[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Fri May 22 08:25:06 PDT 2009
The point of the "I do not consent to a search" line is not to stop all
searches. It's a counter to one of the many "games" that are played at
such times by the police. When a person who does not have much contact
with the police is asked "Do you have any drugs in your car?", they
usually answer "No" which is often followed by "Then you don't mind if I
take a quick look, right?". Your normal Joe now has a little quandary.
They've stated on the record that they don't have drugs in the car, so
they may feel that they need to back up their statement by letting their
car be searched. This may even happen if they do have drugs in the
car. Even if you're sure that you don't have drugs in the car, how do
you know that your friend you gave a lift to yesterday didn't drop some
accidentally? Answer the first question with "I do not consent to a
search", and they know it's not worth their time to try to trick you
into letting them into your car.
If the police are going to search your car despite your lack of consent,
don't get in their way and be cooperative by letting them into the car
and the trunk or whatever when they ask.
Don't play their games. On the other hand, if they are going to run
roughshod over your rights, don't fight them.
Remember, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Do some
searches on Youtube for "don't talk to the police" and find out more.
Paul
Ted Moffett wrote:
> A police officer must make their own subjective determination as to
> whether or not a drug dog has "alerted" to a potential smell. It's
> not as though a dog can sign an affidavit? I've known dogs to display
> the behavior you describe, for reasons I could not exactly determine!
> If human eye witness testimony is so susceptible to error, as is well
> documented, are we to trust dog "testimony" as more reliable? Oddly,
> it just might, in special cases, be more reliable! But a law
> enforcement officer who was less then thoroughly ethical could easily
> claim a drug dog "alerted," to justify a search, when it did not
> actually alert, correct? And could the dog testify to this lie? No.
> Using dog "testimony" in a court case presents certain legal problems.
> Must the dog be present in court so the accused can face those who
> accused them? Ridiculous, of course. But given a drug dog as the
> primary source of the evidence that a crime is being committed, thus a
> search that violates the Fourth Amendment is justified, seems
> questionable by definition, given a dog cannot testify in court.
> No doubt legal scholars have found a way around this objection.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 5/21/09, *donald edwards* <donaledwards at hotmail.com
> <mailto:donaledwards at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Ted, this is an interesting case you cite. All I could add
> from what I've seen is that a dog's alert to his owner
> is very precise. They are usually frantic and tearing at all
> parts of the vehicle or building because they are excited to do
> their job and earn their reward. Once they've come across
> a positive scent they immediately sit and look their trainer
> directly in the eyes until acknowledged. I don't know their
> failure rate but could guess it's low from studies I've seen
> regarding success rates at identifying even invisible skin cancer
> cells from healthy ones. I also don't know how often they might
> hit on a previous but empty hiding spot. Apparently 90% of the
> cash in your wallet contains cocaine residue from passing through
> drive-thru markets in metro areas. Would that cause a positive alert?
>
> The issue of an officer using his own sense of smell in
> determining probable cause to take a search further has led to
> dismissal of cases due to the subjective nature of ones'
> interpretation of what exactly they are smelling. This led to
> state mandated courses that they can swear in court as having
> passed and proven their ability to distinguish certain drugs from
> say...previous or continuing personal experience or a neighboring
> skunk, cat piss or Clorox factory.
>
> Seems that refusing a search, when other probable cause has
> already been determined is just another case for probable cause.
> Just exibiting excessively nervous signs, as most folks who aren't
> regulary in contact with the police usually are, is used as
> probable cause all the time. Ever hear the question "Any guns,
> knives, hand grenades, bodies or nukes in the car?" When a person
> quickly answers a serious "No Sir!" vs. a slight chuckle or "Huh?
> Really?" as a person with nothing to hide would probably reply,
> it's a red flag that an officer may want to just ask if they might
> search.
>
> On the issue of gays in the military...I'd think they have as much
> right to fight and die for all of our rights to life, liberty and
> the pursuit of happiness, in spite of their own infringements back
> home, just as African-Americans did since the civil war.
>
> Much to think about, thanks Viz'z!
>
> Don
>
>
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:26:33 -0700
> > From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> > To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
> > Cc: donald edwards <donaledwards at hotmail.com
> <mailto:donaledwards at hotmail.com>>, Moscow Vision 2020
> > <vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
> > Message-ID:
> > <d03f69e0905212026o7e5be637j8374ffc5205ba56e at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:d03f69e0905212026o7e5be637j8374ffc5205ba56e at mail.gmail.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> >
> > 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:whayman at roadrunner.com>>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Warren Hayman <whayman at roadrunner.com
> <mailto:whayman at roadrunner.com>>
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> > > To: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com
> <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>>, "donald edwards" <
> > > donaledwards at hotmail.com <mailto:donaledwards at hotmail.com>>
> > > Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:thansen at moscow.com><http://mc/compose?to=thansen@moscow.com>
> > > >
> > > To: "donald edwards" <donaledwards at hotmail.com
> <mailto:donaledwards at hotmail.com><http://mc/compose?to=donaledwards@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto: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 <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <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 <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <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 <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090521/bc8accf1/attachment.html
>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > =======================================================
> >
> > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 92
> > ******************************************
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage
> limits. Check it out.
> <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <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
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list