[jimmydean]

http://news.yahoo.com/immigration-officer-arrested-pot-smuggling-182359607.html

He hasn't posted since he took the job.

PHOENIX (AP) — State police say a deportation officer with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been arrested in a pot smuggling case after leading authorities on a high-speed chase.

They say the officer in Arizona was throwing bundles of marijuana out the window of his government vehicle.

Department of Public Safety Officer Carrick Cook told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the deportation officer had been under surveillance for more than a month.

DPS and federal agents tried to pull him over Tuesday after he picked up a load of marijuana in the desert with his government vehicle. Cook says the officer fled, leading them on a chase at speeds of up to 110 mph (177 kph).
The chase ended when the officer's vehicle rolled over and he gave himself up.

 

[-BB-]

LOL.... no post denying the charges so far!!

 

[jonKranked]

he's still posting regularly on facebook.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Poor Manimal, never given any slack.

 

[manimal]

sorry for the late reply...i'm in New Mexico at the academy and barely have time to post on FB...and I haven't taken the time to find the subscribed threads tab like there used to be in the "User CP"...the new layout on RM blows.

Anyway...i won't be a deportation officer

but yes...some agents are easily corrupted, hence the mandatory, and lengthy, background/polygraph examinations for every applicant. one of my law classes last week showed about 20 agents, over the last 5 years, who were busted for corruption related crimes. pisses me off to no end!

and since you didn't ask ..i'm having fun and doing well. PT is no joke (more intense than USMC boot camp), and the academics are harder than anything i had to do in college. TONS of pure memorization and crazy immigration laws....I now understand Silver so much better only a few months left and i'll officially make the move to Tucson

 

[sanjuro]

Maybe you should quit smoking pot now, Manimal, before you go Breaking Bad.

 

[jonKranked]

manimal, glad you're doin good buddy

 

[jimmydean]

manimal, glad you're doin good buddy

So awesome to hear. Keep us posted and stuff!

 

[JohnE]

Have you been called out about your RM tramp stamp yet? Keep up the good work!

Picking up dope in a GoV...my new anti hero that guy is!

 

[manimal]

Have you been called out about your RM tramp stamp yet? Keep up the good work!

Picking up dope in a GoV...my new anti hero that guy is!

haha..no, i had it removed my RM helmet sticker, however, got rubbed off in shipping

funny little tidbit...i went to bootcamp with one of my PT instructors. PT instructors here are the academy disciplinarians..so if you mess up in another class, you pay for it in PT..kind of like the military. There is also a zero tolerance policy for fraternization between trainees and instructors so it's been rather interesting getting thrashed by a guy that suffered next to me in boot camp who i haven't seen in 15 years. when i graduate i'll be able to finally catch up on the last 15 years...small world. oh yeah..and he hates the fact that i'm always smiling when they're attempting to "make us pay" via intense, 2 hour calisthenics sessions. once you understand the "why" of PT mind games, the military/para-military discipline through PT attitude gets to be kind of fun my class is going to try and break the unofficial academy record of 43 sets of 25, 4-count, flutter kicks (total of 2,150 actual flutter kicks in a one our block). we did 20 sets on friday and i could hardly walk when we were done....this might be a painful week! 4.5 mile run at a sub 7 min mile pace (that i can maintain for about 1.5 miles before i start to slow down to a more manageable 8 min mile pace) combined with 43 sets of flutter kicks in one day!! i'm getting too old for this

 

[Secret Squirrel]

oh yeah..and he hates the fact that i'm always smiling when they're attempting to "make us pay" via intense, 2 hour calisthenics sessions. once you understand the "why" of PT mind games, the military/para-military discipline through PT attitude gets to be kind of fun

The PT/DT guys at the academy here are the same way. They've asked me several times why I'm smiling when everyone else has pain and suffering etched on their faces. "I'm in my happy place, sir." or "If you can't smile, you've already lost, sir." It's great.

 

[manimal]

I finished the PT final yesterday and graduate next Monday......and then start the 8 week spanish course on Tuesday Just thought that all of you lovers of Freedom would like to know that I'll officially be 'La Migra' in about a week

Neat little tidbit: Border Security/Protection is one of the few law enforcement mandates directed by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) and was in effect well before September 17, 1787.

