Ugghhh........
I have a terrible head cold...it is amazing how much this can interfere with my brain. Plus I've been very crabby for the past 24, it's amazing A puts up with me.
But I still wanted to post something relating to the fourth amendment, drug sniffing dogs, and our Attorney General, The Republican Soviet/fascist Lisa Madigan. (well, she is a republican, but unfortunately the democratic ticket is so weak here in Illinois that they let her run as a democrat, this must be, because she hates the constitution)
Boing Boing points us to an interesting site. It's some comments from the lawyer who helped the Florida Supreme Court to respect the 4th amendment (well, lets not get excited, the only supported restrictions on dogs).
His name is Rex Curry and it's really worth checking out:
Drug dogs are covers for lies. Here's how -
1. Cops ask to search cars for no reason at all. If a driver refuses consent, then police have no grounds to search. Without consent, cops need "probable cause" to search. Cops create cause with canines by claiming that the dogs alerted, and forcing a search. That is why some court opinions have turned drug dogs into props for lies, because the dogs provide probable cause to search against drivers who understand their 4th amendment rights. Cops will lie and say that a dog alerted, even if it didn't. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not dogs are well-trained or accurate, because dogs are often ruses for lies to violate constitutional rights.
2. Cops ask to search cars for no reason at all because they know that most Americans are too meek to say "no" because government schools have conditioned civilians to submit to government and have taught nothing about constitutional rights. When drivers say "no," then some cops tell drivers that further action is inevitable because radio dispatch "has a drug dog on the way over." It is often a lie to induce consent. There is no dog on the way.
3. If a dog is or is not "on the way," cops add additional lies to make drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay until a dog arrives. Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies.
4. If a dog is enroute, cops let drivers think that they are obliged to stay even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. The cop's rationalization is that drivers loiter roadside with cops for no apparent reason or because drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go, so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving.
5. Cops lie about how long it is taking to write a ticket or to obtain a radio response on a driver's license or tag check. If a dog is actually on the way, the cops will make sure that the ticket is written very slowly, until the dog arrives.
6. If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record that as an error, but will claim that the dog detected lingering odors of contraband that were recently present. Cops will testify that dogs never make mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband.
Really check it out. It is definitely worth your time.
No, I'm gonna eat some chicken and noodles, and proceed to be pitiful.
But I still wanted to post something relating to the fourth amendment, drug sniffing dogs, and our Attorney General, The Republican Soviet/fascist Lisa Madigan. (well, she is a republican, but unfortunately the democratic ticket is so weak here in Illinois that they let her run as a democrat, this must be, because she hates the constitution)
Boing Boing points us to an interesting site. It's some comments from the lawyer who helped the Florida Supreme Court to respect the 4th amendment (well, lets not get excited, the only supported restrictions on dogs).
His name is Rex Curry and it's really worth checking out:
Drug dogs are covers for lies. Here's how -
1. Cops ask to search cars for no reason at all. If a driver refuses consent, then police have no grounds to search. Without consent, cops need "probable cause" to search. Cops create cause with canines by claiming that the dogs alerted, and forcing a search. That is why some court opinions have turned drug dogs into props for lies, because the dogs provide probable cause to search against drivers who understand their 4th amendment rights. Cops will lie and say that a dog alerted, even if it didn't. In that sense, it doesn't matter whether or not dogs are well-trained or accurate, because dogs are often ruses for lies to violate constitutional rights.
2. Cops ask to search cars for no reason at all because they know that most Americans are too meek to say "no" because government schools have conditioned civilians to submit to government and have taught nothing about constitutional rights. When drivers say "no," then some cops tell drivers that further action is inevitable because radio dispatch "has a drug dog on the way over." It is often a lie to induce consent. There is no dog on the way.
3. If a dog is or is not "on the way," cops add additional lies to make drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay until a dog arrives. Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies.
4. If a dog is enroute, cops let drivers think that they are obliged to stay even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. The cop's rationalization is that drivers loiter roadside with cops for no apparent reason or because drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go, so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving.
5. Cops lie about how long it is taking to write a ticket or to obtain a radio response on a driver's license or tag check. If a dog is actually on the way, the cops will make sure that the ticket is written very slowly, until the dog arrives.
6. If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record that as an error, but will claim that the dog detected lingering odors of contraband that were recently present. Cops will testify that dogs never make mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband.
Really check it out. It is definitely worth your time.
No, I'm gonna eat some chicken and noodles, and proceed to be pitiful.
posted by Johnny Lightheart at 6:28 PM
1 Comments:
Actually, I don't think you were very crabby at all, considering how sick you've been.
Of course now that I am going to catch it, it'll be my turn to be crabby. And you KNOW I am up to the challenge!
Post a Comment
<< Home