<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>If you do not consent, be aware that you may very
well be slammed into the side of your car, with your face bounced off the roof
for good measure. It is a bully tactic that some officers will use to
try to inimidate you into "cooperating". Above all, make sure you do not resist
at any point, if you do, you give cause.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You also get to be shoved face down into the hood of
your car in cuffs while waiting for a drug dog to show up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I have never had another officer ask to search. Should it
happen again, I still will not consent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 22, 2009 9:41 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] And >From Moscow
We Have . . .</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Paul,<BR><BR>I have to disagree with this:<BR><BR>"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."<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:25:06 -0700<BR>> From:
godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>> To: starbliss@gmail.com<BR>> CC:
vision2020@moscow.com; donaledwards@hotmail.com<BR>> Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> <BR>> The point of the
"I do not consent to a search" line is not to stop all <BR>> searches. It's
a counter to one of the many "games" that are played at <BR>> such times by
the police. When a person who does not have much contact <BR>> with the
police is asked "Do you have any drugs in your car?", they <BR>> usually
answer "No" which is often followed by "Then you don't mind if I <BR>> take
a quick look, right?". Your normal Joe now has a little quandary. <BR>>
They've stated on the record that they don't have drugs in the car, so
<BR>> they may feel that they need to back up their statement by letting
their <BR>> car be searched. This may even happen if they do have drugs in
the <BR>> car. Even if you're sure that you don't have drugs in the car,
how do <BR>> you know that your friend you gave a lift to yesterday didn't
drop some <BR>> accidentally? Answer the first question with "I do not
consent to a <BR>> search", and they know it's not worth their time to try
to trick you <BR>> into letting them into your car.<BR>> <BR>> If the
police are going to search your car despite your lack of consent, <BR>>
don't get in their way and be cooperative by letting them into the car
<BR>> and the trunk or whatever when they ask.<BR>> <BR>> Don't play
their games. On the other hand, if they are going to run <BR>> roughshod
over your rights, don't fight them.<BR>> <BR>> Remember, I'm not a
lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Do some <BR>> searches on Youtube for
"don't talk to the police" and find out more.<BR>> <BR>> Paul<BR>>
<BR>> Ted Moffett wrote:<BR>> > A police officer must make their own
subjective determination as to <BR>> > whether or not a drug dog has
"alerted" to a potential smell. It's <BR>> > not as though a dog can
sign an affidavit? I've known dogs to display <BR>> > the behavior you
describe, for reasons I could not exactly determine! <BR>> > If human
eye witness testimony is so susceptible to error, as is well <BR>> >
documented, are we to trust dog "testimony" as more reliable? Oddly, <BR>>
> it just might, in special cases, be more reliable! But a law <BR>>
> enforcement officer who was less then thoroughly ethical could easily
<BR>> > claim a drug dog "alerted," to justify a search, when it did not
<BR>> > actually alert, correct? And could the dog testify to this lie?
No. <BR>> > Using dog "testimony" in a court case presents certain legal
problems. <BR>> > Must the dog be present in court so the accused can
face those who <BR>> > 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 <BR>> > questionable 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
<BR>> > <mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com>> wrote:<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > Thanks Ted, this is an interesting case you
cite. All I could add<BR>> > from what I've seen is that a dog's alert
to his owner<BR>> > is very precise. They are usually frantic and
tearing at all<BR>> > parts of the vehicle or building because they are
excited to do<BR>> > their job and earn their reward. Once they've come
across<BR>> > a positive scent they immediately sit and look their
trainer<BR>> > directly in the eyes until acknowledged. I don't know
their<BR>> > failure rate but could guess it's low from studies I've
seen<BR>> > regarding success rates at identifying even invisible skin
cancer<BR>> > cells from healthy ones. I also don't know how often they
might<BR>> > hit on a previous but empty hiding spot. Apparently 90% of
the<BR>> > 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<BR>> > determining probable cause to take a search
further has led to<BR>> > dismissal of cases due to the subjective
nature of ones'<BR>> > interpretation of what exactly they are smelling.
