Tennessee Drug Interdiction Officers Stomp All Over Traveling Couples' Rights En Route To Seizing Nothing At All
from the putting-the-'ass'-back-in-'asset-forfeiture' dept
More asset forfeiture to report on, albeit of the rarely-reported "attemptedA couple (Lisa and Ronnie Hankins) traveling through Tennessee on their way home (to California) from a funeral was stopped by Tennessee drug interdiction agents as they traveled west on I-40 out of Nashville. What followed was a long fishing expedition, during which officers separated husband and wife in hopes of getting permission to search their vehicle without a warrant.
"You say there's not anything illegal in it. Do you mind if I search it today to make sure?" the officer asked.Because the agent was unable to obtain consent from the couple, he decided to ask a dog. A drug-sniffing dog was brought in to examine the vehicle and, go figure, it alerted near the driver's side window (after ignoring the open passenger's side window). Finally having obtained "permission" for a warrantless search, the two agents went to work. An hour later -- and having disassembled the dashboard of the couple's new car -- they were unable to recover anything incriminating. But hey, no one's rights were violated because the drug dog told officers the car contained drugs, even though it didn't.
Lisa responded, "I'd have to talk to my husband."
[...]
The agent continued, "I am asking you for permission to search your vehicle today -- and you are well within your rights to say no and you can say yes. It's totally up to you as to whether you want to show cooperation or not."
[...]
"You have to either give me a yes or no," he continued. "I do need an answer so I can figure out whether I need a dog to go around it or not."
It also didn't contain any cash, which one agent told the Ronnie Hankins was far more likely to be hidden somewhere in the vehicle.
[W]hen Ronnie insisted there were no drugs, the agent confided he wasn't really expecting any.Apparently, drug interdiction agents are far less interested in stopping the flow of drugs than they are in intercepting outgoing cash. Otherwise, as Nashville's News 5 (which has been investigating the state's out-of-control asset forfeiture program for years) points out, it wouldn't be performing a majority of its stops on roads leading out of the state.
"Well, I'll be honest with you, with you going this direction, I wouldn't think you'd have drugs in the car -- you would have a large amount of money," he said.
While drugs generally come from Mexico on the eastbound side of Interstate 40 and the drug money goes back on the westbound side, the investigation discovered police making 10 times as many stops on the so-called "money side."The frustrated officers finally let the Hankins go, but not before making a last-ditch effort to redeem their futile efforts. The police report claims the interdiction agents found "marijuana debris" or "shake" on the floorboards of the vehicle. The Hankins claim the only thing on the floorboards was grass from the cemetery where Ronnie Hankins' grandfather was buried. Whether it was "grass" or grass, neither of the Hankins were charged or cited.
Tennessee's asset forfeiture laws are far worse than those in many states. 100% of the proceeds of any seizures go to the department that performed it. Legislative attempts to overhaul these laws have been mostly fruitless. A bill introduced in early 2013 aimed to eliminate this abuse by making seizures contingent on convictions. By the time the House and Senate had amended the bill, the only net gain was the prohibition of ex parte hearings. If Tennesee interdiction officers seize your money or other property, they now (the law went into effect at the beginning of this year) have to give you a date when you can show up and defend "forfeited" property from the accusations of law enforcement -- something of limited utility considering these officers tend to prey on drivers with out-of-state plates. Depending on what has been seized, it may be cheaper to allow the state to claim its ill-gotten goods rather than spending even more money to participate in a largely ceremonial process that often results in the state paying out only pennies on the dollar.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cash, drug interdiction, drugs, forfeiture, police, seizures, tennessee
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story:
Who still wonders why people don't like governments or cops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
You do realize that the world isn't simply divided between the US and the "third world", right? There are other developed countries that aren't quite so corrupt.
Grow up.
