Or...because they have nothing to hide and it's a really good ****ing idea to comply.
You figured me out pretty quickly. fortunately I roll down my window and answer the BP agents questions fast enough that they don't bring the dog over to sniff my car.delivering drugs or illegals?
You just blew my mind.
hehehehe
heh always makes me smile seeing the words "Fair & Balanced" across the top of their web pages.
Do you think the cops just let people go when they refuse to be searched? If they're asking to search your car they're doing it for a reason (we hope?). If you refuse a search they don't just go, "oh, you well. In that case, have a good day!". One way or another your car is being searched and you may or may not end up in jail.
You say we have no freedom and rights. I wonder how many criminals have been pulled over, searched, and consequently arrested due to illegal contraband found in there car. I then wonder how many of those people were going to go out and hurt other people, or in some way fug up other people's lives. Saying, "sure officer, you can do a search" is a small price to pay for those of us with nothing to hide. The cops are on your side, believe it or not.
Yes they do. Here is an article you might want to read that describes exactly that (in addition to discussing the ineffectiveness of random searches): http://www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=12423.
I don't understand your equation here. Because sometimes people are stopped and arrested, I don't get how this means the people have freedoms and rights. I suspect that there is more flawed in your argument than the wrong "there" in your paragraph. Why don't you do a little research into the effictiveness of random searches. Awww funk, I will do it for you.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-11-17-behavior-detection_N.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d0848thigh.pdf
Someone important historically said something about this. Hmmm... can't recall who right now. Something like, "those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." Google it. I bet it was one of those American Revolutionaries. Those guys wanted to overthrow the government. Very, very dangerous folks. I think they had guns, and maybe even weed. Very dangerous. Ok, I am convinced. Where do I go to volunteer to be searched? Could it at least be by a hot female officer?
dude, we are the most free nation in the world already, and this isn't good enough for you?
do you have any idea what is going on in the rest of the world? you are SO lucky to have the opportunity to spout off the bull**** that you do.
do you have any idea what is going on in the rest of the world? you are SO lucky to have the opportunity to spout off the bull**** that you do.
Um. No. This is not true. Pick a measure, any measure, and some other nation is beating the US.
How about freedom of the press? #53.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388
Because some other nations are worse, does not mean we are free. How about a lesser tyranny? That seems fitting.
Even if the US was the freest nation on earth, it is still not as great and free as it could be. I want the best for America. Don't you?
but the propaganda begs to differ!
I'm sorry you will have to take that post to the free speech zone 5 forums over.
Not sure what you saw - but if you were watching ch 15 they told you that OTHER people have started a group about the border patrol working well inside of the border. However they also mentioned that he claims to NOT be a part of them.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/tucson/story/Tempe-pastor-Border-Patrol-beat-him-at-checkpoint/FYxzzCRcnUehq5uY8nZXHQ.cspx
Thanks for paying attention.
Because they are no where near the border and they stop all traffic on a major highway to ask dayglo white people their nationality.
YUP. That sums it up. The government only needs to claim reasonable cause and you are done.
How did they know to stop him BEFORE the dogs??? They didn't, but had "reasonable cause" because that route is used for trafficking so they stopped him and had the dog search. So the equivalent is that since someone somewhere in the USA uses their home to grow pot, they have the right to enter EVERYONE's house without a warrant.
All rights have been revoked...
I never realized that they trained dogs for BOTH drugs and cadavers... that sounds like BULLSH*T to me, but I'm not an expert.
The problem with the dogs isn't the dogs. It's the handlers.
A handler can very subtly make a dog alert to anything he wants the dog to alert to.
That doesn't make the dog unreliable, that makes the handler suspect. And since dogs are so good at picking up body language, the handler might not even be consciously doing it.
Ideally, a both the handler and the dog would be dropped from any LEO work (the handler as a dog handler, not as a general LEO) the first or (I would tend to favor) second time that the dog alerted in a situation where no contraband was found.
I have no idea if this happens. I know how much a guide dog costs to raise, and I would guess that a drug or explosives dog is in the same ballpark, so I'm skeptical that false positives are treated with the necessary vigilance.
