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

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Alex Rodriguez
> wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>
>>>Ahh yes the other typical tatic of those in favor of a police state.
>>>Call everyone who is concerned 'paranoid'. You might feel safer,
>>>because you flash your badge and get to have a gun or whatever else
>>>you want to carry. I don't. I can't even carry my leatherman micra
>>>into the building. I wouldn't even have the simplest of tools to help
>>>me escape from a locked stairwell or an elevator in an emergency.
>>>
>>>The fact remains, we are not free of searches just by choosing not to
>>>drive. The loopholes of 'privledge' have become so common place that
>>>now we even have to produce papers when on foot.
>>
>> Many folks are not smart enough to figure this out. That is what the
>> police and polititicians are counting on when they push for these
>> laws.
>
> Military personal might actually refuse to follow orders if told to
> round up civilians and other such things.

I've heard rumors of surveys to mil personnel about this.
Makes me worry a bit more.

> After all, 'just following
> orders' isn't an excuse in the military come time for trials.

Assuming that your side wins,in order to HAVE those trials.
Their side wins,-they- get to have their trials.
That's revolution for ya.

> Police
> officers are much less questioning and will do as told. For 'the law
> is the law'. There is no risk to them in 'just following orders'.
>
>
>
>


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote in
:

>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news >
>> The searching does nothing. What stops highjackings is that any
> passenger
>> that gets out of line is restrained or has the crap beat out of them
> by
>> other passengers. The archie bunker theory is what is keeping us safe.
>
> As was evidenced on that American Airlines flight where that religious
> fanatic who tried to light his shoe had the crap beaten out of him by
> the other passengers.
>
>
>

It happened again today,as reported on CNN online.
Some nut tried to get into the cockpit,was beaten down by passengers.
No mention of any Sky Marshal action,either.
(there probably were none aboard)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
>>> And why couldn't you just place the dog outside the home and have it
>>> sniff for drugs?
>
>> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually see
>> people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog outside
>> of
>> a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of privacy
>> than a vehicle.... different circumstances.
>
> There is no logical basis for such a division. You are talking about that
> cops are free to inspect 'the air'. In both cases, using infared
> equipment or dogs or whatever they are inspecting what is traveling
> through the air. If that is the acceptable logic with a vehicle then it
> must be acceptable for the home. There isn't any barrier to that line of
> reasoning between vehicle and home. It's the public air in both cases.
>
> And in fact, I expect government to eventually make such arguements when
> the time comes.

It comes down to an issue of private property vs. public property.

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

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>
>>>> Ask the courts.
>>>
>>> They aren't arguing it here. You are. Defend your arguement.
>>>
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> lessens in our vehicle because it is in a public place and is mobile
>>>>>> (in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> nutshell).
>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>> Again, ask the courts. Read up on some case law about it and that
>>>> should
>>>> answer it for you.
>>>
>>> It doesn't. You're presenting the arguement here. Your job to defend it
>>> HERE.
>>
>> It is not my job to give you a class on case law.
>
> Learn how debate works jaybird. It is your job. You don't want to defend
> your view, you lose.

That's just my point. It's not my view that I have to defend in this case
because it's not my opinion. It is a matter of case law. Just because I am
familiar with it and you're not, doesn't make it my problem to teach a
class. I don't have nearly enough time to catch you up on all of the cases
which combine to determine police practices.

>
>> Just because you don't
>> understand the levels of one's expectation of privacy does not make it my
>> responsibility to teach you. I googled a few examples for you, but
>> you'll
>> just have to research it yourself. I didn't read through these
>> completely,
>> but they came up:
>
> I understand it for exactly what it is. An arbitary construct that will
> not survive in the long term.

Then when the next decision comes from the courts, practices will change
accordingly. That's how it works.

>
>>> Maybe to you. I find the use of any equipment or trained animal subject
>>> to the interpetation and honesty of the operator. That operator I do not
>>> trust. Thusly regardless of how intrusive you or I find it, to me, it is
>>> all equally objectionable _without_ warrant.
>
>> And that's fine that you have your own opinion. I choose to operate
>> according to our courts' opinions. A K9 sniff outside of a vehicle does
>> not
>> require a warrant.
>
> A K9 is no better than the word of an officer. It gives the officer the
> ability to search any one any time he likes. It's just another end run
> around our constitutional protections. And the courts don't make it
> right, they just approve it. And each year the 'reasonable' level of
> search gets higher. This year, anyone may be detained for a K9 search.
> I'd love to see how you'd feel waiting at the side of a road in IL for a
> K9 unit because and only because you drove 61mph.

