<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<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>What Don says is true. I bought a used Oldsmobile
Starfire some 20 years ago. About month after the purchase, I had a
flat tire. Upon opening the spare tire compartment and removing the spare, I
found a baggie of cocaine hidden in the compartment. To say the least, I got rid
of it immediately. Once home, I removed the seats, the carpet and every interior
panel to make sure there weren't anymore surprises to be found. It was a pain,
but at least I knew the car was "clean".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I cringe when I think of what could have
happened.</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=donaledwards@hotmail.com
href="mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com">donald edwards</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:27
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] And >From Moscow
We Have . . .</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>That's great Roger but what's your point? What if it
were your neighbor or child whose rights were stomped? <BR> <BR>You
may feel differently if an officer witnessed you lighting your pipe, stopped
you just based on that, could plainly see your tobacco pouch sitting on the
seat and smelled the sweet cherry fumes but just had an inkling you were up to
no good because you seem extra nervous so they asked you out of the car,
padded down your person, cuffed & stuffed you in the back of the car
for an hour while the tore apart your car and had a dog slobbering and
scratching all over it, then proceeded to find 30lbs of
weed left by a previous owner but won't believe you so
they charge you for it.<BR> <BR>Could even be a boat you purchased
off the Florida Keys? Your attic?<BR> <BR>Far fetched? It
happens and once is too much. The wrong guys are in jail for much worse
trumped up charges. Should we just throw caution to the wind when it
comes to constitutional rights or thank diligent and educated folks like Bear
and Ted Moffett for paying enough attention and taking the time to care and
Sunil for believeing and defending those that nobody else would?
<BR> <BR>I have no personal need for these but apparently protecting
Teflon coated bullets while restricting serial ID's on rounds and casings
and traceable substances in explosive chemicals are worth holding
up the constitution over but not search & seizure laws preventing a
police state?<BR> <BR>Don<BR> <BR><BR>> Message: 6<BR>> Date:
Tue, 26 May 2009 11:13:11 -0700<BR>> From: lfalen
<lfalen@turbonet.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From Moscow
We Have . . .<BR>> To: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss@gmail.com>,
"bear@moscow.com"<BR>> <bear@moscow.com><BR>> Cc: vision 2020
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<19ebfd9a8fbdf9ed71b417c1a9e739df@turbonet.com><BR>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>>
Roger<BR>> -----Original message-----<BR>> From: Ted Moffett
starbliss@gmail.com<BR>> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:11:33 -0700<BR>> To:
"bear@moscow.com" bear@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And From
Moscow We Have . . .<BR>> <BR>> > A quick look at this decision
(Arizona v. Gant) reveals it involves a<BR>> > vehicle search after a
suspect has been arrested and secured. The source I<BR>> > read
indicated explicitly (and any legal eagles reading please correct my<BR>>
> understanding if I am wrong) this case has no bearing on many traffic
stops,<BR>> > given the text below:<BR>> > <BR>> >
http://apublicdefender.com/2009/04/22/4th-amdmt-gets-cpr-arizona-v-gant/<BR>>
> <BR>> > Notable, however, is another holding within this decision:
that police will<BR>> > always be entitled to search the interior of a
vehicle if the evidence of<BR>> > the *instant* offense might be
discovered within it. Obviously, this would<BR>> > not apply to traffic
violations.<BR>> > -------------------<BR>> > Again, someone
correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of current law<BR>> >
based on US Supreme Court rulings, is that if you are stopped for a
traffic<BR>> > offence, and law enforcement drug dogs alert to your
vehicle, a search is<BR>> > often legally allowed whether or not you
consent. We can assume that given<BR>> > traffic stops often do not
result in arrest or attempt to secure the driver,<BR>> > for the traffic
violation, that if drug dogs alert to a vehicle in this<BR>> > case,
then a search is proceeding without an arrest; and that, based on the<BR>>
> evidence of the dogs trained sense of smell and response, if a
search<BR>> > proceeds and drugs are found in the vehicle, an arrest can
then proceed for<BR>> > the illegal substances.<BR>> > <BR>>
> But I'm not sure how a case like this would be pursued if the driver
had<BR>> > exited and locked the vehicle during a traffic stop for a
traffic violation,<BR>> > then drug dogs altered to the vehicle. I
suspect this behavior on the part<BR>> > of the driver, and the
responses of the drug dogs, might allow law<BR>> > enforcement to force
entry or call a locksmith or demand the keys, etc? Of<BR>> > course, if
the driver parked and locked their vehicle, after being pursued<BR>> >
by law enforcement with their lights on, and fled the scene, this is<BR>>
> illegal, correct?<BR>> > <BR>> > Has this US Supreme Court
ruling, that I referenced regarding the legal<BR>> > status of traffic
stop vehicle searches without consent based on drug dog<BR>> > response
(this case involved a traffic stop for speeding), been overturned?:<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 dogs<BR>> > in *People v. Caballes, *207 Ill.2d 504 (2003)
(''*Caballes I*''). There the<BR>> > state police, without any
reasonable suspicion that drugs were present, used<BR>> > a
drug-sniffing dog during a traffic stop for speeding. The dog alerted
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 not<BR>> > a ''search'' under the Fourth Amendment.
