A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #221  
Old February 16th 05, 07:29 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message


>> Your boss is government. You do what you are told with 'just following
>> orders' blind mentality. I get your posts just fine.

>
> If I didn't agree with what I was doing, I wouldn't do it.


You've stated many times that you believe whatever the courts (the
government) decides is right and just and define what you believe to be so.

>>>> How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
>>>> effectively eliminate our rights is.

>>
>>> The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all searches.
>>> If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for him/her to search.

>>
>> Note the word 'effectively'. When 'reasonable' is defined as 'because a
>> cop wants to' or 'because the government says so' or 'because we have a
>> dog trained to alert on command', we effectively no longer have that
>> right.


> It's easy to sum it up like that, but each of those phrases has to be backed
> up with legal authority and checked against constitutional standards.


No they haven't. The supreme court does not do it's job properly. It
makes inconsistant rulings all the time. A constitutional standard would
not allow for that.


Ads
  #222  
Old February 16th 05, 10:09 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > jaybird wrote:
> >
> >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>jaybird wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article >, jaybird

wrote:

> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, what you're claiming can
> >>>>>>happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it

does not
> >>>>>>lend
> >>>>>>anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute

for a
> >>>>>>cop when
> >>>>>>he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good

guys.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
> >>>>>effectively eliminate our rights is.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all
> >>>>searches. If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for

him/her
> >>>>to search.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Ah, but if you want to search a vehicle, you walk the dog around

it, it
> >>>alerts, boom, you have probable cause. If you don't find anything

"oh,
> >>>must have been some residue in the trunk or something"
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not quite that easy, but I don't think you guys will ever

understand
> >> that without actually being involved in it firsthand.
> >>

> >
> > It really is that easy. Hell, *I* could train a dog to alert on

command.
> > This ain't rocket science, people have been training dogs since

before
> > recorded history.

>
> Exactly. You could train a dog to alert on command, but training a

reliable
> and certifiable dog to the courts' standards is much more involved.
>


True, but you have people to do that. I can take your reliable,
certifiable dog and train him to alert on command. So can you. So can
any cop. And there's no mechanism in place to keep that from
happening.

nate

  #223  
Old February 17th 05, 10:41 PM
jaybird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> jaybird wrote:
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > jaybird wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>>jaybird wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>In article >, jaybird

> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Yes, what you're claiming can
>> >>>>>>happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it

> does not
>> >>>>>>lend
>> >>>>>>anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute

> for a
>> >>>>>>cop when
>> >>>>>>he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good

> guys.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
>> >>>>>effectively eliminate our rights is.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all
>> >>>>searches. If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for

> him/her
>> >>>>to search.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Ah, but if you want to search a vehicle, you walk the dog around

> it, it
>> >>>alerts, boom, you have probable cause. If you don't find anything

> "oh,
>> >>>must have been some residue in the trunk or something"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's not quite that easy, but I don't think you guys will ever

> understand
>> >> that without actually being involved in it firsthand.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It really is that easy. Hell, *I* could train a dog to alert on

> command.
>> > This ain't rocket science, people have been training dogs since

> before
>> > recorded history.

>>
>> Exactly. You could train a dog to alert on command, but training a

> reliable
>> and certifiable dog to the courts' standards is much more involved.
>>

>
> True, but you have people to do that. I can take your reliable,
> certifiable dog and train him to alert on command. So can you. So can
> any cop. And there's no mechanism in place to keep that from
> happening.


Sure there is. First off, it's called ethics, but beyond that there is
reliability. I wouldn't rely on a dog trained to alert on command.

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


  #224  
Old February 17th 05, 10:43 PM
jaybird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>
>>>> Besides, the majority of the population, me included, is not able to
>>>> tell whether a dog has "alerted" or not. So all we have is the dog
>>>> handler's word for it.
>>>
>>> That's the beauty of it. And it's super secret, just like the profiling
>>> criteria!

>>
>> That's right. I'm not tipping of the crooks to my procedures. )

>
> Got a book for your reading list Jaybird:
> (same book different links turned up by google)
> http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6606
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...SBN=0895260506
>
> In Men in Black, Mark Levin explodes myth after myth about the federal
> judiciary, including the biggest one of all: the idea that Supreme Court
> judges are somehow imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision than
> the rest of us -- and that for some reason Almighty God has endowed them
> with superior judgment about justice and fairness. But as Levin
> demonstrates again and again in these pages, judges are men and women
> with human imperfections and frailties. Some have indeed been brilliant,
> honorable, and moral, but others have been corrupt, unprincipled, racist,
> and even mentally impaired (yes, Levin names names).


Well of course they're just human. They are the humans who we choose to
represent us to make decisions for us on rulings of our laws. They're not
perfect, but if you are more perfect then they are, I suggest you start
running for election and working your way up.

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


  #225  
Old February 17th 05, 10:52 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jaybird wrote:

> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article >, jaybird

>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, what you're claiming can
>>>>>>>>>happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it

>>
>>does not
>>
>>>>>>>>>lend
>>>>>>>>>anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute

>>
>>for a
>>
>>>>>>>>>cop when
>>>>>>>>>he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good

>>
>>guys.
>>
>>>>>>>>How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
>>>>>>>>effectively eliminate our rights is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all
>>>>>>>searches. If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for

>>
>>him/her
>>
>>>>>>>to search.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, but if you want to search a vehicle, you walk the dog around

>>
>>it, it
>>
>>>>>>alerts, boom, you have probable cause. If you don't find anything

>>
>>"oh,
>>
>>>>>>must have been some residue in the trunk or something"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's not quite that easy, but I don't think you guys will ever

>>
>>understand
>>
>>>>>that without actually being involved in it firsthand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It really is that easy. Hell, *I* could train a dog to alert on

>>
>>command.
>>
>>>>This ain't rocket science, people have been training dogs since

>>
>>before
>>
>>>>recorded history.
>>>
>>>Exactly. You could train a dog to alert on command, but training a

>>
>>reliable
>>
>>>and certifiable dog to the courts' standards is much more involved.
>>>

>>
>>True, but you have people to do that. I can take your reliable,
>>certifiable dog and train him to alert on command. So can you. So can
>>any cop. And there's no mechanism in place to keep that from
>>happening.