I'm not worried about it. And a K9 is much better than the word of an
officer. A dog's nose is much better than a human's.

>
>>>> about the porn mags under my bed", that's not going to be enough.
>
>>> Porn is still legal in most forms. But you show your true colors here,
>>> you have no problem with the warrantless monitoring itself.
>
>> I have no problem with warrantless activities when done in accordance
>> with
>> our laws.
>
> In other words you follow orders. Already knew that jaybird. When the
> time comes you'll load me or people like me on box cars and say 'the law
> is the law'. You won't think twice about it, because to you, the law
> defines what is right.

I don't follow orders, I follow our laws. The law is a result of what a
society feels is right and wrong, not you or I as an individual.

>
>
>>>>> There is no difference in the logic. Once you erase the bill of rights
>>>>> in
>>>>> one place, you effectively doom it everywhere.
>>>
>>>> No, you just need a better understanding of what our courts have ruled
>>>> on.
>>>> Individuals have different opinions, but we have to look to the court
>>>> system
>>>> to be a place where we can come to an agreement.
>>>
>>> The consitution is in plain and simple language. Every year these courts
>>> you call 'a place of agreement' slide us ever so closer to a police
>>> state. Ruling time and time again for the powers of the state and its
>>> police forces. Unlike you, I don't have a special pass so I must be
>>> concerned about things.
>>>
>>> I live in the state from where this court case came. It has blessed the
>>> use of canine searches at whim. The speed limits here are set
>>> artifically
>>> low. Dangerously low. I have no freedom of travel any more. At any time
>>> I
>>> may be stopped, detained for hours, searched, questioned, forced to
>>> produce documents, etc and so forth. That's not a free country. The only
>>> thing still working in my favor is that the probability of it occuring
>>> is
>>> low. That's not comforting.
>>
>> I know we have different opinions. All I can do is offer reasons why.
>
> You haven't offered any reasons why. Only that the state says so, so you
> do. I'm sorry, low probability of being 'the other guy' doesn't make me
> feel better.

There's not much I can do to help ya out then.

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

"Paul" <Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend is a > wrote in
message .. .
>
> "jaybird" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "BE" > wrote in message
>> > nk.net...
>> >> But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You
> have a
>> >> diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
> home,
>> >> and that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>> >
>> > Nothing. Stay home. Don't leave it. Ever. Not even for
>> > roceries. -Dave
>>
>> You can leave, just make sure you leave your pot at home.
>
> No, that still leaves you open to the demand for a search from any
> policeman who feels like demanding one.

Only upon consent, incident to arrest, probable cause, etc...

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

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> Paul wrote:
>> "jaybird" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"BE" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You
>>
>> have a
>>
>>>>>diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your
>>
>> home,
>>
>>>>>and that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing. Stay home. Don't leave it. Ever. Not even for
>>>>roceries. -Dave
>>>
>>>You can leave, just make sure you leave your pot at home.
>>
>>
>> No, that still leaves you open to the demand for a search from any
>> policeman who feels like demanding one.
>>
>>
> Yeah, they can demand, just like you can tell them to go screw themselves.

Exactly.

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

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>Military personal might actually refuse to follow orders if told to round
>up civilians and other such things. After all, 'just following orders'
>isn't an excuse in the military come time for trials. Police officers
>are much less questioning and will do as told. For 'the law is the law'.
>There is no risk to them in 'just following orders'.

In practice, this isn't a real problem to the authorities. If they
need the military, they just lie to them to get them to do their job.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> And why couldn't you just place the dog outside the home and have it
>>>> sniff for drugs?
>>
>>> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually see
>>> people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog outside
>>> of
>>> a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of privacy
>>> than a vehicle.... different circumstances.
>>
>> There is no logical basis for such a division. You are talking about that
>> cops are free to inspect 'the air'. In both cases, using infared
>> equipment or dogs or whatever they are inspecting what is traveling
>> through the air. If that is the acceptable logic with a vehicle then it
>> must be acceptable for the home. There isn't any barrier to that line of
>> reasoning between vehicle and home. It's the public air in both cases.
>>
>> And in fact, I expect government to eventually make such arguements when
>> the time comes.
>
> It comes down to an issue of private property vs. public property.

