledwards at hotmail.com>

Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:41 AM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

> Although my intent was humor (as the 24-year-old man approached a police
> officer), seriousness should be given to the potential plight of a dealer
> who "laces" his/her stash of cannabis with "substances unknown" for the

> purpose of realizing more sales in these troubled economic times.
>
> As Don suggests, the best way to control something is to legalize and
> regulate it.
>
> Thanks, Don.
>
> Tom Hansen

> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tom, this is a glaring example of the need for legal govt. controlled
>> marijuana available through the corner smokeshop.  Could have been

>> formaldahyde or PCP?  Same things happened from drinking bathtub Gin.  No
>> quality control and billions in lost tax revenue.
>>
>>
>>
>>>From MSN Money's highest rated & Editor's choice archives.  "In the early

>>> 1930s, one of the reasons that alcohol was brought back was because
>>> government revenue was plummeting," Harvard economist Jeff Miron said.
>>> "There are some parallels to that now."

>>
>>
>>
>> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/a-budget-cure-marijuana-taxes.aspx

>>
>>
>>
>> Not quite as bad as trusting a paranoid junkie with no chemistry degree 
>> to
>> cook your Meth for you though.  They have a one in three chance of not
>> making either poison (in the literal sence) or a trailer bomb.

>>
>>
>>
>> Don
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,

> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

> ======================================================= 

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

=======================================================

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,

 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090521/bfad1ce3/attachment.html 