[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

donald edwards donaledwards at hotmail.com
Fri May 22 08:50:08 PDT 2009 


Fantastic points, Ted.  Thank you.  Interesting stuff, for sure.  I was thinking a dog would not have any alterior motives by an inability to form opinion or judgments based on a persons' or vehicles' physical appearance, etc. but I can see how it is still subject to human error. 

 

Doubt we'll see Rin-TinTin testifying anytime soon!

 

Don



 
> From: vision2020-request at moscow.com
> Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 96
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:07:21 -0700
> 
> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vision2020-request at moscow.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vision2020-owner at moscow.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: And From Moscow We Have . . . (Ted Moffett)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:07:29 -0700
> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> To: donald edwards <donaledwards at hotmail.com>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Message-ID:
> <d03f69e0905220107s78c959f4p7849dfc95c05ee14 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> 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> 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>
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> > > To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> > > Cc: donald edwards <donaledwards at hotmail.com>, Moscow Vision 2020
> > > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <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> 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
> > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > > -------------- 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
> > > 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
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090522/4dfbd803/attachment.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
> 
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 96
> ******************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090522/b8dccb3a/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list