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.

 AlexHolker wrote:
If there was a warrant, the warrant was invalid, because a judge does not have the power to authorise an illegal search. All that would mean is that the judge along with the cops should be locked up like the rapists they are.

Cavity searches are not necessarily illegal.

 djones520 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Was a warrant issued or not? If so, the case will be dropped pretty quickly.

If there was a warrant, the warrant was invalid, because a judge does not have the power to authorise an illegal search. All that would mean is that the judge along with the cops should be locked up like the rapists they are.

What? The judge granting authority for the search makes it legal. On what grounds would you have declared the search illegal with a warrant? Just because a person refuses the search doesn't make it illegal.

I think if the initial reason for the warrant was invalid, then the search would be illegal (in the sense that any evidence would be thrown out later or that that person could sue for damages). If this drug dog is crap and doesn't meet standards/have certifications/whatever the heck you do with dogs, then you could later argue that reasonable cause didn't exist after all and the search was illegal.

Now I don't think that this would automatically mean that the judge is in the wrong here. If the judge is presented with what he thought was valid and accurate probable cause then he has every reason (and I would even argue the responsibility) to act on the information given to him and sign that warrant. Probable cause that was obtained wrongfully and crappy execution of the warrant is on the cops. But the judge shouldn't be punished for acting on what he thought was valid information.

I wonder what proportion of drug dog detections are false positives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder what proportion of drug dog detections are false positives.

It ranges from "a few" to "most of them"; depending on the situation.

Not that it matters, of course; the SCOTUS said that doesn't generally matter because reasons.

 AlexHolker wrote:
If there was a warrant, the warrant was invalid, because a judge does not have the power to authorise an illegal search. All that would mean is that the judge along with the cops should be locked up like the rapists they are.

Or, if a warrant was issued, there's a good chance that it was issued because legitimate probable cause (beyond what is mentioned in the story) existed to authorize a search. Obviously the judge could have been breaking the law as well, but if there's "more the story" (the post I was responding to) then it will be easily discovered in the form of a warrant. If this "you searched me without a warrant" lawsuit lasts more than a few minutes in court it's because no such warrant ever existed and "there's more to the story" is an absurd argument.

Land of the free cavity searches. Though in this case it cost $5,000 and all your dignity.

The interesting thing seems to be the handler giving the dog a signal when it was inspecting this lady. I'm no expert on dogs but isn't patting something generally the signal to jump on it or look/sniff more intently?

Hopefully if nothing else the charges for medical imaging should be dropped. Charging for things you have not concented to have done and indeed have had forced upon you against your will seems overly harsh and screams of forcing people to retroactively give concent to cover the officers and hospital against exactly this kind of suit by threat of a huge bill on top of any other charges.

I should mention from my reading, it would appear that the dogs actually are infallible, or close to it from a technical perspective: that is the false positives stem from the dog responding to a perceived signal from the handler. I'm not saying bad faith, generally, simply that dogs are obviously very attuned to body language and sloppy technique leads to it.

 Peregrine wrote:
...legitimate probable cause...

There is nothing that would qualify as probable cause for this kind of treatment. God Himself could tell them that she's got drugs hidden in her ass, and they'd still be morally obligated to tell him to feth off.

You see, if you are going subject someone to an invasive search, it should be because you actually give a feth about the results. If you subject someone to a pat down and it turns up empty, that is evidence that you were incorrect and should apologise and quit harassing them. It is not evidence that they're better at hiding the drugs than you thought, and you need to advance to a strip search, then a cavity search, then drugging them against their will and forcing them to defecate in front of you, until even your diseased imagination runs out of ways to search them.

Goes double when apparently you have pulled the person as a lucky random winner rather than because of... you know... actually thinking they are carrying drugs...

It's extraordinary they think they can issue you a bill for the procedures involved in forcing an unwanted examination upon you, particularly when you're innocent. Much of this story looks like an abuse of power and use of intimidation rather than good policing.

The Chinese government bills the family of executed criminals for the cost of the bullets.

Isn't there cases of drug traffickers who have successfully hidden drugs in their rectum?

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't there cases of drug traffickers who have successfully hidden drugs in their rectum?

Yeah, this. I think this lady is "collateral damage" in the obviously unwinnable "War on Drugs"

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't there cases of drug traffickers who have successfully hidden drugs in their rectum?

Stopping the government raping people is more important than empowering the government to stop every single method of transporting drugs.

 AlexHolker wrote:
There is nothing that would qualify as probable cause for this kind of treatment. God Himself could tell them that she's got drugs hidden in her ass, and they'd still be morally obligated to tell him to feth off.

I don't think you understand how searches work. Refusing to consent to a search doesn't meant that you can't be searched, it just means that the police have to meet the burden of probable cause to justify the search. Nothing the police did was unusual if probable cause existed and a legitimate warrant was issued. The issue here isn't the search methods, it's the apparent fact that they were done without the required justification, which means they cross the line from legitimate search into abuse of power.

If you subject someone to a pat down and it turns up empty, that is evidence that you were incorrect and should apologise and quit harassing them. It is not evidence that they're better at hiding the drugs than you thought, and you need to advance to a strip search, then a cavity search, then drugging them against their will and forcing them to defecate in front of you, until even your diseased imagination runs out of ways to search them.

That is not even close to true. Failing to find anything with a simple pat down is only evidence of innocence if there was no reason to believe you were going to find anything. If it's a random search of every tenth person in line then yes, a pat down with no evidence should mean that you let the person go. If it's a search based on a recorded phone conversation where the subject of the search states that they are going to be transporting the drugs at a certain time and place, and the search is conducted at that time and place with a legitimate warrant, then you don't stop at a pat down because it's indisputable fact that a pat down doesn't catch everything.

"54 year old woman"

Uh, lady... I don't think...

"5000 dollar bill"

Well. That's not really right at all. Why should she have to pay to be violated?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't there cases of drug traffickers who have successfully hidden drugs in their rectum?

Stopping the government raping people is more important than empowering the government to stop every single method of transporting drugs.

Exactly.