Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/04/21 17:25:00
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
The Supreme Court told the police Tuesday they may not turn routine traffic stops into drug searches using trained dogs.
The 6-3 decision ends the increasingly common practice whereby officers stop a car for a traffic violation and then call for a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the vehicle.
The justices, both liberal and conservative, agreed that it was an unconstitutional "search and seizure" to hold a motorist in such cases.
More at the link (on my phone, so it's hard to copy&paste more).
Good news and I agree with the decision.
2015/04/21 17:30:28
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/04/21 17:47:05
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
I'm cool with the idea of police not being able to hold a speeder until a k9 unit shows up to sniff the car because they feel like it. But what if it was the k9 unit itself that pulled over the speeder?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/04/21 17:51:14
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm cool with the idea of police not being able to hold a speeder until a k9 unit shows up to sniff the car because they feel like it. But what if it was the k9 unit itself that pulled over the speeder?
They would still need probable cause. I support the supreme court's decision.
EDIT: Interestingly, the dissenters were Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. An odd trio to dissent. Of course, Scalia and Ginsburg agreeing on anything is also rather odd. It actually warms my heart that it wasn't a "party line" vote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/21 17:56:21
2015/04/21 17:58:01
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
I mildly favor this decision.
On the one hand I don't really have a problem with non-intrusive checks as part of the standard procedure for these kinds of encounters. Assuming the dogs were already on hand, I have a hard time getting angry about them giving traffic stops a sniff.
However, there's a rather fine line there somewhere between non-intrusive and abusive, it's probably just better to steer clear wide of it entirely. So even if the exact actions here aren't really a big deal to me, I'm kind of glad they're erring on the side of caution when it comes to police powers here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/21 17:58:49
2015/04/21 18:47:42
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
This won't really change much. If the officer smells drugs or sees paraphernalia/other signs of drug use that is more than enough probable cause to call in a dog.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: This won't really change much. If the officer smells drugs or sees paraphernalia/other signs of drug use that is more than enough probable cause to call in a dog.
I think the case was less about the search aspect of it, and more about the "detain" aspect of it. If they have a legitimate reason to suspect something, aka probable cause, they have always been able to detain you. It was during that course of detainment that they are able to then search your car (including via dog).
Now they can't detain you via the "since I have you here, let's just detain you for no reason and have a lock, since you are stopped already you know".
I have not read the actual opinion itself, so I don't know if a dog is allowed to run around during the course of a normal traffic stop and you just can't detain them while waiting on a dog, or if the dog is out period.
2015/04/21 19:23:13
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Grey Templar wrote: This won't really change much. If the officer smells drugs or sees paraphernalia/other signs of drug use that is more than enough probable cause to call in a dog.
It changes quite a bit because it removes the ability to say "you can let me search your car, or you can wait here while I get a dog to give me permission to search". Previously it was equivalent to having no protection from searches at all because a cop that wanted to search your car would always be able to find some way to interpret the dog's actions as evidence of drugs, if they weren't corrupt enough to just train the dog to go sit next to the car and make the "drugs" sign regardless of what it smells. Now the person authorizing the search is a human that can be challenged in court and required to provide clear justification.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2015/04/21 20:20:20
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Considering that having an air freshener or being nervous when stopped by a cop are 'probable cause' (Was in the article that I read...Not sure if it's the same one)...This ruling doesn't really do much.
2015/04/21 21:04:31
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Remember if they ask if they can search your vehicle, they don't have PC to search your vehicle. Even if they do, preserve your rights and respectfully decline all searches as a matter of policy but DO NOT RESIST.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/04/21 21:14:33
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Easy E wrote: Cops are very good at asking you questions in such a way that you willing give up your rights.
Only if you answer their questions.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/04/21 21:15:53
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
skyth wrote: Especially since they're already holding the possibility of giving you a ticket over your head.
NO
Assume ticket.
Anything you say will still result in a ticket unless you are a cute girl.
Eat the ticket. Drive in a safe manner. Keep your vehicle in working condition (lights etc). Be polite but reply that your have been advised by your dad not to agree to any searches and you would like to call him before you talk further (other than name, ID, and asking why you were stopped). Giving address and direction information is ok, it won't waive your right to not answer questions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/21 21:20:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/04/22 00:28:10
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Glad they ruled this way. 4th Amendment should be given wide latitude in it's application and scope and only very clear cut and well reasoned exceptions to it should be given.
skyth wrote: Especially since they're already holding the possibility of giving you a ticket over your head.
NO
Assume ticket.
Anything you say will still result in a ticket unless you are a cute girl.
Eat the ticket. Drive in a safe manner. Keep your vehicle in working condition (lights etc). Be polite but reply that your have been advised by your dad not to agree to any searches and you would like to call him before you talk further (other than name, ID, and asking why you were stopped). Giving address and direction information is ok, it won't waive your right to not answer questions.
Never give consent to search, whether or not you have anything in the vehicle. Warrant procurement exists for a reason. They cannot threaten you for not giving consent (well they can, but they're not supposed to).
If it's a traffic ticket, give name and birth date, and if they ask why you were stopped, say "I have no idea officer." even if you were doing 90 in a 15. Anything you say is evidence. It will be used against you. If you say "Well, i know i kinda blew that stop sign, but i swear i was only doing 40 in the 30 zone, not 55 like you say i was doing!" Bam. Admission. It's an old and time honored trick.
