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

"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> jaybird wrote:
>> >>>>Sure there is. First off, it's called ethics,
>> >>>
>> >>>Which is an iffy proposition with cops. IME about 50% of them
> have them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well that's your personal opinion, and your fault. I know lots of
> cops
>> >> and show that figure to be much higher.
>> >
>> > Why is that my fault? Because I am a generally law abiding citizen
> and
>> > therefore the only interactions with cops that I have are either
> just
>> > random conversations or else being hassled by a-holes?
>>
>> That could be possible.
>
> Then you have to allow for the possibility that there are unethical
> cops out there. Even if my percentages are way off, it's still greater
> than zero which means that we need some kind of safeguards.

Of course there are, and I've never claimed the contrary. A few are going
to slip through the cracks no matter what profession you're talking about.
I want them out as much as anyone else because they make the good guys look
bad.

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>but beyond that there is reliability. I wouldn't rely on a dog
> trained
>> >>>>to alert on command.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Neither would I. But it passed the certification test, and who's
> going
>> >>>to bitch if you inadvertantly search a few extra cars?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The drivers/occupants and the fourth amendment.
>> >
>> > The drivers/occupants will be in jail and the Constitution has
> already
>> > been used as toilet paper by the Supreme Court more than once.
>>
>> The drivers/occupants won't be in jail if you're searching a car with
>
>> nothing illegal in it.
>
> Again, you're assuming that all cops are ethical. There's a lot of
> stuff that you can do to someone and get away with it if you're a cop
> and the other guy can't afford a good lawyer.

Even if he does have a good lawyer he still might not get off. I'm not
assuming all cops are ethical, I'm saying that most are.

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

jaybird wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > jaybird wrote:
> >> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, jaybird
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>> In article >, Jim
> > Yanik
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> If cops had ethics,they would write up other cops who
speed(no
> >> >>>> "professional courtesy"),who break other traffic laws without
> > cause.
> >> >>>> They would turn in cops who they know are doing illegal
> > acts,instead of
> >> >>>> just keeping silent.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Just tonight I was driving a road posted at 30mph that most
> > people drive
> >> >>> at 40mph. When I am stopped because someone ahead is turning
> > left, a cop
> >> >>> comes up behind me. I am able to change lanes and continue. He
> > passes me
> >> >>> tight, hes doing about 40-45. Then just as he turns off
another
> > cop
> >> >>> passes me, this one is doing no less than 40. Yet, this is a
> > known speed
> >> >>> trap town and they will ticket people for that very thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> So obviously they were in marked units if you knew they were
cops.
> >> >
> >> > Yep. marked units. Not like it's difficult to tell the majority
of
> >> > unmarked ones either. Cops don't obey the underposted speed
limits.
> >> > simple as that.
> >>
> >> They're not normal traffic. That's just as simple.
> >
> > Yes, they are. Brent isn't from Texas.
>
> Police cars are still marked pretty much the same all over.
>

Having a light bar does not relieve one of the responsibility to follow
traffic laws (yes, I know about Texas. We're not talking about Texas
here.)

nate

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> There are many different possibilities. There's not really a way to narrow
> it down to one specific. Even if that was the case then him traveling above
> the speed limit makes sense because you can't see violations on very many
> cars if you're stuck next to the same one your whole trip.

yadda yadda yadda. Same old bull****, the cop does no wrong, the cop is
special. The cop has to OBEY the laws he ENFORCES otherwise, he will NOT
have any RESPECT.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>>>>> So obviously they were in marked units if you knew they were cops.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. marked units. Not like it's difficult to tell the majority of
>>>> unmarked ones either. Cops don't obey the underposted speed limits.
>>>> simple as that.
>>>
>>> They're not normal traffic. That's just as simple.
>>
>> Above the law. Better than everyone else. Special. Sorry, no.

> Again, you're taking this personally against the cop as an individual.
> Police vehicles are not normal traffic because of the nature of their job.

Not in this state.

> Yes, I know you're not talking about Texas, but here we're not ever
> _required_ to use emergency lights and in fact there is a specific statute
> that leaves the discretion of using those lights up to the operator of the
> police vehicle. Police vehicles are exempt from certain laws, not above
> them and it's only so that the job gets done, not to make cops above anyone
> else.

