Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents it
> the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
> there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.

The state and it's police forces are not to be trusted. That's why we had
a bill of rights.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>> Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents
>> it
>> the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
>> there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.
>
> The state and it's police forces are not to be trusted. That's why we had
> a bill of rights.

I think that's a little extreme, but not surprising from you. The state is
supposed to be checked and balanced, but I trust cops to do the job we pay
them to do.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:45:15 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:48:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:59:40 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>> during the certification test?
>>>
>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>
>> So tell us about the certification process.
>>
>> Is it double-blind?
>>
>> Does the handler and those administering the certification know the
>> drugs are there?
>
>The certifying officials know where the drugs are because they place them
>there. The handlers do not know where, and have to let the dogs find the
>drugs.

In other words, it's not double-blind then.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:43:48 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>> Sure there are, like wanting to search a car for completely different
>> reasons (suspicion of, say, carrying weapons or other illegal but
>> non-narcotic items, or just to give someone a hard time for mouthing off -
>> not that I'm entirely opposed to the last, but it's still illegal)
>
>Yeah, some people need attitude adjustments now and then, but I'm not
>willing to risk a civil rights violation just to do it.
>

How telling. It's not that you are interested in doing the right
thing - it's that you're afraid of being caught.

That is why you and people like you should NOT be cops.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:32:35 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:49:00 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>>>safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>>>the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>>>during the certification test?
>>>>
>>>> But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>>
>>> How can you prove that? can you *prove* that the dog won't do the same
>>> exact alert upon a subtle command from its handler?
>>
>>Sure, but the point is to do the opposite. There is no reason to have a dog
>>alert where not contraband is at for different reasons. For one and the
>>most obvious, I don't want to waste my time searching something if there is
>>nothing there to find.
>
>Even Aunt Judy is not this obtuse...

If there's nothing to find, there's always something to plant

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 15:10:37 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:48:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Bull. The dog alerts to what ever the cop handling it wants you to
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that it is alerting to regardless of what the dog is smelling so that
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> can intimidate you into giving up your constitutional rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, not the way it works. A dog can't certify if it just alerts to
>>>>>anything the handler wants it to.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us more about the certification process. Specifically, what
>>>> safeguards are in place to prevent a handler from simply simulating
>>>> the desired results by only telling the dog to alert on the real drugs
>>>> during the certification test?
>>>
>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>
>> Yeah, I think we all understand that.
>>
>> The question is, how does the system prevent someone from doing
>> something they are NOT supposed to do, like train the dog to "alert"
>> when the handler wiggles his left pinky?
>>
>> You aren't evading the question, are you, officer?
>
>Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents it
>the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
>there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.

Well then the system isn't very good, is it?

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:02:13 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents
>>> it
>>> the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
>>> there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.
>>
>> The state and it's police forces are not to be trusted. That's why we had
>> a bill of rights.
>
>I think that's a little extreme, but not surprising from you. The state is
>supposed to be checked and balanced, but I trust cops to do the job we pay
>them to do.

Even when they don't?

In article >,
jaybird > wrote:
>
>
>The certifying officials know where the drugs are because they place them
>there. The handlers do not know where, and have to let the dogs find the
>drugs.

Nobody is arguing that the dogs can't find real drugs. The question
is whether the dogs can be induced to alert even when they can't find
real drugs.

In article >,
jaybird > wrote:
>
>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> jaybird > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>That's pretty funny, and defense attorneys have tried using that line too,
>>>to no avail. The dogs are trained to alert to the presence of narcotics,
>>>not hamburgers. The dogs are trained only to give an alert on drugs,
>>>nothing else. We're not talking about Fifi and Fido lying around your
>>>house.
>>
>> And we have only the cops' word for this. They could be trained to
>> alert whenever the cop mutters "alert" under his breath.
>
>Nope... makes the dog unreliable and not meet case law established criteria.

Who, besides the cop, would know?

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. I believe I've answered it at length. The system prevents
>>> it
>>> the best it can, as well as it can for any bad cop. The safeguards are
>>> there and bad cops don't last long in a good system.
>>
>> The state and it's police forces are not to be trusted. That's why we had
>> a bill of rights.
>
> I think that's a little extreme, but not surprising from you. The state is
> supposed to be checked and balanced, but I trust cops to do the job we pay
> them to do.

Not extreme at all. It's what this nation was founded on. The bill of
rights is about what GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO. You and other misguided people
have destroyed the bill of rights starting with your inability to
understand #9.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.