Read a book, learn something outside your cloistered little world. The US sure as hell ain't the bastion of freedom and liberty it pretends to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
But hey, whatever deluded fantasy world you want to live in I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Yeah, you're wrong about that. Although a lot of it depends on what you consider "good", when I look at now vs then, I'd say that society is much better on the whole now. "Then" wasn't nearly as virtuous as lots of people seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Only as long as they did not start fighting over which interpretation of the bible was/is correct.
Further, many people are much more prepared to help other in an emergency, regardless of whether or which church they attend. Search for Occupy Sandy to see how people helped each other after a disaster, anarchistic co-operation via twitter etc. did way better than formally organized initiatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Oh yeah, for sure. I just *loved* sitting through Sunday school and daily Lord's Prayers in school, despite the fact I've *never* been religious nor even the least bit spiritually minded. I am so much a better person for having to suffer through what I always saw as self-serving lies, and seeing all around me fervently agreeing to perpetuate such lies.
It is such a joy for me to see everyone around me appears to believe in ghosts, vampires, zombies, aroma therapy, chiropractors, and so much other bunk. It really helps me to respect my fellow residents on the planet.
Really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
As soon as you try to make my kids read your bible I will start a lawsuit that will drag through the court system for decades, will involve an examination of constitutional law written over the last three centuries, involve generations of SCOTUS benchwarmers, billions of dollars in taxpayers money, the time and efforts of the best trial lawyers, ambulance chasers and frivolous litigators ever produced by the US legal system. I will bury you in red tape, have protestors lined up 100 deep outside your front door, have death threats sent to your social networking page, your home, your place of work, family, friends, enemies...
And you won't be able to do a thing about it because it's the American Way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Great post, but I note you failed to mention the Flying Spaggetti Monster, SO I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SUE YOU TO DEATH FOR ...
I'm sure you know where this is going.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
I'm guessing, but I think I may know of lots of words you've never heard of. What's an "Internet" worth, if I may ask?
Prestidigitation.
Antidisesablishmentarianism.
Yahweh.
That's 15 Internets you owe me. Pay up! I have witnesses! Yeah, I tend to get off on sublime minutiae. Sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Face it, this country has become exactly what we learned about in school about those "third world, strong man dictator" countries you speak of - there is little, if any difference anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarcasm is needed in this situation to highlight the ridiculousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
USA or 3rd world, huh? Did Canada, Europe, Japan, etc fall off the edge of flat world today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
First world: generally aligned or allied with the US
Second world: generally aligned or allied with the ex-Soviet Union
Third world: not generally align or allied with either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Obviously not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
First world: Pretty dang rich in general
Second world: most people are surviving but don't have much disposable income or free time
Third world: most people are struggling to to survive.
Now I will say there is a strong correlation between govt type and the general society status.
So for this discussion the US would be heading toward a First world Dictator ship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
It's not as simple as that. Brunei and Saudi Arabia come near the top of the per capita GDP list but are definitely not havens of freedom. Now at first I thought that maybe it was the source of the wealth that matters - but then I remembered that Norway is also oil rich - so maybe there is something else in there. I wonder what it couild be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Yes, because you get to leave your money at the border.
What is it, 50% tax on the assets you want to leave the country with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
You just can't take large piles of cash. You can do a swift wire transfer, use bitcoin. HSBC used to make it easy, but I don't think they do anymore.
You may be referring to the need to pay a bunch of extra income tax when you give up your US citizenship. But that is a separate issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tu Quoque?
In the late 1930s while there were complaints about German aggressiveness, the concerns about the nuremburg laws was understated because everyone hated the Jews and wanted someone to blame for the great depression. The National Socialists only got proactive about it, and sentiment in the United States was generally envy.
Civil forfeiture is nothing short of literal highway robbery, and the enthusiasm the police are showing, both in favoring forfeiture stops over other kinds, and in the extent of their searching (dogs and removal of the dashboard in this case), illustrate how this is totally about taking people's stuff, and not about stopping or preventing crime.
