The Glade 4.0

This was a very cringe-worthy video. I'm surprised she didn't get arrested.

She didn't do anything to for which to be arrested. It's not illegal to be an ***. She is within her rights absolutely, but if she is telling the truth she probably would have been along quicker with compliance. There is also the issue of being courteous to her fellow motorists, who have rights too

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The problem is that when you pull over to "secondary" in order to be courteous to fellow drivers, you are taking away any leverage you have to get out of there in a reasonable amount of time while still exercising your rights. Your rights are no more or less valid than anyone else's, and you shouldn't have to give up your rights in order not to inconvenience someone else. If everyone exercised their rights at these "immigration checkpoints" (notice the dog, it was looking for drugs, not illegals) they would, rightly, go the way of the dinosaurs.

"I don't know why you're being held." That's an admission of a violation of her rights. They know (or should know) that they have no standing to do what they are attempting to do (as is evidenced by them letting her go after trying to threatening her into following their commands). You shouldn't be harassed for excising your rights; they know that the societal pressure to "just comply" is what allows them to get away with it.

At a legitimate border crossing, they can search, question, etc. without explicit consent (the implicit consent is that you crossed the border).

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

An immigration checkpoint and a border crossing are two different things, and different rules apply.

The fundamental issue in this particular stop was that the agent's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity was either not apparent from the video, or limited solely to her not wanting to answer his questions. He's right that he does have the authority to detain her; what he doesn't have is the suspicion he needs, but she's right that he doesn't have the authority to search her car. He isn't indicating that there's a canine hit on her car or anything else that would give him that authority, either.

Now, she does not have any "leverage" by blocking other drivers, either. She can be given a ticket for that, regardless of the actions of the Border Patrol because in every state obstructing traffic is illegal. That ticket, however, would have to come from the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, or local law enforcement, as its a state law, not for the Border Patrol which (in most states) does not have state law enforcement powers. The Border Patrol would need to get local, county, or state authorities out there, and while they will come, that takes time, and they are likely to be none too happy when they find out that the person they are giving the ticket too really should have been let go already anyhow.

This agent is not intentionally harassing her, and he isn't "admitting violating her rights". He's evidently confused about exactly what the nature of reasonable suspicion at an immigration checkpoint is. This is a difficult area of law that many agents struggle with because of the differences between a checkpoint and a port of entry. The rules at a port of entry are different because they relate to passage into and out of the country, and regulation of the passage of borders is inherent in national sovereignty. A checkpoint is much more similar to a consensual encounter on the street; it just doesn't seem that way because checkpoints are established locations (legally, they have to be; an agent cannot just decide to set up his own checkpoint at any place he damn well pleases.) This agent obviously needs refresher training on this area of law, and I'm sure he's not the only one. That said, it's not an easy area of law to translate fromt he classroom to the real world, and if you think you'd do any better with comparable training you'd most likely not.

Note that while her being a "hot girl" isn't relevant, her obviously sounding like an American is. Since looking for illegal aliens is pretty much the point of the BP, a person that doesn't sound like an American (that is not a code word for "speaks Spanish" or "is Hispanic" either; American Hispanics sound and act notably different from illegal aliens) and is refusing to state their citizenship IS suspicious. A person that, upon casual inspection, appears to be American and doesn't want to discuss their citizenship at a place like a checkpoint (as opposed to actually at the border) is not suspicious.

The dogs, by the way, search for both narcotics and illegal immigrants.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As of March 2013, and a 5-4 decision written by Antonin Scalia about the Jardines search, seizure, and arrests in Florida, drug dogs cannot be used to create reasonable suspicion or probably cause; nor, for that matter, can they be brought onto or in contact with personal property without a warrant, especially not someone's home. Scalia also specifically indicated that what a drug dog sniffs is not part of Plain Sight Doctrine, either. A later decision, concerning one of Georgia's new carry statutes, created another Federal precedent that extended castle domain to your vehicle.

Likewise, searches are covered by the Fourth Amendment ...



And last I checked, my vehicle is one of my effects. Reasonable suspicion is just legal balderdash for, "We don't think the Constitution applies here."

