[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Fri May 22 00:38:51 PDT 2009
What I wrote was a question:
"As if your phrases uttered to the police have legal force to stop a
search?"
I did not say someone should not object to a search.
This question illuminates the fact that stating you do not consent to a
search sometimes has little bearing on whether or not a search will be
conducted. Such phrases do not have legal force to stop a search, in many
cases. Be prepared for your objections to be dismissed by law enforcement.
I agree that stating refusal to consent to a search may be useful in a court
case, if it comes to this. In some cases, it may arouse more suspicion if
someone refuses to agree to a search, and appears defensive,
non-cooperative. Then law enforcement may be more inclined to pursue an
aggressive search. Still, I agree with your advice, for the most part.
The critical issue here is the erosion of the Fourth Amendment, supported by
the US Supreme Court, which not only applies to vehicular searches, but to
drug testing (as if my body belongs to the State?), and to private residence
searches.
When the SWAT team bashes in your door, they are not bothering with a polite
presentation of a warrant, consent to a search, or even with reasonable
announcements they are the police.
It is a sad development that the public needs to heed the advice to
"...never talk to the police." This sounds like wisdom for dealing with a
totalitarian police state. Which is in some respects the truth of what is
happening in the US, given the erosion of civil rights.
Ted Moffett
On 5/21/09, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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<http://mc/compose?to=thansen@moscow.com>
> >
> To: "donald edwards" <donaledwards at hotmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=donaledwards@hotmail.com>
> >
> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com<http://mc/compose?to=vision2020@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<http://mc/compose?to=Vision2020@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<http://mc/compose?to=Vision2020@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/20090522/e80b7e1a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list