Cops are robbing people, and this is wrong. Full stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
you fucking authoritarian moron: WE (meaning the US of A) are the terrorists, WE are the ones abrogating rights, WE are the ones not following due process, WE are the ones ignoring the constitution, WE are the ones making a fascist Empire...
stupid sheeple are stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The old man in Pueblo
--Old man in Pueblo, Young Indiana Jones and the Curse of the Jackal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral of the story:
The cops didn't get this power and authority in a vacuum. They had help from your elected representatives and your overall justice system. The cops are just following orders and milking the situation for all it's worth. This is what their organization has been commanded to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
You have the right to an elected government. If you don't participate in elections, a government not of your choosing will be appointed for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Either the democratic process works, or it doesn't; if the work and sweat of getting it to work is too hard, then comes that "a government will be appointed for you" option. Lots of history showing how badly that can suck.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
I only get the choice between the worst of party D and the worst of party R after both sides have selected the extremist of their choice already. I can't change Federal law as that power is given only to Congress, but I am given little choice of who will represent me in that Congress.
Run for office myself or back my own candidate? I don't have a SuperPAC. I don't have hundreds of millions of free speech dollars. I don't own a corporation or a media company. Independents are a small minority in this country, and the partisans rarely vote outside of their own political party. Not a bloody goddamn chance in a frozen over hell surrounded by flying pigs struck by an asteroid and two bolts of lightning holding a winning lottery ticket could I ever possibly succeed at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
"I can't write, can't educate myself or others, can't send money, can't support any group, can't do research, can't march and hold a sign, can't take part in local issues, can't volunteer anywhere.
I'm sure there's quite a bunch of others I'm missing.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Which is why I insist Churchill was wrong. Democracy is the best of a list of bad choices, woopee. Churchill was a democrat, so he was prejudiced against non-democratic systems of government. Anarchy is going to see its day, whether we like the idea or not. *Firefly*!
Governments of today are giving democracy a bad name (or it always was bad and is now being shown to be) and are anarchy's best marketers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral of the story:
What, open season on violence prone religious nutbags? Yeah, that'd be terrible. I don't much care about regular religious nutbags, but we need all the violence prone ones we can get, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
You know, we really hate people like you? You keep making all this !@#$ to be our fault for having let it happen.
I have actually (forced myself to) run for political office. It's every bit as bad an experience as everyone tells you it is. It really sucks. It's awful.
How democracy manages to survive from day to day is a miracle to me. Maybe the !@#$ing lawyers have mangled it so badly, it's lost its ability to die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Seriously; I don't mean to sound preachy. it's just that IMO there's some seriously high water coming, and we all have the simple but uncomfortable choice of either getting up from the couch and stuffing sandbags, or hoping the couch floats.
Maybe the only bad that will result from too many complacent / disengaged / dispirited Americans are yet more wasted tax dollars, having to learn Mandarin so you can impress your new boss, perhaps losing a kid or a spouse to cancer after drinking too much of that funky-flavored water the government was too lame to do anything about. Same old same old, the world goes on.
On the other hand, maybe we're not too far from having one of history's big moments, when people get to stare at the rubble of their homes and communities and wish like hell they'd been paying closer attention, and had done more when they had the chance. Hard to say.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democracy has long since failed.
The continuation of politics, whether by vote, or by law officers jerking people around, or by revolutionaries and COIN forces fighting, all happen despite the fact that people really just want to get on with their day-to-day lives.
And that force of inertia is what keeps America moving forward no matter how much we look like an evil empire or a cyberpunk dystopia.
So long as the garbage is collected, the power is on, the trains run on time and the grocery stores are filled with food, the nation is going to keep going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Actually, you have the right to chose a government from a very narrow selection of representatives carefully chosen and completely bought and owned by us rich corporation. We spend billions of dollars making certain that they tell you what you want to hear but only do what we tell them, which these days is nothing at all because we're pretty happy with the way things are running at the moment. Out profits have never been higher... thank-you democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral of the story:
Some jobs are hard, dirty, nasty, and don't come with any guarantee of success. Way it is.