>
>
> Sure there is. First off, it's called ethics,


Which is an iffy proposition with cops. IME about 50% of them have them.

> 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?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #226  
Old February 18th 05, 12:03 AM
jaybird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "N8N" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article >, jaybird
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, what you're claiming can
>>>>>>>>>>happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it
>>>
>>>does not
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>lend
>>>>>>>>>>anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute
>>>
>>>for a
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>cop when
>>>>>>>>>>he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good
>>>
>>>guys.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
>>>>>>>>>effectively eliminate our rights is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all
>>>>>>>>searches. If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for
>>>
>>>him/her
>>>
>>>>>>>>to search.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, but if you want to search a vehicle, you walk the dog around
>>>
>>>it, it
>>>
>>>>>>>alerts, boom, you have probable cause. If you don't find anything
>>>
>>>"oh,
>>>
>>>>>>>must have been some residue in the trunk or something"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not quite that easy, but I don't think you guys will ever
>>>
>>>understand
>>>
>>>>>>that without actually being involved in it firsthand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It really is that easy. Hell, *I* could train a dog to alert on
>>>
>>>command.
>>>
>>>>>This ain't rocket science, people have been training dogs since
>>>
>>>before
>>>
>>>>>recorded history.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. You could train a dog to alert on command, but training a
>>>
>>>reliable
>>>
>>>>and certifiable dog to the courts' standards is much more involved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>True, but you have people to do that. I can take your reliable,
>>>certifiable dog and train him to alert on command. So can you. So can
>>>any cop. And there's no mechanism in place to keep that from
>>>happening.

>>
>>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

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


  #227  
Old February 18th 05, 12:16 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jaybird wrote:
[Elected and appointed officials]
> Well of course they're just human. They are the humans who we choose to
> represent us to make decisions for us on rulings of our laws. They're not
> perfect, but if you are more perfect then they are, I suggest you start
> running for election and working your way up.


That only works if you have more money than they do.
  #228  
Old February 18th 05, 12:26 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jaybird wrote:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"N8N" > wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article >, jaybird
>>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, what you're claiming can
>>>>>>>>>>>happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it
>>>>
>>>>does not
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>lend
>>>>>>>>>>>anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute
>>>>
>>>>for a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>cop when
>>>>>>>>>>>he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good
>>>>
>>>>guys.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How common it is, is not relevant. The fact that such searches
>>>>>>>>>>effectively eliminate our rights is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The fourth amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches, not all
>>>>>>>>>searches. If a cop has probable cause, then it's reasonable for
>>>>
>>>>him/her
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>to search.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ah, but if you want to search a vehicle, you walk the dog around
>>>>
>>>>it, it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>alerts, boom, you have probable cause. If you don't find anything
>>>>
>>>>"oh,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>must have been some residue in the trunk or something"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's not quite that easy, but I don't think you guys will ever
>>>>
>>>>understand
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>that without actually being involved in it firsthand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It really is that easy. Hell, *I* could train a dog to alert on
>>>>
>>>>command.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>This ain't rocket science, people have been training dogs since
>>>>
>>>>before
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>recorded history.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. You could train a dog to alert on command, but training a
>>>>
>>>>reliable
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and certifiable dog to the courts' standards is much more involved.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>True, but you have people to do that. I can take your reliable,
>>>>certifiable dog and train him to alert on command. So can you. So can
>>>>any cop. And there's no mechanism in place to keep that from
>>>>happening.
>>>
>>>
>>>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?

>
>
>>>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.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #229  
Old February 18th 05, 01:17 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>>
>>>>> Besides, the majority of the population, me included, is not able to
>>>>> tell whether a dog has "alerted" or not. So all we have is the dog
>>>>> handler's word for it.
>>>>
>>>> That's the beauty of it. And it's super secret, just like the profiling
>>>> criteria!
>>>
>>> That's right. I'm not tipping of the crooks to my procedures. )

>>
>> Got a book for your reading list Jaybird:
>> (same book different links turned up by google)
>> http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6606
>> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...SBN=0895260506
>>
>> In Men in Black, Mark Levin explodes myth after myth about the federal
>> judiciary, including the biggest one of all: the idea that Supreme Court
>> judges are somehow imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision than
>> the rest of us -- and that for some reason Almighty God has endowed them
>> with superior judgment about justice and fairness. But as Levin
>> demonstrates again and again in these pages, judges are men and women
>> with human imperfections and frailties. Some have indeed been brilliant,
>> honorable, and moral, but others have been corrupt, unprincipled, racist,
>> and even mentally impaired (yes, Levin names names).

>
> Well of course they're just human. They are the humans who we choose to
> represent us to make decisions for us on rulings of our laws. They're not
> perfect, but if you are more perfect then they are, I suggest you start
> running for election and working your way up.


Yet you hold their decisions to be god-like instructions to be followed
blindly.

And gee, can you get a more tired arguement? You got few million to fund
me? I don't kiss ass well enough and lack the initial contacts to work my
way up in one of the parties. Not like either would have me anyway.

  #230  
Old February 18th 05, 05:13 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> 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.



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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 01:17 PM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.