[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

[lfalen]

Ted
While I would not particularly object to a search of my car, I would otherwise agree with you on probably cause and the 4th Amendment.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:37:13 -0700
To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .

> Someone else in this long thread may have commented along these lines, so if
> I am repeating points already made, excuse the redundancy.
> 
> Consider that suspicions about illegal drugs are only one reason to conduct
> a warrantless probable cause search of a vehicle during a traffic stop.
> Stolen property, illegal arms, or even just having large amounts of cash,
> are reasons for probable cause searches.  And consider, when the socialist
> health regulators get their way, smoking tobacco may become more
> criminalized.  Actually, given the full extent of the social and personal
> harm from tobacco, there is more reason to criminalize it then cannabis.
> 
> You don't really mean that you don't mind the police pulling you over on the
> highway whenever they want to search your vehicle, because you are innocent
> of wrongdoing, do you?  This is somewhat similar to the statement sometimes
> made by those who appear unconcerned about the erosion of the Fourth
> Amendment, who say they don't mind the police coming to their home to
> conduct a warrantless search, because they have nothing to hide.
> 
> Article on police seizures of property and/or cash during traffic stops in
> Texas:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/
> ----------------
> 
> I'm a bit surprised that someone who has appeared libertarian, opposing
> state regulation of economics, appears unconcerned about some forms of state
> intrusion, state extension of power, into the private lives of citizens.  I
> think most people would consider being pulled over for a traffic stop and
> then having an extensive search of their vehicle conducted, state intrusion
> into their private life, which should only be conducted when law enforcement
> have substantial evidence.
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> On 5/26/09, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am the only one who drives my car. I don't use drugs or alcohol except
> > for a tobacco pipe which I only use on long drives to help stay awake.
> > Otherwise I do not smoke either. If any officer wants to search my car they
> > are welcome to do so.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:11:33 -0700
> > To: "bear at moscow.com" bear at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> >
> > > A quick look at this decision (Arizona v. Gant) reveals it involves a
> > > vehicle search after a suspect has been arrested and secured.  The source
> > I
> > > read indicated explicitly (and any legal eagles reading please correct my
> > > understanding if I am wrong) this case has no bearing on many traffic
> > stops,
> > > given the text below:
> > >
> > > http://apublicdefender.com/2009/04/22/4th-amdmt-gets-cpr-arizona-v-gant/
> > >
> > > Notable, however, is another holding within this decision: that police
> > will
> > > always be entitled to search the interior of a vehicle if the evidence of
> > > the *instant* offense might be discovered within it. Obviously, this
> > would
> > > not apply to traffic violations.
> > > -------------------
> > > Again, someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of current
> > law
> > > based on US Supreme Court rulings, is that if you are stopped for a
> > traffic
> > > offence, and law enforcement drug dogs alert to your vehicle, a search is
> > > often legally allowed whether or not you consent.  We can assume that
> > given
> > > traffic stops often do not result in arrest or attempt to secure the
> > driver,
> > > for the traffic violation, that if drug dogs alert to a vehicle in this
> > > case, then a search is proceeding without an arrest; and that, based on
> > the
> > > evidence of the dogs trained sense of smell and response, if a search
> > > proceeds and drugs are found in the vehicle, an arrest can then proceed
> > for
> > > the illegal substances.
> > >
> > > But I'm not sure how a case like this would be pursued if the driver had
> > > exited and locked the vehicle during a traffic stop for a traffic
> > violation,
> > > then drug dogs altered to the vehicle.  I suspect this behavior on the
> > part
> > > of the driver, and the responses of the drug dogs, might allow law
> > > enforcement to force entry or call a locksmith or demand the keys,
> > etc?  Of
> > > course, if the driver parked and locked their vehicle, after being
> > pursued
> > > by law enforcement with their lights on, and fled the scene, this is
> > > illegal, correct?
> > >
> > > Has this US Supreme Court ruling, that I referenced regarding the legal
> > > status of traffic stop vehicle searches without consent based on drug dog
> > > response (this case involved a traffic stop for speeding), been
> > overturned?:
> > >
> > >  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 5/22/09, bear at moscow.com <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul, Sunil, et al
> > > >
> > > > Take a look at a case named ARIZONA v. GANT,  which overturned the New
> > > > York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) decision.
> > > >
> > > > So, based on GANT, if you get out of the car and LOCK it, IF the police
> > > > continue to search without a warrant, the chances are that the evidence
> > > > (and the charges) will be tossed. If you park the car correctly, they
> > > > can't even do an "inventory" search, as there is no reason to tow the
> > car,
> > > > so no reason to "inventory" the contents, which prevents the search
> > under
> > > > the pretext of an inventory.
> > > >
> > > > THE really really sad part of all these decisions is that a search
> > warrant
> > > > isn't that hard to get!, yet there are some police officers that try to
> > > > cut corners and by cutting those corners the result is sloppy police
> > work
> > > > and a citizen distrust of police in general.
> > > >
> > > > The underlining issue, and one which we are all responsible for is that
> > > > police have gone from peace officers to law enforcers. Now, you have to
> > > > ask why? And the answer to that is actually easy, you can't quantify a
> > > > negative. For example, we can count the number of DUI arrests an
> > officer
> > > > makes, but how do you quantify how many intoxicated people the police
> > > > officers stops from driving in the first place?
> > > >
> > > > AND while I'm on this particular soap box, ask yourself, do we really
> > want
> > > > to prevent drunk  driving as opposed to arresting and prosecution drunk
> > > > drivers? Take a look at how much REVENUE is brought into the state and
> > the
> > > > individual municipalities by the drunk drivers.
> > > >
> > > > IF you really want drunk drivers off the road, pass the same draconian
> > > > legislation that has resulted in successful eradication of drunk
> > drivers
> > > > in other countries. Make the legal driving BAC .01, thats enough that
> > if
> > > > there is some legitimate reason why there is a small amount of alcohol
> > is
> > > > a persons system, say cough medicine, you're good to go, anything else,
> > > > you're over the limit. And for a sentence, seize the car. Taking away a
> > > > drivers license does not stop anyone from driving, taking away a car
> > does.
> > > > And pass the legislation in such a way that if you and the bank own the
> > > > car, you still have to make the car payments even if it is seized.
> > > > The first year, this type of law will be drastic and I can hear all the
> > > > excuses, now: Kids can't go to base ball, I need it for my job, how do
> > I
> > > > get groceries etc. The answer, IF we really want drunks off the road
> > is:
> > > > YOU should have thought about that before you drove under the
> > influence.
> > > >
> > > > Now, think about some of the changes that need to be made IF we want to
> > > > get people under the influence off the roads.  Let's say a cab from
> > > > Pullman to Moscow cost $25.00, far cheaper  than loosing your car!
> > Also,
> > > > instead of LAW ENFORCEMENT arresting and seizing the driver and car,
> > peace
> > > > officers would actually help an impaired driver get home.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Comments?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > That makes sense.  I was thinking more along the lines of handing
> > over
> > > > > your keys when asked for them.  I've also heard the advice that if
> > > > > you're ordered out of the car you should lock it when you get out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> > > > >> Paul,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have to disagree with this:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "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."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think people should make it clear they are not consenting.  Don't
> > > > >> let them into your trunk. Be polite, and if they order you out of
> > the
> > > > >> car, get out, but make sure your dissent is unequivocal. Don't give
> > > > >> them a chance to claim you consented.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sunil
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:25:06 -0700
> > > > >> > From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> > > > >> > To: starbliss at gmail.com
> > > > >> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; donaledwards at hotmail.com
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 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
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>