Drug Dogs now can be used as a routine

Heres an article
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050124%2F1143135511.htm&sc=1154

Such a shame it is

 

What sucks is we live in a country with a constitution that allows for so much good stuff to happen, but instead it's used in the wrong way for shit like this

 

HOLY fuck that shit is messed up. I hate the government

 

fucking bullshit.

i'm leaving this closed minded shithole of a country

 

Talk about an erosion of our constitutional rights, as well as basic human liberties. Better look quick folks, because they'll all be gone soon!

I mean, seriously, how can that be justified, they're searching for something without any reason besides "he was nervous." Well of course he's fucking nervous, you just pulled him over to give him a goddam ticket! Oh, sorry, he had an air freshener, so obviously he has drugs.

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect our rights and liberties, and THIS is what we get from them? And this isn't even all of it, our rights are being attacked on all sides. AND NO ONE DOES ANYTHING! There's no need for concentration camps, yellow stars, or any of the usual aspects of fascist governments; they take our rights and we don't do a damn thing about it. It's so fucking easy for them. God damn I'm angry right now...fucking bullshit

 

couldnt have said it better

 

Just keep some bacon in your car.

 

It's not really very different from before, the cop had to have a suspicion and that's completely subjective and if the guy's an ass he can say whatever he wants.

But yes in principle it's bullshit.

 

im pretty sick of hearing you guys all say this bullshit. While the laws that prohibit drugs are one thing, complainging that the cops dont make it easy for you to cheat them is jsut immature. Law makers are not going to -not- pass laws that are going to help them keep other laws. Privacy is not meant to include keeping your law breaking private. Its illegal to do that. Now, unless theres a loophole that lets the constitutional advantages override the rest of the legal system(which, if added to the innocent-until-proven guilty direction, would allow anyone to get away with practically anything by applying the constitution) then you have no case to argue.
A dog sniffing your car is only invasion of privacy if they actually recognise that something is in your car, because the dog cant detect (as in instrument, for people) thigns that arent marked as detectable by the people (police who trained the dog).
So the only way that it is an invasion of privacy is when youve broken the law.
If, in the case that you are innocent, then you wont have your privacy invaded
if you are guilty, then you may have your privacy invaded, but the law will override it

therefor there is no case whereby the constitution can be used to lawfully protect your privacy, in this case.

but of course, this doesnt make it any better. but it changes the situation to legalising marijuana so that it is not illegal to possess it in the first place. This is what i dissagree with so much, with all this complaining - its wasted complainging about the wrong issues.

(I think i approached this differently? that this article is essentially about search warrants, which are about overruling the constitution, and that you are all essentially complainging about search warrants; but the arguement above applies for whatever perspective you look at the issue)

sorry, while i do not like the idea of this new law, i am sick of people looking at it immaturely. and im stoned and found argueing the other way was interesting.

and remember, the law doesnt only cause inconvinience to stoners but is generic across all reasons for police to sniff cars, so it might help police crack down on crack dealers and shit. caus while i think people should be allowed to smoke crack if they want (though i guess i wouldnjt reccomend it as a habit) I wont escape the fact that hard drugs are organised by criminals, who arent only drug dealers (ok), but are simultaneously murderers and vandals (not ok). but thats just pedanticism to create some balance and therefor harmony in this thread.

though yeh theyre probably introducing the law to mainly get weed smokers, since we are the smelliest and that sucks ass but again is the issue of weed being illegal, not of drug dogs being allowed

 

Its the principle. Technically, it doesn't change much because before they'd always make up some excuse like "you went left of center so I want to search your car" uhhh, wtf? no I didn't and no you can't search my car. But now they don't even need a reason. You don't see this as a problem?

Do you realize what this country was founded upon? Isn't Dubya preaching freedom? Sure, free as long as you don't enjoy getting high! And because I DO enjoy getting high, what, I'm some terrible person?

This is just one piece of the puzzle. If you don't think Big Brother is coming for you soon, you should wake up. Fortunately, I won't be here when they come.

humandraydel

 

Bill, you're wrong. First of all, the Constitution is the basis for the laws we write, and we are guaranteed in the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Tell me, how is it reasonable to search, WITHOUT a warrant, for drugs when someone has been stopped for speeding? Where is the probable cause for that? To get a warrant, you have to know exactly where you're searching and what you're seizing. To have the Supreme Court say it's ok to do a random search for unknown items flies in the face of our Constitutional rights.

And as one of the Justices wrote in her dissent, this ruling makes every traffic violation encounter with a cop adversarial. This paints everyone as a suspect right off the bat, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why should I be seen as a criminal just because I ran a stop sign or was speeding? The two don't connect, and just is one more thing showing how the government views it's own citizens.

And yes, it is an invasion of privacy, innocent or not. If you are innocent and searched, your privacy is still being invaded, especially if the cop has NO REASON TO THINK YOU ARE GUILTY OF OTHER CRIMES. Even if he is suspicious that you are guilty, that is not enough, because that is not probable cause. So basically the cop is saying "well, just in case you're guilty of something, I'm going to make you give up your privacy to me while I search your things".

 

youve missed the point. If you are innocent then it is not a breach of privacy because the search does not reveal anything at all. it would be a breach of privacy if the police man determined what was in your car even if the dog didnt smell drugs.

 

No, it's an invasion of privacy to be searched without cause, innocent or not. Using a dog to sniff outside a car is an activity being done with the intent of finding things; AKA a search.

 

yes but then you are not fighting an arguement of principle you are fighting an arguement of words. I thought the issues at hand here were the principles of what was going on. what is a search? the essence of the constitution is that it protects people's rights to keep their lives personal. the nature of a drug sniff allows it to be used in compliance with the principles of the constitution, unlike practically every other law, which are based on legal definitions and proofs.

 

whoa bill! surely you don't believe this?

remember: innocent until proven guilty!! NOT guilty until proven innocent!!

humandraydel

 

No thats just twisting my words

why whole point is that

IF YOU ARE INNOCENT

then

IT IS NOT A SEARCH

 

I dont know how much more clearer i can adress the point im trying to make through thsi whole serious of posts

 

That doesn't make any fucking sense. How is a search suddenly not-a-search just because you're innocent of any crime? A search is a search, regardless of guilt.

 

I think that law sucks but watever cops do whatever they want to begin with

 

Here's the issue: PUBLIC DOMAIN. Is the dog in an area where other people can reasonably travel, eg the outside of a car? This is along the lines of the police being able walk into your backyard if you leave the gate open, or to look inside your front window if the blinds are left open, etc. I know it goes a step further, and it sucks. They used to be able to take infared photos under this premise, but it was struck down as a major infringement, cops were able to see people making love, people in the shower, etc.