<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>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. <BR>
<BR>
Doubt we'll see Rin-TinTin testifying anytime soon!<BR>
<BR>
Don<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR>> From: vision2020-request@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 96<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:07:21 -0700<BR>> <BR>> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to<BR>> vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020<BR>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>> vision2020-request@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>> vision2020-owner@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's Topics:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Re: And From Moscow We Have . . . (Ted Moffett)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 1<BR>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 01:07:29 -0700<BR>> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> To: donald edwards <donaledwards@hotmail.com><BR>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <d03f69e0905220107s78c959f4p7849dfc95c05ee14@mail.gmail.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<BR>> <BR>> A police officer must make their own subjective determination as to whether<BR>> or not a drug dog has "alerted" to a potential smell. It's not as though a<BR>> dog can sign an affidavit? I've known dogs to display the behavior you<BR>> describe, for reasons I could not exactly determine! If human eye witness<BR>> testimony is so susceptible to error, as is well documented, are we to trust<BR>> dog "testimony" as more reliable? Oddly, it just might, in special<BR>> cases, be more reliable! But a law enforcement officer who was less then<BR>> thoroughly ethical could easily claim a drug dog "alerted," to justify a<BR>> search, when it did not actually alert, correct? And could the dog testify<BR>> to this lie? No. Using dog "testimony" in a court case presents certain<BR>> legal problems. Must the dog be present in court so the accused can face<BR>> those who accused them? Ridiculous, of course. But given a drug dog as the<BR>> primary source of the evidence that a crime is being committed, thus a<BR>> search that violates the Fourth Amendment is justified, seems questionable<BR>> by definition, given a dog cannot testify in court.<BR>> No doubt legal scholars have found a way around this objection.<BR>> <BR>> Ted Moffett<BR>> <BR>> On 5/21/09, donald edwards <donaledwards@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Thanks Ted, this is an interesting case you cite. All I could add from<BR>> > what I've seen is that a dog's alert to his owner is very precise. They are<BR>> > usually frantic and tearing at all parts of the vehicle or building because<BR>> > they are excited to do their job and earn their reward. Once they've come<BR>> > across a positive scent they immediately sit and look their trainer directly<BR>> > in the eyes until acknowledged. I don't know their failure rate but could<BR>> > guess it's low from studies I've seen regarding success rates at identifying<BR>> > even invisible skin cancer cells from healthy ones. I also don't know how<BR>> > often they might hit on a previous but empty hiding spot. Apparently 90% of<BR>> > the cash in your wallet contains cocaine residue from passing through<BR>> > drive-thru markets in metro areas. Would that cause a positive alert?<BR>> ><BR>> > The issue of an officer using his own sense of smell in determining<BR>> > probable cause to take a search further has led to dismissal of cases due to<BR>> > the subjective nature of ones' interpretation of what exactly they are<BR>> > smelling. This led to state mandated courses that they can swear in court<BR>> > as having passed and proven their ability to distinguish certain drugs from<BR>> > say...previous or continuing personal experience or a neighboring skunk, cat<BR>> > piss or Clorox factory.<BR>> ><BR>> > Seems that refusing a search, when other probable cause has already been<BR>> > determined is just another case for probable cause. Just exibiting<BR>> > excessively nervous signs, as most folks who aren't regulary in contact with<BR>> > the police usually are, is used as probable cause all the time. Ever hear<BR>> > the question "Any guns, knives, hand grenades, bodies or nukes in the car?"<BR>> > When a person quickly answers a serious "No Sir!" vs. a slight chuckle or<BR>> > "Huh? Really?" as a person with nothing to hide would probably reply, it's<BR>> > a red flag that an officer may want to just ask if they might search.<BR>> ><BR>> > On the issue of gays in the military...I'd think they have as much right to<BR>> > fight and die for all of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of<BR>> > happiness, in spite of their own infringements back home, just as<BR>> > African-Americans did since the civil war.<BR>> ><BR>> > Much to think about, thanks Viz'z!<BR>> ><BR>> > Don<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > > Message: 3<BR>> > > Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:26:33 -0700<BR>> > > From: Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><BR>> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> > > To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>> > > Cc: donald edwards <donaledwards@hotmail.com>, Moscow Vision 2020<BR>> > > <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > Message-ID:<BR>> > > <d03f69e0905212026o7e5be637j8374ffc5205ba56e@mail.gmail.com><BR>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Police can "search" a vehicle in a traffic stop just for speeding,<BR>> > according<BR>> > > to the legal information below, regarding a case in Illinois, that went<BR>> > to<BR>> > > the US Supreme Court. They are legally allowed, thanks to the US Supreme<BR>> > > Court's sell out of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, to<BR>> > assemble<BR>> > > the drug dogs with minimal suspicion, etc. As if your phrases uttered to<BR>> > the<BR>> > > police have legal force to stop a search? And who decides what exactly<BR>> > > defines whether or not a drug dog "alerts" to the smell of drugs? Officer<BR>> > > discretion? You can announce you do "not consent to a search" all you<BR>> > > want. They have the legal right to "search" your vehicle regardless, with<BR>> > > minimal pretext, given the current state of law regarding the boundaries<BR>> > of<BR>> > > the protections provided by the eroded state of the Fourth Amendment<BR>> > > protections against unreasonable search and seizure:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > http://www.jmls.edu/facultypubs/oneill/oneill_column_1208.shtml<BR>> > ><BR>> > > In 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court examined the use of drug-sniffing<BR>> > dogs<BR>> > > in *People v. Caballes, *207 Ill.2d 504 (2003) (''*Caballes I*''). There<BR>> > the<BR>> > > state police, without any reasonable suspicion that drugs were present,<BR>> > used<BR>> > > a drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop for speeding. The dog alerted<BR>> > and<BR>> > > drugs were found in the car. The Illinois Supreme Court suppressed the<BR>> > > drugs. It began its analysis by conceding that the dog sniff itself was<BR>> > not<BR>> > > a ''search'' under the Fourth Amendment. But the ''scope'' of a traffic<BR>> > stop<BR>> > > must be restricted by both the ''duration'' and the ''manner'' of the<BR>> > stop.