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

In article >, jaybird wrote:

> It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
> assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.

As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.

> I, on the other hand, am viewing
> it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
> keep their dogs as reliable as possible.

We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.

> 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.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
>> It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
>> assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
>
> As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.

Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.

>
>> I, on the other hand, am viewing
>> it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
>> keep their dogs as reliable as possible.
>
> We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
> don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.
>
>> 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.

--
---
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:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, jaybird wrote:
> >
> >> It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off
of the
> >> assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
> >
> > As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.
>
> Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.

You have that backwards.

> >
> > 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.

And if a cop needs to find probable cause, they might just call in a
dog. And after finding that they don't like the driver, or whatever,
cause the dog to alert, and thus search the vehicle.

While you seem to claim such a scenario is impossible, I would like it
to actually *be impossible*.

If it makes your job harder, that's tough.

E.P.

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

And if a dog barking is probable cause, and if a cop can cause the dog
to bark at will, then the Fourth Amendment is vitiated.

jaybird wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
>>>assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
>>
>>As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.
>
>
> Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.

No, that's why *you* don't understand everyone else's posts.

>
>
>>> I, on the other hand, am viewing
>>>it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
>>>keep their dogs as reliable as possible.
>>
>>We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
>>don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.
>>
>>
>>> 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"

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> jaybird > wrote:
>>
>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> And if a dog barking is probable cause, and if a cop can cause the dog
> to bark at will, then the Fourth Amendment is vitiated.

I don't believe we've ever said anything about a dog barking.

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

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> jaybird wrote:
>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
>>>>assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
>>>
>>>As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.
>>
>>
>> Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.
>
> No, that's why *you* don't understand everyone else's posts.
>
>>
>>
>>>> I, on the other hand, am viewing
>>>>it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
>>>>keep their dogs as reliable as possible.
>>>
>>>We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
>>>don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.

--
---
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:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>jaybird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
>>>>>assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
>>>>
>>>>As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.
>>
>>No, that's why *you* don't understand everyone else's posts.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>I, on the other hand, am viewing
>>>>>it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
>>>>>keep their dogs as reliable as possible.
>>>>
>>>>We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
>>>>don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the
>>> assumption a cop would not be trustworthy.
>>
>> As an agent of the state that is the assumption we must make.
>
> Then that's why you don't understand most of my posts.

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

>>> I, on the other hand, am viewing
>>> it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to
>>> keep their dogs as reliable as possible.
>
>> We don't allow the government to be trusted because most are honest. We
>> don't allow government to be trusted because of the dishonest.

>>> 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.

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.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:32:34 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>
>"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
>> jaybird wrote:
>>
>>> "Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>In article >, says...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler
>>>>>>signals them to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three
>>>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts
>>>>>on
>>>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does not,
>>>>know how to perform?
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to
>>> court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the narcotics,
>>> then there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out of nowhere.
>>>
>>
>> What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? Might
>> never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something else and
>> he doesn't have a good lawyer.
>
>Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on paper. The
>dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may not. The best
>way to proof a dog on that is through training, certification, and the track
>record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false alerting all the
>time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria.


Who certifies the dogs?

Other cops?