--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, the sarcasm doesn't help in the slightest. In fact, it's getting kind of old really. Every article at TechDirt of late seems nothing more than sarcasm substrate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarcasm is needed in this situation to highlight the ridiculousness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141113/06034829128/yet-another-study-shows-us-satire-pr ograms-do-better-job-informing-viewers-than-actual-news-outlets.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False dogs
We've been seeing a lot of false positives from dogs, or their handlers. Essentially it's become a means to circumvent Fourth Amendment rights.
Is there a law that actually says that dog behavior can justify a probable cause search? Does it specify what specifically the dog has to do? It should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False dogs
You're asking whether there's statute law? That is, you're not asking about case law.
Are you inquiring about federal statutes? Or about statutes emanating from the legislatures of the several states?
Or perhaps you're querying with regards to administrative rules authorized by some statute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False dogs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A nation in which everyone requires legal council.
Not sure if sarcasm.
And I'm terrified that I live in a nation where that might be unclear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You tell me.
Are you inquiring about federal statutes? Or about statutes emanating from the legislatures of the several states?
Or perhaps you're querying with regards to administrative rules authorized by some statute?
I'm wondering how a contraband-searching dog ends up on site prior to articulable reasonable suspicion, and how a dog making an ambiguous signal to its handler is grounds for a probable-cause search. As a layman I have no idea if the laws would be at the federal, state or county level or whether it's legislated or based on judicial precedent or even mere common practice.
In a world in which the state was concerned about police abuse and judicial overreach, we might actually pass laws about the protocols of using dogs for search. But given the surveillance state, it seems that personal privacy is a deteriorating concern.
But it seems that when we develop a technology that might be used to uncover a crime, the police gain access to it long before effects to civilians including privacy concerns, are considered.
And hence we have dogs being used to justify law enforcement taking apart cars so that they can rob an out of state couple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You tell me.
Illinois v Caballes (2005) relates one way in which a contraband-searching dog was deployed before any articulable suspicion of contraband had developed:
In Caballes, the question the court decided was:
So, to the extent that you're looking for the sources of law authorizing these activities, this Supreme Court case is certainly one of those authorizing sources now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You tell me.
See Florida v Harris (2013).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You tell me.
Here's a recent case from the District of Utah, decided after Florida v Harris...
United States v Medina (D.Utah, April 2014)
I'm excerpting this case here primarily because of the statistics collected in these two footnotes:(Pincites omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know your rights - never talk to police
DO NOT get out of the car. No matter what the officer says.
DO NOT consent to any search. Don't resist physically either, rather repeat you do not consent to a search.
Ask repeatedly "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, then leave.
If you're not being detained then you do not need to wait for a dog. If you are being detained they need probable cause.
It sounds like this couple made the mistake of trusting police officers. NEVER TRUST THE POLICE. DON'T TALK TO POLICE http://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
Maryland v Wilson (1997)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
I thought —everyone— was familiar with Terry v Ohio (1968). You've heard of “reasonable suspicion” before.
Do I need to google up Terry for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
Here's a hot-off-the-presses case... United States v. Mundy (6th Cir. November 12, 2014) (not for publication).
(Citations omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terry stops
Of course this presumes that the court is actually fair in its trial and not of the sort where Three cops say you're guilty therefore you're guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is "unreasonable" suspicion?
But what the heck is reasonable suspicion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is "unreasonable" suspicion?
“Probable cause” is a constitutional phrase. That is, it's a phrase found within the text of the Fourth Amendment.Thus, it's very important to understand that what the phrase sounds like to you is not necessarily what the phrase sounds like to a judge.
See, generally, Illinois v Gates (1983)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is "unreasonable" suspicion?
Also Maryland v Pringle (2003):
(Citing Gates as authority, along with Brinegar v United States (1949).)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is "unreasonable" suspicion?
Ornelas v United States (1996):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we're okay with this?
[A]n effort to fix some general, numerically precise degree of certainty corresponding to "probable cause" may not be helpful...