<BR>> > > The court conceded that the dog sniff did not improperly increase the<BR>> > > ''duration'' of the stop. But the problem was the ''manner'' of the stop:<BR>> > > the police could provide absolutely no reason why they shifted their<BR>> > > interest from the speeding charge to whether the car contained drugs.<BR>> > > Therefore, the use of the dog meant that the police activity<BR>> > impermissibly<BR>> > > changed the ''manner'' of the stop from a focus on speeding to a focus on<BR>> > > drugs. Because the police thus improperly expanded the ''scope'' of the<BR>> > > stop, the court suppressed the drugs.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. *Illinois v. Caballes, *543 U.S. 405<BR>> > > (2005). First, the court held that in considering the proper scope of the<BR>> > > stop ''manner'' was irrelevant; the only relevant consideration was<BR>> > > ''duration.'' Since the dog sniff was not a search and it did not<BR>> > improperly<BR>> > > extend the ''duration'' of the stop, it was proper.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > On remand, the Illinois Supreme Court simply acquiesced in the U.S.<BR>> > Supreme<BR>> > > Court's decision and held for the prosecution. *People v. Caballes, *221<BR>> > > Ill.2d 282 (2006) (''* Caballes II*'').<BR>> > ><BR>> > > ------------------------<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > > On 5/20/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Yet another good reason why you should never talk to the police.<BR>> > > > Remember the phrases "I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to<BR>> > go?"<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Paul<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --- On *Wed, 5/20/09, Warren Hayman <whayman@roadrunner.com>* wrote:<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > From: Warren Hayman <whayman@roadrunner.com><BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> > > > To: "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>, "donald edwards" <<BR>> > > > donaledwards@hotmail.com><BR>> > > > Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > > Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 10:55 AM<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Not long ago someone told me that he has hated police ever since he was<BR>> > > > pulled over a few years ago. When asked if he had been drinking, he<BR>> > said<BR>> > > > no,<BR>> > > > that he smoked a joint about an hour before. He was astonished and<BR>> > > > infuriated when arrested.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Warren Hayman<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> > > > From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com<<BR>> > http://mc/compose?to=thansen@moscow.com><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > To: "donald edwards" <donaledwards@hotmail.com<<BR>> > http://mc/compose?to=donaledwards@hotmail.com><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com<<BR>> > http://mc/compose?to=vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:41 AM<BR>> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > > Although my intent was humor (as the 24-year-old man approached a<BR>> > police<BR>> > > > > officer), seriousness should be given to the potential plight of a<BR>> > dealer<BR>> > > > > who "laces" his/her stash of cannabis with "substances unknown" for<BR>> > the<BR>> > > > > purpose of realizing more sales in these troubled economic times.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > As Don suggests, the best way to control something is to legalize and<BR>> > > > > regulate it.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Thanks, Don.<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > Tom Hansen<BR>> > > > > Moscow, Idaho<BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >> Hi Tom, this is a glaring example of the need for legal govt.<BR>> > controlled<BR>> > > > >> marijuana available through the corner smokeshop. Could have been<BR>> > > > >> formaldahyde or PCP? Same things happened from drinking bathtub Gin.<BR>> > > > No<BR>> > > > >> quality control and billions in lost tax revenue.<BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >>>From MSN Money's highest rated & Editor's choice archives. "In the<BR>> > > > early<BR>> > > > >>> 1930s, one of the reasons that alcohol was brought back was because<BR>> > > > >>> government revenue was plummeting," Harvard economist Jeff Miron<BR>> > said.<BR>> > > > >>> "There are some parallels to that now."<BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > ><BR>> > http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTrading/a-budget-cure-marijuana-taxes.aspx<BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >> Not quite as bad as trusting a paranoid junkie with no chemistry<BR>> > degree<BR>> > > > >> to<BR>> > > > >> cook your Meth for you though. They have a one in three chance of<BR>> > not<BR>> > > > >> making either poison (in the literal sence) or a trailer bomb.<BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > >> Don<BR>> > > > >><BR>> > > > ><BR>> > > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > > > > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<<BR>> > http://mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > > > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<<BR>> > http://mc/compose?to=Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > > > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > > > =======================================================<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > -------------- next part --------------<BR>> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> > > URL:<BR>> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090521/bc8accf1/attachment.html<BR>> > ><BR>> > > ------------------------------<BR>> > ><BR>> > > =======================================================<BR>> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > > =======================================================<BR>> > ><BR>> > > End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 92<BR>> > > ******************************************<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> > Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. Check<BR>> > it out.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009><BR>> ><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> ><BR>> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090522/4dfbd803/attachment.html <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR>> <BR>> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 96<BR>> ******************************************<BR><br /><hr />Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. <a href='http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009' target='_new'>Check it out.</a></body>
</html>