The citizen's home is private property and so is his vehicle. All the
arguements you can make for weakening the bill of rights regarding a
vehicle apply to the home. A mere semantic barrier is easily overcome.

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
>Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michael > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Michael > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...
>>>>>
>>>>>But if you have nothing to hide, you should not be nervous.
>>>>>On the other hand, if you act nervous on purpose, then don't complain
>>>>>about being searched.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>****ing fascist moron.
>>>
>>>And how am I racist?
>>
>>
>> I don't know. No one called you "racist".
>>
>> Someone apparently should call you ignorant.
>>
>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.

Your statement above supports both totalitarianism and elitism. The
"moron" part is because you don't get it.

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

>> Learn how debate works jaybird. It is your job. You don't want to defend
>> your view, you lose.

> That's just my point. It's not my view that I have to defend in this case
> because it's not my opinion. It is a matter of case law. Just because I am
> familiar with it and you're not, doesn't make it my problem to teach a
> class. I don't have nearly enough time to catch you up on all of the cases
> which combine to determine police practices.

Jaybird. You are lazy. You don't want to hold up your end of the log
don't play the game and shut the **** up.

It is straight forward logic that shows that the reasoning used to make
us subject to search and detention for traveling apply equally to the
home. Everything from safety inspections, operator fitness tests, and
inspection being ok because it's done from the 'outside' all work for the
home. Tomorrow 'the courts' could eliminate the artifical construct of
the home and vehicle being different on this basis. They shouldn't be
different and our rights should not be suspended because we travel.

If you want to argue against that, you need to support your arguements.

>> I understand it for exactly what it is. An arbitary construct that will
>> not survive in the long term.

> Then when the next decision comes from the courts, practices will change
> accordingly. That's how it works.

How it works is that our rights should not be eliminated, suspended or
anything. Stop being a tool of state for once.


>>>> Maybe to you. I find the use of any equipment or trained animal subject
>>>> to the interpetation and honesty of the operator. That operator I do not
>>>> trust. Thusly regardless of how intrusive you or I find it, to me, it is
>>>> all equally objectionable _without_ warrant.
>>
>>> And that's fine that you have your own opinion. I choose to operate
>>> according to our courts' opinions. A K9 sniff outside of a vehicle does
>>> not
>>> require a warrant.
>>
>> A K9 is no better than the word of an officer. It gives the officer the
>> ability to search any one any time he likes. It's just another end run
>> around our constitutional protections. And the courts don't make it
>> right, they just approve it. And each year the 'reasonable' level of
>> search gets higher. This year, anyone may be detained for a K9 search.
>> I'd love to see how you'd feel waiting at the side of a road in IL for a
>> K9 unit because and only because you drove 61mph.

> I'm not worried about it. And a K9 is much better than the word of an
> officer. A dog's nose is much better than a human's.

Of course you're not worried about it. You have metalic 'hall pass'.
Those us without a hall pass have to worry about it. I don't exactly want
to be detained for who knows how long the next time a bored cop decides
today's color of car to stop is the color of mine. I don't want to be
subject to his whim as the interpeter of what the dog does and it's boss.

>>> I have no problem with warrantless activities when done in accordance
>>> with our laws.

>> In other words you follow orders. Already knew that jaybird. When the
>> time comes you'll load me or people like me on box cars and say 'the law
>> is the law'. You won't think twice about it, because to you, the law
>> defines what is right.

> I don't follow orders, I follow our laws. The law is a result of what a
> society feels is right and wrong, not you or I as an individual.

You follow orders. You enforce the laws created by your masters and
enforce the ones your masters want enforced. There are thousands of laws
jaybird and I'll wager you, like everyone else break at least one every
day. The law does not define right and wrong. Remember the internment
camps for some US CITIZENS in world war two? Those were _legal_, was it
right to round up those people and put them in those camps? How about
further back where some US CITIZENS were prevented from voting? How about
even further back when slavery was legal? These things were never right
but they were legal.

And when internment camps are made for those of us resistant to giving up
our rights, you'll gladly load us up in trucks or box cars for transport
to the camps without question. The law will say it's legal and to you
that makes it morally right. No need for you to question. You just follow
the orders from above. Not your problem, not your job to think.

>>> I know we have different opinions. All I can do is offer reasons why.

>> You haven't offered any reasons why. Only that the state says so, so you
>> do. I'm sorry, low probability of being 'the other guy' doesn't make me
>> feel better.

> There's not much I can do to help ya out then.

You can stop being part of the problem.