Never answer any question beyond name and date of birth, and immediately request presence of counsel if detained. If they say you're not under arrest, tell them you would like to end the interview and leave. If the answer is yes, get up, leave, call a lawyer (they'll be back). If the answer is no, calmly tell them that if they are not releasing you, you refuse to answer anymore questions without presence of counsel and inquire what is the state's policy that you are currently in for holding a person without charges. Say. Positively. Nothing. fething. Else. Until your lawyer shows up, even if its just a PD.
If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you. They are there to get incriminating evidence or a confession to use in court.
Being an ex-paralegal in the criminal law arena, I can't tell you how many cases i saw where the only real evidence anyone had was the suspects own fething yap he couldn't keep shut during questioning.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/22 00:38:17
Haight wrote: If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you.
What about the nice cop, who says he just wants to straighten this whole mess out, and who sent that nasty yelling cop away? It's OK to talk to him, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/22 00:38:33
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/04/22 02:49:50
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Haight wrote: If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you.
What about the nice cop, who says he just wants to straighten this whole mess out, and who sent that nasty yelling cop away? It's OK to talk to him, right?
I mean, yeah, you always want to talk to the reasonable guy...
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/04/22 06:41:32
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Haight wrote: Glad they ruled this way. 4th Amendment should be given wide latitude in it's application and scope and only very clear cut and well reasoned exceptions to it should be given.
skyth wrote: Especially since they're already holding the possibility of giving you a ticket over your head.
NO
Assume ticket.
Anything you say will still result in a ticket unless you are a cute girl.
Eat the ticket. Drive in a safe manner. Keep your vehicle in working condition (lights etc). Be polite but reply that your have been advised by your dad not to agree to any searches and you would like to call him before you talk further (other than name, ID, and asking why you were stopped). Giving address and direction information is ok, it won't waive your right to not answer questions.
Never give consent to search, whether or not you have anything in the vehicle. Warrant procurement exists for a reason. They cannot threaten you for not giving consent (well they can, but they're not supposed to).
If it's a traffic ticket, give name and birth date, and if they ask why you were stopped, say "I have no idea officer." even if you were doing 90 in a 15. Anything you say is evidence. It will be used against you. If you say "Well, i know i kinda blew that stop sign, but i swear i was only doing 40 in the 30 zone, not 55 like you say i was doing!" Bam. Admission. It's an old and time honored trick.
Never answer any question beyond name and date of birth, and immediately request presence of counsel if detained. If they say you're not under arrest, tell them you would like to end the interview and leave. If the answer is yes, get up, leave, call a lawyer (they'll be back). If the answer is no, calmly tell them that if they are not releasing you, you refuse to answer anymore questions without presence of counsel and inquire what is the state's policy that you are currently in for holding a person without charges. Say. Positively. Nothing. fething. Else. Until your lawyer shows up, even if its just a PD.
If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you. They are there to get incriminating evidence or a confession to use in court.
Being an ex-paralegal in the criminal law arena, I can't tell you how many cases i saw where the only real evidence anyone had was the suspects own fething yap he couldn't keep shut during questioning.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
2015/04/22 11:13:50
Subject: Re:SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
Haight wrote: Glad they ruled this way. 4th Amendment should be given wide latitude in it's application and scope and only very clear cut and well reasoned exceptions to it should be given.
skyth wrote: Especially since they're already holding the possibility of giving you a ticket over your head.
NO
Assume ticket.
Anything you say will still result in a ticket unless you are a cute girl.
Eat the ticket. Drive in a safe manner. Keep your vehicle in working condition (lights etc). Be polite but reply that your have been advised by your dad not to agree to any searches and you would like to call him before you talk further (other than name, ID, and asking why you were stopped). Giving address and direction information is ok, it won't waive your right to not answer questions.
Never give consent to search, whether or not you have anything in the vehicle. Warrant procurement exists for a reason. They cannot threaten you for not giving consent (well they can, but they're not supposed to).
If it's a traffic ticket, give name and birth date, and if they ask why you were stopped, say "I have no idea officer." even if you were doing 90 in a 15. Anything you say is evidence. It will be used against you. If you say "Well, i know i kinda blew that stop sign, but i swear i was only doing 40 in the 30 zone, not 55 like you say i was doing!" Bam. Admission. It's an old and time honored trick.
Never answer any question beyond name and date of birth, and immediately request presence of counsel if detained. If they say you're not under arrest, tell them you would like to end the interview and leave. If the answer is yes, get up, leave, call a lawyer (they'll be back). If the answer is no, calmly tell them that if they are not releasing you, you refuse to answer anymore questions without presence of counsel and inquire what is the state's policy that you are currently in for holding a person without charges. Say. Positively. Nothing. fething. Else. Until your lawyer shows up, even if its just a PD.
If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you. They are there to get incriminating evidence or a confession to use in court.
Being an ex-paralegal in the criminal law arena, I can't tell you how many cases i saw where the only real evidence anyone had was the suspects own fething yap he couldn't keep shut during questioning.
Haight wrote: If you are being questioned by police in relation as a suspect to a crime, even tangentially, they are not there to help you.
What about the nice cop, who says he just wants to straighten this whole mess out, and who sent that nasty yelling cop away? It's OK to talk to him, right?
Of course. He's a good cop, not like that bad cop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/22 11:16:33
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/12/24 12:41:48
Subject: SCOTUS limits drug-dog searches during routine traffic stops
I've had my car searched pretty much every time I've ever been pulled over since meeting my wife. She doesn't know how to say no to the popo. Got the sound card and monitor on a $1200 laptop broken the one time. Ignoring your nights is one thing, but acting like baggage handlers at the airport is just uncalled for.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
3100+