_________________

You need to cite that decision then, because you have an extensive history of making proclamations about what certain laws and decisions say, then when they're read, they don't actually say that. No, you know what? I'll do it for you:

Florida v. Jardines



The case establishes that you cannot take a dog to a residence, right up to the porch, with a warrant or consent, and conduct a sniff. That's because it's within the curtelige of the property, an area that has long been held to have a higher expectation of privacy, much like the residence itself. Vehicles, by their nature are out in public and necessarily lesser in expectaiton of privacy.

The case hinges on it being at a residence. It did not change any previous cases regarding dogs, but not a residence. Period. It's there in black and white.


[/quote]

No, Khross, it isn't, and reasonable suspicion pertains to the detention, not to the search. It's "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. It's established by the courts. Period. You don't get to cite the Supreme Court in one line then turn around and call that concept "legal balderdash" in another because it conflicts with your views. That's called Stolen Concept Fallacy. It's also called the Constitution works the way the courts say, not the way Khross says.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

You should probably just read the decision. Your third-party analysis is confusing the dissent with Scalia's position.

_________________

Where do you get the idea that I didn't read the decision? I habitually read Supreme Court decisions. Maybe you missed where I read the one regarding Hobby Lobby, when no one else but you had?

I find it very convenient that you couldn't link the decision or cite the relevant portion, but assume I haven't read it. I also don't really see any reason why you are citing court decisions at all, since you also want to reject those decisions as "legal balderdash" if you don't like them.

Cat's must be belled. Telling the people doing the belling "you're doing it wrong" and not accepting it when they tell you the fangs and claws are real because you have some picture in your mind of how a belling ought to go when you never have to hang it doesn't get anyone very far.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I just want to know who called her hot?

_________________
Raell Kromwell

Diamondeye:

You linked a third-party source with a blatantly inaccurate representation of the majority of opinion -- a representation you quoted. Had you read the decision, you'd know that your third-party source made a mistake.

_________________

This is your third post now asserting the decision says something, but not linking it. Furthermore, it has always been acceptable to quote Wikipedia in the past.

Gee, right there on the first page when you google it.

Before we go on with this discussion, why don't you explain why it's so **** hard to google and link a PDF that's on the first page of a search? You wonder why I don't want to engage in discussions with you or answer questions? This is why. You're all over anyone else any time they make a "bare assertion", but you can't be bothered to take 30 seconds to link your source? This isn't your **** classroom.

Heck, since I linked it and you won't bother to explain yourself anyhow, on page 6-7 in section A, Scalia makes it perfectly clear that this decision rests on the fact that it was a curtalige of a home, not the dog. He further explains in footnote 3 found on page 9:

Italics in the original text, underline and bold added by me.

In the conclusion:



The decision rests on the fact that it is a home, and does not make all police dog sniffs a search, nor does it invalidate their use for probable cause. What you can't do is introduce the dog into a space that it already falls under the protection from searches, use it to sniff, then go get a warrant. This does not apply at immigration checkpoints because the public roads are not a person's personal property - the government has the power to have its agents on the public roads, in any proximity at all to anyone's vehicle, for the purposes of law enforcement.

So don't come in here talking about "Well DE you clearly didn't read the decision and hur durf biased third parties and SCalia clearly said this", not even cite the damn decision and then be completely wrong about what it says. Seriously, read it yourself. Don't come in here claiming I didn't read it when you either didn't, or are just so emotionally tied to the police always being wrong that you think you can just make it mean whatever you think it means if you're only condescending enough.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye:

You've claimed to have read the case, but require someone else to provide a link?

Very well ...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

There's you link to the decision in full.

First, you should note that the question at hand was whether or not the officers conducted a search. That was, amusingly, the sole question before the Supreme Court of the United States:


You should read all of section III in toto, because Scalia limits the Katz decision, limits the effects of decisions affecting other things, including your vehicle. Katz, per the Jardines decision, can only make it more difficult for the government to get a warrant, not less.


The following paragraph from Section III, however, is money ...


The key phrase is in parentheses -- "thus intruding on his 'effects'." The car is an effect. U.S. v. Jones decision actually does more harm to canine searches than anything else, because actually application would prevent them from bringing the dog close enough without implicit or explicit permission.

Scalia used the Jones precedent in Florida v. Jardines.