But the ''scope'' of a traffic stop<BR>> > must be restricted by both
the ''duration'' and the ''manner'' of 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 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 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
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. 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>> > On 5/22/09, bear@moscow.com
<bear@moscow.com> wrote:<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Paul,
Sunil, et al<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Take a look at a case named
ARIZONA v. GANT, which overturned the New<BR>> > > York v. Belton,
453 U.S. 454 (1981) decision.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > So, based on
GANT, if you get out of the car and LOCK it, IF the police<BR>> > >
continue to search without a warrant, the chances are that the
evidence<BR>> > > (and the charges) will be tossed. If you park the
car correctly, they<BR>> > > can't even do an "inventory" search, as
there is no reason to tow the car,<BR>> > > so no reason to
"inventory" the contents, which prevents the search under<BR>> > >
the pretext of an inventory.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > THE really
really sad part of all these decisions is that a search warrant<BR>> >
> isn't that hard to get!, yet there are some police officers that try
to<BR>> > > cut corners and by cutting those corners the result is
sloppy police work<BR>> > > and a citizen distrust of police in
general.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > The underlining issue, and one
which we are all responsible for is that<BR>> > > police have gone
from peace officers to law enforcers. Now, you have to<BR>> > > ask
why? And the answer to that is actually easy, you can't quantify a<BR>>
> > negative. For example, we can count the number of DUI arrests an
officer<BR>> > > makes, but how do you quantify how many intoxicated
people the police<BR>> > > officers stops from driving in the first
place?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > AND while I'm on this particular
soap box, ask yourself, do we really want<BR>> > > to prevent drunk
driving as opposed to arresting and prosecution drunk<BR>> > >
drivers? Take a look at how much REVENUE is brought into the state and
the<BR>> > > individual municipalities by the drunk drivers.<BR>>
> ><BR>> > > IF you really want drunk drivers off the road,
pass the same draconian<BR>> > > legislation that has resulted in
successful eradication of drunk drivers<BR>> > > in other countries.
Make the legal driving BAC .01, thats enough that if<BR>> > > there
is some legitimate reason why there is a small amount of alcohol is<BR>>
> > a persons system, say cough medicine, you're good to go, anything
else,<BR>> > > you're over the limit. And for a sentence, seize the
car. Taking away a<BR>> > > drivers license does not stop anyone from
driving, taking away a car does.<BR>> > > And pass the legislation in
such a way that if you and the bank own the<BR>> > > car, you still
have to make the car payments even if it is seized.<BR>> > > The
first year, this type of law will be drastic and I can hear all the<BR>>
> > excuses, now: Kids can't go to base ball, I need it for my job, how
do I<BR>> > > get groceries etc. The answer, IF we really want drunks
off the road is:<BR>> > > YOU should have thought about that before
you drove under the influence.<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Now, think
about some of the changes that need to be made IF we want to<BR>> > >
get people under the influence off the roads. Let's say a cab from<BR>>
> > Pullman to Moscow cost $25.00, far cheaper than loosing your car!
Also,<BR>> > > instead of LAW ENFORCEMENT arresting and seizing the
driver and car, peace<BR>> > > officers would actually help an
impaired driver get home.<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> >
> Comments?<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>>
> >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
> > > That makes sense. I was thinking more along the lines of
handing over<BR>> > > > your keys when asked for them. I've also
heard the advice that if<BR>> > > > you're ordered out of the car
you should lock it when you get out.<BR>> > > ><BR>> > >
> Paul<BR>> > > ><BR>> > > > Sunil Ramalingam
wrote:<BR>> > > >> Paul,<BR>> > > >><BR>>
> > >> I have to disagree with this:<BR>> > >
>><BR>> > > >> "If the police are going to search your
car despite your lack of<BR>> > > >> consent, don't get in
their way and be cooperative by letting them<BR>> > > >> 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<BR>> > > >> let them into your trunk.
Be polite, and if they order you out of the<BR>> > > >> car,
get out, but make sure your dissent is unequivocal. Don't give<BR>> >
> >> 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<BR>> > > >>
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<BR>> > > >> 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<BR>> >
> >> 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<BR>> > > >> 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<BR>> > >
>> 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<BR>> > > >> display<BR>>
> > >> > > the behavior you describe, for reasons I could
not exactly<BR>> > > >> determine!<BR>> > > >>
> > If human eye witness testimony is so susceptible to error, as
is<BR>> > > >> 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<BR>> > > >>
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<BR>> > > >> 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,<BR>> > >
>> 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<BR>> > > >> 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>> > ><BR>> > <BR>> > <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>> End
of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 35, Issue 119<BR>>
*******************************************<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
HotmailŪ has a new way to see what's up with your friends. <A
href="http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009"
target=_new>Check it out.</A>
<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>