This led to<BR>> > state mandated courses that they can swear in court
as having<BR>> > passed and proven their ability to distinguish certain
drugs from<BR>> > say...previous or continuing personal experience or a
neighboring<BR>> > skunk, cat piss or Clorox factory.<BR>> >
<BR>> > Seems that refusing a search, when other probable cause
has<BR>> > already been determined is just another case for probable
cause. <BR>> > Just exibiting excessively nervous signs, as most folks
who aren't<BR>> > regulary in contact with the police usually are, is
used as<BR>> > probable cause all the time. Ever hear the question "Any
guns,<BR>> > knives, hand grenades, bodies or nukes in the car?" When a
person<BR>> > quickly answers a serious "No Sir!" vs. a slight chuckle
or "Huh? <BR>> > Really?" as a person with nothing to hide would
probably reply,<BR>> > it's a red flag that an officer may want to just
ask if they might<BR>> > search.<BR>> > <BR>> > On the issue
of gays in the military...I'd think they have as much<BR>> > right to
fight and die for all of our rights to life, liberty and<BR>> > the
pursuit of happiness, in spite of their own infringements back<BR>> >
home, just as 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 <mailto:starbliss@gmail.com>><BR>> >
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> > >
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>> >
<mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>><BR>> > > Cc: donald edwards
<donaledwards@hotmail.com<BR>> >
<mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com>>, Moscow Vision 2020<BR>> >
> <vision2020@moscow.com
<mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>><BR>> > > Message-ID:<BR>>
> >
<d03f69e0905212026o7e5be637j8374ffc5205ba56e@mail.gmail.com<BR>> >
<mailto:d03f69e0905212026o7e5be637j8374ffc5205ba56e@mail.gmail.com>><BR>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> ><BR>>
> ><BR>> > > Police can "search" a vehicle in a traffic stop
just for<BR>> > speeding, according<BR>> > > to the legal
information below, regarding a case in Illinois,<BR>> > that went
to<BR>> > > the US Supreme Court. They are legally allowed, thanks to
the US<BR>> > Supreme<BR>> > > Court's sell out of the Fourth
Amendment to the US Constitution,<BR>> > to assemble<BR>> > >
the drug dogs with minimal suspicion, etc. As if your phrases<BR>> >
uttered to the<BR>> > > police have legal force to stop a search? And
who decides what<BR>> > exactly<BR>> > > defines whether or not
a drug dog "alerts" to the smell of drugs?<BR>> > 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<BR>> > regardless, with<BR>> > > minimal pretext, given
the current state of law regarding the<BR>> > boundaries 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<BR>> > drug-sniffing dogs<BR>> > > in *People v. Caballes,
*207 Ill.2d 504 (2003) (''*Caballes<BR>> > I*''). There the<BR>> >
> state police, without any reasonable suspicion that drugs were<BR>>
> present, used<BR>> > > a drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop
for speeding. The dog<BR>> > alerted and<BR>> > > drugs were
found in the car. The Illinois Supreme Court<BR>> > suppressed
the<BR>> > > drugs. It began its analysis by conceding that the dog
sniff<BR>> > itself was not<BR>> > > a ''search'' under the
Fourth Amendment. But the ''scope'' of a<BR>> > traffic stop<BR>>
> > must be restricted by both the ''duration'' and the ''manner''
of<BR>> > the 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > focus
on<BR>> > > drugs. Because the police thus improperly expanded the
''scope''<BR>> > 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<BR>> > 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<BR>> > U.S.
Supreme<BR>> > > Court's decision and held for the prosecution.
*People v.<BR>> > 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<BR>> >
<mailto: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<BR>> > free to go?"<BR>> > > ><BR>>
> > > Paul<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > --- On *Wed,
5/20/09, Warren Hayman <whayman@roadrunner.com<BR>> >
<mailto:whayman@roadrunner.com>>* wrote:<BR>> > >
><BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > From: Warren Hayman
<whayman@roadrunner.com<BR>> >
<mailto:whayman@roadrunner.com>><BR>> > > > Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] And From Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> > > > To: "Tom
Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com<BR>> >
<mailto:thansen@moscow.com>>, "donald edwards" <<BR>> > >
> donaledwards@hotmail.com
<mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com>><BR>> > > > Cc: "Moscow
Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >
<mailto: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<BR>> >
since he was<BR>> > > > pulled over a few years ago. When asked if
he had been<BR>> > drinking, he 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>> >
<mailto:thansen@moscow.com><http://mc/compose?to=thansen@moscow.com><BR>>
> > > ><BR>> > > > To: "donald edwards"
<donaledwards@hotmail.com<BR>> >
<mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com><http://mc/compose?to=donaledwards@hotmail.com><BR>>
> > > ><BR>> > > > Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >
<mailto:vision2020@moscow.com><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<BR>> > approached a
police<BR>> > > > > officer), seriousness should be given to
the potential plight<BR>> > of a dealer<BR>> > > > > who
"laces" his/her stash of cannabis with "substances<BR>> > unknown" for
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<BR>> >
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<BR>> >
govt. controlled<BR>> > > > >> marijuana available through
the corner smokeshop. Could have<BR>> > been<BR>> > > >
>> formaldahyde or PCP? Same things happened from drinking<BR>> >
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.<BR>> > "In the<BR>> > > >
early<BR>> > > > >>> 1930s, one of the reasons that
alcohol was brought back was<BR>> > because<BR>> > > >
>>> government revenue was plummeting," Harvard economist
Jeff<BR>> > Miron 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<BR>> > chemistry degree<BR>> > > >
>> to<BR>> > > > >> cook your Meth for you though.
They have a one in three<BR>> > chance of 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 <http://www.fsr.net/><BR>> > >
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >
<mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com><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 <http://www.fsr.net/><BR>> > > >
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> >
<mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com><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 <http://www.fsr.net/><BR>> > > >
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com <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>> > >
=======================================================<BR>> > > List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > > serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > > http://www.fsr.net
<http://www.fsr.net/><BR>> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
<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<BR>> >
limits. Check it out.<BR>> >
<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
<http://www.fsr.net/><BR>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
<mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> >
=======================================================<BR>> ><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>>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>