_________________

Khross, I don't see how that in any way affects a dog sniff on the outside of a vehicle, within public space.

Arathain:

Scalia's opinion and Kagan's concurrence both argue that drug-sniffing dogs are specialized tools not commonly owned by members of the general public. That contention means drug-sniffing dogs fail the Katz-test on their face: they can detect things a human being cannot detect unaided. Jardines and Jones, were the precedents and rulings applied appropriately, invalidated the usual causal chain for vehicle searches and drug busts. That said, look at the quote about Katz in the previous post and Jones decision.

You don't need a drug dog to detect the use of most narcotics by a driver; you especially don't need a drug dog to detect pot being used while driving. Drug dogs, however, are specialized detection tools that obliterate any "reasonable expectation of privacy." Their use is already intruding, and Jones held that the car is an effect -- thus a constitutionally protected property area per the Fourth Amendment.

_________________

It should be the fact that drug dogs fail at rates greater than guessing that should bar their use as a end run around warrants.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No, I see that a GPS receiver planted on a vehicle is a violation, specifically because it is mounted on a vehicle. Drug dogs do not come in contact with the vehicle, and remain in public space.

I'm not seeing anything that supports your interpretation.

Arathain:

Then you haven't read the decision linked in this thread or being discussed. The drug dogs were bracketing while technically on public property, which is how the officers in Florida justified the initial warrant. And anything a dog could detect without coming into contact with the car is detectable by a human being.

That, however, is immaterial. The Jones decision rules a car to be an effect. Searching an effect requires a warrant, per the Fourth Amendment. Anything you take deliberate efforts to conceal from external observation has an inherent expectation of privacy, particularly the contents of your vehicle. And, yes, drug dogs have to come into contact with the vehicle to detect anything someone took deliberate measures to conceal.

_________________

Or, the fact that their handlers are often willing and able to instigate a false positive response from the dog.



I think you may be unfamiliar with the actual behavior of a drug detection dog when searching a vehicle.

Training:


Real Life:

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That's because there isn't anything. Whether a drug dog is owned by the general public or not is not important in the decision until we come to the point of bringing it into a home's curtilige. There isn't anything at all in the decision that supports Khross, which is why he didn't want to link it. If the Supreme Court had wanted to change established law on drug dogs in general they would have said so in no uncertain terms - the Court is not in the habit of being coy about its rulings, and of all justices Scalia is not the one to change the precedent by any means other than directly saying so.

A member of the public may enter your curtelige for the purpose of making contant with you and attempting to conduct consensual business. He can't come into your curtelige and prowl about the exterior of your home. Both of those rules also apply to police officers who do not have a warrant.

Having a dog sniff about one's porch is not "consensual business" by any reasonable interpretation. It falls into the equivalent of "prowling about". However, as the decision makes quite clear, this is because it is a person's home, and within their curtelige. It really has nothing to do with the dog specifically.

In public, it's irrelevant that the average person doesn't have access to drug dogs. It's in public. People are not being searched by the dog when it sniffs their vehicle any more than someone looks in the window is (usually; if the dog physically goes into the vehicle that might be different.)

And no, handlers are not "willing and able" to induce a false positive in the dog. Sometimes the dog will produce a false positive on his own though - and the reason is quite simple. When the dog detects something, it does its "alert" behavior and is rewarded with its toy; the reason being that is how dogs are trained, with simple conditioning to "if I smell this odor I do this behavior and get a treat". Eventually however, the dog hasn't had it's treat in a long time and just does its behavior because it wants a treat. The handler must watch for this. Trying to "induce" the dog to do this would render the dog worthless eventually, since you'd be training it to alert to different stimuli.

In any case, the fact is that it isn't a search. One's stance on drug policy, the reliability of the dog, and one's beliefs about the police don't change that. The rules for what is and isn't a search are not controlled by the advisability of the particular social policy they may be used to enforce.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which I already linked. I had already read the decision Khross, I didn't need you to provide the link - I'm just pointing out the fact that you didn't, when you needed to. You were using the decision to support your position, it's your job to establish how it does so. It's just an example of the fact that you have one standard for you, and another for everyone else. You want to engage in bare assertion, but call others out on it.



Which I did read. The reason the officer conducted a search was that they were within the home's curtelige which is essentially part of the home itself. This does not mean the same behavior is a search everywhere.