Again, you expect my RESPECT, start OBEYING the assinine laws and poorly
set speed limits you (cops) SELECTIVELY ENFORCE.

jaybird wrote:
> >>>> So obviously they were in marked units if you knew they were
cops.
> >>>
> >>> Yep. marked units. Not like it's difficult to tell the majority
of
> >>> unmarked ones either. Cops don't obey the underposted speed
limits.
> >>> simple as that.
> >>
> >> They're not normal traffic. That's just as simple.
> >
> > Above the law. Better than everyone else. Special. Sorry, no.
>
> Again, you're taking this personally against the cop as an
individual.
> Police vehicles are not normal traffic because of the nature of their
job.
> Yes, I know you're not talking about Texas, but here we're not ever
> _required_ to use emergency lights and in fact there is a specific
statute
> that leaves the discretion of using those lights up to the operator
of the
> police vehicle. Police vehicles are exempt from certain laws, not
above
> them and it's only so that the job gets done, not to make cops above
anyone
> else.
>

You're just flat out wrong. In most jurisdictions the only exemption
granted to police is the ability to carry a weapon and to use 2-way
communications devices while driving. That's it. No special
dispensations for traffic laws. Therefore, whenever a marked cruiser
is spotted breaking traffic law, that is a cop that is acting in an
illegal manner. It really is quite that simple.

nate

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:56:18 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>> Yep. marked units. Not like it's difficult to tell the majority of
>> unmarked ones either. Cops don't obey the underposted speed limits.
>> simple as that.
>
>They're not normal traffic. That's just as simple.


Well, let's see. They drive cars with 4 wheels or motorcycles with 2
wheels. If they collide with another vehicle, there will be the same
kind of physical damage that would result were I to hit another
vehicle.

Sounds pretty normal to me.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:31:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>> If cops had ethics,they would write up other cops who speed(no
>> "professional courtesy"),who break other traffic laws without cause.
>> They would turn in cops who they know are doing illegal acts,instead of
>> just keeping silent.
>
>Cops can write warnings to anyone, regardless of their occupation. It would
>be discriminatory to require cops to write tickets just to cops.

It wouldn't be discriminatory - it would be holding them to a higher
standard, which would be a good thing since they obviously lose so
much respect when they try to hold citizens to a higher standard than
they are right now.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:03:52 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:41:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>beyond that there is
>>reliability. I wouldn't rely on a dog trained to alert on command.
>
>OK, so what DO you rely on when you want to trump up a little
>"probable cause" in order to search a perp's vehicle when you *just
>know* he's dirty?

DUI, resisting arrest, they use their imaginations, and when that
doesn't work, they sometimes just shoot them.

If they have to, they'll use a 'throw-down' gun that they stole from
evidence storage or simply never turned into evidence in the first
place.

Cartlon Shew > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:31:27 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:
>
>>
>>> If cops had ethics,they would write up other cops who speed(no
>>> "professional courtesy"),who break other traffic laws without cause.
>>> They would turn in cops who they know are doing illegal acts,instead
>>> of just keeping silent.
>>
>>Cops can write warnings to anyone, regardless of their occupation. It
>>would be discriminatory to require cops to write tickets just to cops.
>
> It wouldn't be discriminatory - it would be holding them to a higher
> standard, which would be a good thing since they obviously lose so
> much respect when they try to hold citizens to a higher standard than
> they are right now.
>

Note how Jaybird shifts to "warnings" for his fellows,instead of giving
them real citations like any non-police would get.
Special consideration,IOW,allowing them to break the law with near-complete
impunity. A clear lack of ethics.

No one claimed police should -only- write citations or arrest other
police,but to include them with all the rest of us citizens.
EQUAL treatment under the law.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:



>
> yadda yadda yadda. Same old bull****, the cop does no wrong, the cop
> is special. The cop has to OBEY the laws he ENFORCES otherwise, he
> will NOT have any RESPECT.
>
>

Quite often other police are well aware a fellow officer is breaking some
laws,but do nothing.


That makes Jaybird an accomplice.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net