Basically, a well trained dog is by nature susceptible to being cued by his handler. Anyone who denies this is a retard or a liar.
Last edited:
When I was in school there was an evangelist named Brother Jim who would come on campus and a preach. He would tape record all of his sermons, even pausing to flip the cassette.
Brother Jim could tell a good tale and keep his audience interested by saying the most inflammatory things to students in the crowd. It was obvious that he was just trying to provoke people. But this was his job, not to actually preach, but to antagonize college students into assaulting him. That's why he taped everything he said, and those near him. He'd go from school to school picking fights and then suing the University.
I'm guessing the Baptist pastor in this case has another agenda.
Brother Jim could tell a good tale and keep his audience interested by saying the most inflammatory things to students in the crowd. It was obvious that he was just trying to provoke people. But this was his job, not to actually preach, but to antagonize college students into assaulting him. That's why he taped everything he said, and those near him. He'd go from school to school picking fights and then suing the University.
I'm guessing the Baptist pastor in this case has another agenda.
Don't know if they do it but it would be easy as to train a dog to signal for both.
No way fella, the dog can detect if a coat or bag/car has previously held narcotics. So yes they do give false positive signals. Trace odors remain (below our nasal threshold) for a long time, but the dogs can pick it up still.
if you were to dump them after 2 false alarms there would be no K9 units left after just a few weeks. I would rather have the false alerts than lose such an important tool.
No comparison, I used to help train dogs for the Customs Department (dad was the number 2 guy in the NZ customs department and mum was a Labrador breeder) and the narcotics training is vastly simpler than a guide dogs. I'd guess roughly a third of the cost at the most.
if you think it is not as good as it could be then you should probably do something about that, right? you know, like talk to some people and get some things changing. i, on the other hand, don't really have a significant problem with the way that our government affects my life, which is how i would like to keep it.
please tell me you actively try to make America a better place...?
"Reasonable cause" isn't a legal threshold; in fact, you just made it up. Possibly a combination of "reasonable suspicion," which is the threshold for investigative detention (what was going on before the dog hit), and "probable cause" (developed by the dog hit) which is the threshold, for among other things, warrantless search of a mobile conveyance. Not to mention the search incident to his arrest by local authorities, which includes his vehicle.
And yes, that's the point--they develop RS/PC and take appropriate action, and the subject indeed has no recourse at that time, nor should he. Again, this isn't a negotiated process. Judges review this stuff after the fact, not the subject on the spot.
Your pot analogy makes zero sense. They questioned the guy at the checkpoint, developed reasonable suspicion and made an investigative detention. During the detention, they developed PC using a dog. (You could try and argue this is an intrusive search, but as the dog operates in public space, that's like claiming the cops can't use the sound of a gunshot coming from your house to develop PC against you, since you have an expectation of privacy therin...) With PC, they can make a warrantless search of a car. This doesn't mean they have PC to search any and every car, which is what your analogy states.
I can't comment on the lawfulness of his arrest by the local police, as I don't know the codes they're operating under.
None of this is relevant to the force used during the arrest...which may have been reasonable from the cops' POV. It certainly wasn't reasonable from the story he tells. But as an apparent provocateur and wannabe martyr, I tend to distrust his viewpoint a little. (Doesn't change the fact that if he deliberately provoked cops into acting unlawfully, they still acted unlawfully, mind you.)
For case law surrounding border patrol checkpoints interior to the national border, try US v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), US vs Ledesma-Dominguez (1995), and US v. Ortiz(1975). There's certainly ground to argue, and I personally find them to be near the limits of Consititutional authority. I don't think they're over the line, but wouldn't cry about the loss of our nation's security if they went away. There may well be be future case law or executive action which changes the way they operate.
While pulled over for speeding a NY State Trooper asked if he could search my car. I said no. I was sent on my way with just a verbal warning for speeding.
Didn't 'make it up' intentionally... combination of being over tired and the tequila. I forgot I was on RM where grammar and spelling must be perfect, and if you reference something you need to cite the codes...