 

[gonefirefightin]

negative ghost rider....the pattern is full

 

[JohnE]

My reaction to intense PT is to smile...its just what my face does when I go into O2 debt and my HR rises. Makes PT instructors (I was one for awhile...) insane...especially when they are trying to smoke you! I may be dieing inside, but my face is always smiling. One of the few times...

Favorite thing was always yelling "You cant smoke me...I'll quit!"

 

[sanjuro]

Good luck Manimal!

 

[jimmydean]

Congrats Manimal. Can we call you Dirty Sanchez now?

 

[manimal]

My reaction to intense PT is to smile...its just what my face does when I go into O2 debt and my HR rises. Makes PT instructors (I was one for awhile...) insane...especially when they are trying to smoke you! I may be dieing inside, but my face is always smiling. One of the few times...

Favorite thing was always yelling "You cant smoke me...I'll quit!"

I have the same problem. We "paid" for my smiles and laughter more than a few times but it was worth it.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Language.

NSFW

 

[syadasti]

Neat little tidbit: Border Security/Protection is one of the few law enforcement mandates directed by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) and was in effect well before September 17, 1787.

Not so neat, they regularly piss on the Constitution (just like some corrupt police departments have been doing within our borders - see here):

Tell Congress: Rein in invasive border searches

Border search exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

search requires probable cause—the officer must have some reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed, and that a particular search will turn up evidence relevant to that crime. It’s hard to see how cellphone data could be relevant to a traffic stop. Instead, searching cellphones looks more like a fishing expedition: Having gotten access to you with a traffic stop, officers are just looking around to see what they find. That’s explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, and with good reason. Letting government officials snoop on anyone they choose, for no particular reason, is a bad idea.

If you consent to a search, however, all bets are off. It’s hard to see why anyone would do so: If you’re a criminal, you’ve got something to hide; and if you’re not a criminal, why would you want to let the police paw through your email? And remember that when you consent to have your smartphone searched, you’re also giving up data on all your contacts, who haven’t consented. The legal ramifications to that have yet to be worked out.

This is just the beginning of a new era of privacy invasions and legal complications, particularly those surrounding your phone or other mobile device. For example, your smartphone contains a lot more information about you than your emails and the numbers in your address book. Your phone knows where you’ve been and what you’ve done. Consider the recent revelations that Apple iPhones actually maintain an internal file of the user’s locations, one that is copied to the user’s computer when the phone is synchronized to iTunes. These phones may store as much as a year’s worth of location data—data that could be snooped by law enforcement, creditors, jealous spouses, or— more troubling, and probably more likely—hackers, malware operators and stalkers.

What happens if police gain access to all this information through your phone? Courts are only beginning to grapple with this. Take the question of location tracking: One federal magistrate has held that the government must have a warrant even to obtain cellphone tracking information from a cellular carrier. The cellphone system routinely logs which cell towers contact your phone as you travel about, and that data provides a pretty good map of your whereabouts. It’s a good enough map, the court decided, that police shouldn’t be able to access it without a warrant. Likewise, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled that installing a GPS tracker in your car requires a warrant. However, other cases have held that putting GPS tracking devices on suspects’ cars doesn’t require a warrant—the argument is that whenever you drive your car, you’re in public view, and thus have no expectation of privacy regarding your whereabouts, so you’re not harmed by the tracking. (I feel certain, however, that if I went down to the nearest federal motor pool and installed GPS trackers on their vehicles, they’d take a different view.)

Experts have been warning of privacy threats for years, and for the most part the public has yawned. But the combination of devices that gather all sorts of information about you and law-enforcement agencies wanting to snoop on it has put us into a whole new ballgame.

 

[MikeD]

Oh, NO! Not the evil border search exception, which is far beyond just well-accepted and has been since time immemorial, and is mirrored in the legal code of pretty much every other country in the world, based on the basic sovereign rights of a people to control their borders...

What's pissing people off is the fact that they now, due to technology they choose to use, carry far more information across the borders routinely than they used to. Including their portable libraries of porn and sensitive personal information. They could, however, simply leave that stuff at home just like they used to before laptops and smartphones made it routine to carry all that crap around on a trip in a neat portable format. If you had a big book, no sane person would argue the customs officials couldn't make you open it, or open it themselves, and examine it before it crossed the border. (Except those who simply can't wrap their heads around the fact that customs and airport screening are massively different entities.) Because you've chosen to make the material vast and searchable, don't complain when your vast amount of information is searched.