--~-~--
Also Maryland v Pringle (2003):
The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances.
--~-~--
(Citing Gates as authority, along with Brinegar v United States (1949).)
Ornelas v United States (1996):
Articulating precisely what "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" mean is not possible.
And considering we have stacks of examples of law enforcement officers being untrustworthy of the benefit of the doubt, we're supposed to find this situation just and acceptable?
It's not only not okay, but it's been not-okay for a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Know your rights - never talk to police
Your 1st response was far better - citing case law showing the commenter was wrong.
Rather than snark'n about Terry - show 'em.
And in the interest of the case of Showing v. Telling or Showing v. Snark:
Via http://logosradionetwork.com/tao/ I give the readers Traffic Stop script
One might want to download Monday night - Eddie's night from Logos for further framing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offcourse, thats assuming these "lawfull" stops are'nt a means by "upstanding" costume wearers to bolster their paychecks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm scared to travel after hearing all these stories about highway thugs robbing innocent people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those that wage war on fellow citizens need to pay the price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incompetent cops
They should have just swiped the car when they couldn't find any cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incompetent cops
I have always had a question about this. I just bought a new car. I dont *own* that car, the bank does. If the cops steal it, they arent actually taking *my* property. Sure, I have a financial obligation there, but it is the BANKS property. If I dont pay, the BANK is the one who comes calling to get it. Can they report it stolen then? After all, I no longer have possession of the bank's property, and it was taken against my will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incompetent cops
Well, technically, it's the insurance company who comes calling. This is one of the reasons why you are required to carry comprehensive insurance in order to get financing. But your point stands.
"Can they report it stolen then? After all, I no longer have possession of the bank's property, and it was taken against my will."
I'm guessing that generally, the answer is "no" because it was only stolen from the point of view of common sense, not from the point of view of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incompetent cops
IANAL, but I suspect reporting the vehicle stolen to the insurance company when it is seized by the police (regardless to whether it was a legal seizure or not,) would probably qualify as insurance fraud. Telling the insurance company that it was illegally seized probably won't get you much of anywhere, though they might be able to provide you with a reference to a good lawyer.
I'm guessing that generally, the answer is "no" because it was only stolen from the point of view of common sense, not from the point of view of the law.
It might have also been stolen from the point of view of the law too. Certainly in this case, where the stop was questionable (would love to see how they articulated the reasonable suspicion for the stop, especially when the officer admitted they didn't think drugs were present.) Last time I checked, carrying money wasn't grounds for reasonable suspicion for a stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shredding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to immediately destroy a defective dog should carry a minimum penalty of 20 years. I bet you'd have the local news out there filming the dumb goon crying as he's forced to execute his pet... and if he refused, it'd be difficult to wiggle out of prosecuting him, what with it being shown on the 6'o'clock news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, a suitable punishment for a false positive would be letting the falsly accused return the favor, and with the exception of the firearms, seize anything and everything in the cop's pockets or car that strikes their fancy as restitution, even to the point where they can take the car apart to get an item.
Need a new laptop? Well hey, that might have been used in an armed robbery, better grab it. New radio, that might have been involved too, better safe than sorry. That cash and credit cards in the cop's wallet, that's clearly drug money, better seize that. And the car battery, that facilitated some crime I'm sure, better remove that while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that this would be carried out...
Considering that there's always a dearth in trained contraband dogs, it would rapidly exhaust a county's supply of legitimate dogs, if they were simply used to falsely justify searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to immediately destroy a defective dog should carry a minimum penalty of 20 years. I bet you'd have the local news out there filming the dumb goon crying as he's forced to execute his pet... and if he refused, it'd be difficult to wiggle out of prosecuting him, what with it being shown on the 6'o'clock news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow... And I was afraid to drive in Mexico
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow... And I was afraid to drive in Mexico
I don't even call them when I'm being robbed by non-uniformed criminals. I've been burglarized and mugged, and never called the cops.
