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

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Yes, they can. As I've already explained, that leads to dogs focusing their
attention on the handler rather than the area to be sniffed and will also
not allow a dog to certify since the handler does not know where the drugs
are hidden.

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

"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

Nope.

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

"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

A few slip by, there's no denying that, but the good ones do a good job
overall.

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

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> 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?

Trainers, certifying officials, supervisors, judges.... etc...

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

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

>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.

Has anyone checked the forecast in hell lately? Jaybird said
something intelligent.

Now the real question is whether he will admit that our system sucks,
and needs significant improvement to be a "good system".

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:36:11 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Olaf Gustafson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> 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?
>
>A few slip by, there's no denying that, but the good ones do a good job
>overall.

I agree that the good ones do a good job, but the bad ones sure stick
around a long time, and very often they just go from one police force
to another.

Michael wrote:
> >
> Whoops. I misread. Let's see, fascism preaches irrationalism,
> totalitarism, elitism, militarism and imprerealism. Sorry, I don't
> support any of those so I definetely do not qualify as a fascist.

Well, you still get my vote for "illiterate".
--
C.R. Krieger

jaybird wrote:

> we have no expectation of privacy for the air coming from
> our vehicle to the outside.

So *that's* how you knew I had tacos last night? [Pffffft!]

Remember folks: you're *always* upwind on a motorcycle. =;^)
--
C.R. Krieger

AZGuy wrote:
>
> Driving is not a privilege, it is a right. The courts have ruled
thus
> in relatively clear terms.

*Sigh* Again, it is *not* your right to *drive* on public roads. It
is a *privilege* conferred by your agreement to operate under the
owner's (the government's) rules for doing so. You have a *limited
property right* in your operator's license that is protected by due
process of law, but you have *no* absolute right to drive on public
roads.

> The authorities like to keep it a secret.

A falsehood is no secret.

> It turns into a privilege when you are driving for commercial
> purposes, such as being in the business of hauling stuff to deliver,
> most likely if you are driving a taxi, etc.

No; it's just a little more difficult to obtain the privilege.

> But as a private citizen
> just traveling to and from work, the ball game, etc, you have a right
> to use the public streets with the almost meaningless and easily
> passed hurdle of getting a drivers license.

"Getting a drivers license" is you seeking and obtaining the privilege.
Not all people *get it* and not all *retain it*. Does that sound like
the characteristics of an 'inalienable right' to *you*?
--
C.R. Krieger
(A *real* lawyer)

In article . com>, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> *Sigh* Again, it is *not* your right to *drive* on public roads. It
> is a *privilege* conferred by your agreement to operate under the
> owner's (the government's) rules for doing so. You have a *limited
> property right* in your operator's license that is protected by due
> process of law, but you have *no* absolute right to drive on public
> roads.

What was the practice with regard to the operation of horse drawn wagons
on the public roads at the time of the constitution?

I am begining to wonder if this concept holds up to the 9th admendment.