It is, contrary to opinion, the business of the people of the United States what information you ferry across the border. Classified info, controlled proprietary and technical info, intellectual property, malicious or espionage-related computer material, etc. Always has been.

Cell phones and traffic stops, though...whoa, crazy stuff there. Who the hell would consent to that??

MD

 

[kidwoo]

You go girl!

 

[MikeD]

...<curtsy>...

 

[kidwoo]

<grand applause>


Always well deserved!

 

[manimal]

Not so neat, they regularly piss on the Constitution (just like some corrupt police departments have been doing within our borders - see here):

Tell Congress: Rein in invasive border searches

Border search exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right....Sovereignty be damned!!

 

[MikeD]

What the suddenly-concerned-with-privacy-rights-now-that-they-carry-electronic-porn-and-their-pot-dealer's-phone-number-on-their-phone crowd wants is a way for a right to privacy to attach to their personal information so that whenever it leaves their immediate control, no one else can see it. This is dumb; they want information they've made public to remain private.

You can't have your cake (greater utility and interconnectedness in the modern world) and eat it too (retaining ultimate control over information you've voluntarily sent forth for use by others for your convenience). If privacy is your concern, just keep your information private!

Besides being well-settled case law regarding third party records (Miller IIRC) and standing to object, and paradoxical (letting information out of your control for use while retaining privacy in it), it is simply unrealistic. How can the government determine during, say, a search warrant or consent search of your friend's phone, what info would then be "private" without violating the right to privacy you seek? I just don't get what people want out of this.

Manimal gets a warrant to arrest someone. In this person's pocket he finds your phone number. Is he supposed to pretend he doesn't see it until he gets a warrant to determine whose phone number it is? How is he going to write the warrant if he doesn't look at the number to determine what is on the paper? Once he's looked at the paper, is he supposed to pretend he never saw the number? etc.

If he's going to force a third party like the phone company to give up the goods on subscriber info without that party's consent, of course he'll need a court order or warrant. But if he wants to look the number up on open-source Internet info, find it in the phone book, match it to another record recovered from another search, how can he write a warrant request for this?

 

[kidwoo]

Okay, now it's just like a grateful dead concert with too many encores.

 

[MikeD]

Lord I was born a ramblin' maaaa-aaaahhhh-hannnnn...

Oh, wait. Damn.

 

[valve bouncer]

Not so neat, they regularly piss on the Constitution (just like some corrupt police departments have been doing within our borders - see here):

Reason number 8,495,475 why you should never, ever even talk to the police, let alone consent to a search.

 

[syadasti]

You might have authority to search the device via consent, warrant, or exception but the problem is with online devices they might leave the device and search remote devices which they do not have permission to search. If someone searches your home and finds a box a keys to other buildings at another location the warrant does not apply to those other buildings.

Det. Murphy also pointed out another problem with consensual search: scope. Consent to search a cell phone does not imply consent to search the online services (email, instant messaging, Skype, etc) that it may be connected to. The mobile device must be properly isolated from its network, so that the only data acquired is that which already exists on the phone. Otherwise, law enforcement risks performing warrant-less and non-consensual searches of these online accounts (as the device downloads/receives new content). Not only would that violate citizens' rights, but it would also jeopardize any case to which the acquired data might be applicable.

 

[MikeD]

You might have authority to search the device via consent, warrant, or exception but the problem is with online devices they might leave the device and search remote devices which they do not have permission to search. If someone searches your home and finds a box a keys to other buildings at another location the warrant does not apply to those other buildings.

True. I was only thinking of the device itself and info contained thereon.

 

[syadasti]

True. I was only thinking of the device itself and info contained thereon.

Did you notice I quoted Robocop

 

[stevew]

Reason number 8,495,475 why you should never, ever even talk to the police, let alone consent to a search.

i always got a kick out of the K9 unit searching my beetle....

 

[ohio]

You can't have your cake (greater utility and interconnectedness in the modern world) and eat it too (retaining ultimate control over information you've voluntarily sent forth for use by others for your convenience).

I just want to make sweet, violent love to the cake. Then eat it.

 

[kidwoo]

You've solved it!

 

[MikeD]

I just want to make sweet, violent love to the cake. Then eat it.

This should help you along...

 

[syadasti]

NPR Coverage: Jeffrey Rosen: Interpreting The Constitution In The Digital Era : NPR

 

[MikeD]

Did you notice I quoted Robocop

Stay out of trouble.