The one time I did actually call the police was when a drunk driver ran into a telephone pole outside my house (snapping it in two places!). And, honestly, that experience was bad enough that I wished that I hadn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow... And I was afraid to drive in Mexico
It's pretty sad that when you are the victim of a crime, calling the police is a cause for more concern than the actual crime... I as well had my apartment broken into (on a Saturday afternoon) and I didn't have police come investigate (I didn't even call them). The only time they were involved" at all was when the insurance company wanted a police report - I went to the station on Monday, gave them a list of stolen items, and refused to let them come inside my apartment when they wanted to investigate.
No thanks, I'm not having police go on a fishing expedition in my apartment, risking having my dog shot (the burglars were compassionate enough not to harm my dog and make sure she didn't get out), or risking being further harmed by the police.
I had a neighbor back in NJ when I was in college call the police in the middle of the night when someone was breaking into his apartment. They ran when they heard sirens before they got in, but my friend was arrested after the blunt roach, grinder, and shake on his coffee table lead to a search finding his bong and less than $50 worth of weed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll bet they'd have a hard time trying to justify that to a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once upon a time in Sicily...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long. Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
Enforcing those laws would be bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christianity is not a good source of authority.
Given US history has had periods in which God's laws have been used to justify slavery, religious privilege and denial of rights to minorities and fringe groups -- legal issues we are continuing to fight to this day -- I'd argue that God's laws have done the United States by far more harm than good.
Especially since the God's laws we like are easily derived from the more universal law of reciprocity.
Christians have not conducted themselves well or wisely in US History. Many Christians continue to not conduct themselves well or wisely to this very day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and one more thing...
The question presented to the Supreme Court reads:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's positively bullocks.
Was this ruling made with or without awareness of how drug sniffs are used commonly today, which is to say a hack to bypass constitutional protections against search, by using a false signal to justify a search?
As a layman, I don't trust dog handlers or their dogs. Even if the signals are genuine, a test yields a false positive as frequently as a coin flip should not be used justify an invasion of personal rights.
Furthermore, given that story inconsistency can be used to justify an arrest, "off topic questions" are, themselves invasive. A police officer should not be stopping someone unless they have advance idea of crimes committed, and a stop for traffic infractions should not automatically lead to searches for unrelated felonies.
C'mon people, we have more people in prison per capita than any country ever. Our "tough on crime" stance already is sending way too many people into the Worst Institution On Earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awareness
Did you read Justice Stevens' opinion for the court? Did you read the dissents from Justices Souter and Ginsburg? You tell me.
At any rate, none of the justices, not Stevens, nor O'Connor, nor Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer —nor even the dissenters— none of the justices ever stood alongside the interstate, semis whistling by, with a doberman pawing through their vehicle.
So, maybe they were wrong, maybe Caballes was wrong the day it was decided... not maybe, it was wrong the day it was decided, it was... no honest person could call that "de minimus", not if they lived through it themselves... but were the justices evil? Did they have awareness? Did they know it was wrong? You tell me.
Were they evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The evil of jurists
Out of touch, maybe. Presumptive that law officers mean well and are capable of not taking advantage of their authority. They may even be biased to adjudicate favorably to the DoJ, in this case, at the expense of human rights, which in this case, they presume to encroach on only minimally.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. --James Madison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's positively bullocks.
You forget, there's money to be made. Prisons are now being run by honest profit seeking capitalists. Canada's even doing it.
"Follow the money trail" is more pertinant today than it ever was. Hollywood used to do movies that attempted to expose this sort of thing ("Brubaker"), but it's mainstream now, so don't expect any allies to step forward. We're laying low waiting for the inevitable eruption. Even small kids can wield baseball bats, you know?
I would love to get into this fight. It's well worth fighting for. Unfortunately, I'm likely not going to live long enough to see it (my hair and beard are already fully gray).
Still, (Monty Python) "I'm not dead yet!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bastille day is still a thing in Paris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]