My analogy was to why he was stopped in the first place. He was driving on a highway and they stopped him and EVERYONE else. Why, was EVERYONE on the road acting suspiciously?
Yeah once he was stopped: asshat.
The police do not have the right to show up to my house and search, so why do they have the right to pull me over if I have not committed any infractions?
And the LEOs in that area know that those stops don't work on the professionals. The smugglers (drug or people) use bait vehicles to check the roads, they have as much or more surveillance on the roadways as the LEOs, they have side routes to avoid the fixed checkpoints, and combined with bait and surveillance - they can avoid the random ones.
However none of them will ever admit that publicly... kinda like the TSA: need to give the impression that all is well.
Can you train the dog to not alert unless there are more than remote traces?
Why does a customs dog that sniffs for food not alert by my bag when it held food right before I got on the airplane?
My big problem is the fact that it is trivial to get a dog to send the alert signal when you want it to, making bringing a dog over nothing more than a fishing expedition if that is what the handler wants.
Didn't know that narcotics training is that much simpler than guide dog training. Makes me wonder why there aren't more explosives detection dogs around at airports...
Last edited:
But he could have detained you, got the dog to determine PC, and then searched you.
fortunately, not all cops are assholes.
Thought this article was relevant to the discussion:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h96V6DWIBTZwlkYloNBK_lusFnXgD97N1DS80
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h96V6DWIBTZwlkYloNBK_lusFnXgD97N1DS80
Interesting. Searches incident to arrest are all-encompassing and only in part for officer safety--they're also to locate evidence. Considering the car is property in subject's possession at the time of arrest, I don't see how it can logically follow that cops can't search the car. I mean, I'm guessing only Rick would be deliberately contrarian enough to think that if I arrested you and you were carrying a briefcase, I'd need a warrant to search the briefcase.
I'm going to have to read the opinions on this one.
Edit: Makes sense if you consider the car to be a space for habitation rather than property, actually. Arresting subject in a house, you can only search something in the house if it's within "lunging distance" and might possibly contain a weapon. Plus, there's plain view doctrine in play as well.
This probably doesn't change anything for vehicle frisks, though.
I'm going to have to read the opinions on this one.
Edit: Makes sense if you consider the car to be a space for habitation rather than property, actually. Arresting subject in a house, you can only search something in the house if it's within "lunging distance" and might possibly contain a weapon. Plus, there's plain view doctrine in play as well.
This probably doesn't change anything for vehicle frisks, though.
Last edited:
here is the thing though. we aren't talking about people that are under arrest.
we are talking about people that are NOT under arrest.
we are talking about people that are NOT under arrest.
don't worry... i wasn't confused. thanks for your concern.
Not retard. Genius (or insane... it's a fine line).
I was nitpicking neither grammar nor spelling, it's a matter of using terms with specific ramifications in the context of the discussion.
Cars are not houses, and you're equating a search with a seizure, so I can't much help you here.
Not in your case.
Great "research," Hansel!
You successfully pulled up 3 internet articles that have nothing to do with random searches! Two are about the screening which every passenger undergoes, and the third is about targeted screening...the EXACT OPPOSITE of random searches!
Take another few handfuls of Ritalin and call Ohio in the morning.
Random screening is definitely a technique used by the TSA.
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/random_screening_at_gates.shtm
And if you believe you can determine hostile intent via micro-expressions, and want to call that targeted screening, well then... I just don't know what to say. I see it as little different than random selection.
Last edited:
I believe that there's a disco ball in Rick's head...
Little points of light that don't last any longer than a blink of an eye...never to be seen again...
The cognitive dissonance is deafening....
Little points of light that don't last any longer than a blink of an eye...never to be seen again...
The cognitive dissonance is deafening....
I thought ther was a squirrel in there. One that smokes crack to help it sober up from all the LSD it swallowed.
Holy crap. You just defined my life.
Must be all the doubleplusgood training I have been receiving subliminally ever since hit that tree and ripped a hole in the tinfoil I had covering my helmet. Repeat after me... "2 plus 2 equals 5."
Todd?