The GPS receiver was physically attached to the defendant's vehicle. A dog is not; it detects odors eminating from the vehicle, not really any differently than hearing the vehicle or seeing it. So no, it isn't "money". The situations are simply not comparable. by the argument you are using, hearing or seeing the vehicle is also a search.



Placing an item in or on a vehicle obviously intrudes on it in a way smelling it does not.



Yes, because of the nature of the physical intrusion in both cases -- affixing an object in one (not merely coming in contact with it, but actually affixing something to it) and entering the curtelige in the other.

Neither of these applies to detection of smells - or anything else - radiating from the vehicle. The decision does not say that. Your points have all been addressed, and are not supportable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, the handlers can and do cause the dog to alert falsely.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime ... olice-dogs

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Both studies indicate that it's the handler's causing it unintentionally based on their beliefs - not that they are "willing and able to instigate it" i.e. they do not indicate it's deliberate.

The second article is trying really hard to imply it's deliberate, and does point out that the Las Vegas police performed illegal searches in other ways (opening packeges and poking holes in them) but that does not indicate deliberate cuing of the dog, and even if it did it would be specific to the LVPD.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahhh, yes, the parsing begins.

The studies show that it's not the dog doing it on his own (contrary to the bare assertions thrown about), it's the handler causing it - unintentionally, or otherwise.
That gives us the "able".

No, the article is not implying anything. The lawsuit brought by the police officers states that it's the case.
The whole "poking holes in packages" tripe you're using to deny the obvious is directly contradicted by the article: "The reliability of drug dogs and their handlers is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in state district court by two Nevada Highway Patrol K-9 troopers and a consultant, who claim that the Metropolitan Police Department's police dogs, and eventually NHP's own dogs, were "trick ponies" that responded to their handlers' cues, and therefore routinely violated citizens' rights to lawful search under the Fourth Amendment."
Blithly dismissing it because "that would limit it to the LVPD" is transparent BS, as well as contrary to the article where they speak of the Nevada Highway Patrol as well as this gem: "And the abuses weren't limited to their own department, they claim."

In any event, the police know that the police never lie, so it's pointless to try to convince one otherwise.
That gives us the "willing".

Therefore:
Willing and Able.

I already feel dirty responding this much; I have no illusions that you're done with this, but I know I am.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Diamondeye:

Actually, publically owned right of ways are part of a house's curtilage. And, there is something to see ...

As Vindicarre very succinctly proved with about 6 minutes of video: drug dogs can't search your car without intruding upon its physical space or entering it.

Likewise, it does matter if drug dogs are owned by the general public, because there non-generality is a HUGE component of Kagan's concurrence -- something else you would know if you had actually read the decision.

Two precedents ruling a car an effect. A very clear statement that personal effects are constitutionally protected property. And a concurrence that indicates that drug dogs are a vehicle of search precisely because they are used to ostensibly detect things that a human officers is incapable of detecting themselves.

All of those things are in the text linked above and true. There's a reason the Georgia Highway Patrol and Florida Highway Patrol stopped their automatic search requests during vehicle stops in the last 2 years: a car has been ruled a constitutionally protected effect in the Jones decision. The dogs must be in contact with and intrude upon the vehicle to conduct their search. A dog's nose is not a "plain sight" qualifier, otherwise Jardines would be in prison, because the testimony indicates the dog was bracketing before it left the right of way.

Furthermore, Scalia invalidated any claims, past and present, that law enforcement officers could have implicit consent to search. You can only search with explicit consent or a warrant, excepting a very few limited circumstances that Scalia further qualified and limited.

A vehicle is a personal effect.
Personal effects are constitutionally protected property areas.
Constitutionally protected property areas require a warrant to search.

_________________

This might just be my European background talking, but it's utterly incomprehensible to me how so many people aren't absolutely terrified of taking the kind of attitude displayed in the first post with law enforcement officials. Sure, act like an ******* to the guy who pretty much has the ability to arbitrarily destroy your life, that's a brilliant idea. If she were to take that tone and attitude with a German cop the best case for her would be losing that car plus a few thousand Euro fine. Try it on an Italian cop and she could be headed down to the station for some "enhanced interrogation."