Posted on 02/27/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by Kaslin
Imagine that a police officer, after taking it upon himself to search someone's car, is asked to explain why he thought he would find contraband there. "A little birdie told me," he replies.
Most judges would react with appropriate skepticism to such a claim. But substitute "a big dog" for "a little birdie," and you've got probable cause.
Or so says the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week unanimously ruled that "a court can presume" a search is valid if police say it was based on an alert by a dog trained to detect drugs. The court thereby encouraged judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine's capabilities, reinforcing the alarmingly common use of dogs to justify invasions of privacy. Drug-detecting dogs are much less reliable than widely believed, with false-positive error rates as high as 96 percent in the field. A 2006 Australian study found that the rate of unverified alerts by 17 police dogs used to sniff out drugs on people ranged from 44 percent to 93 percent.
Police and prosecutors commonly argue that when a dog alerts and no drugs are found, "the dog may not have made a mistake at all," as Justice Elena Kagan put it, writing for the Court. Instead, it "may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate."
This excuse is very convenient -- and completely unfalsifiable. Furthermore, probable cause is supposed to hinge on whether there is a "fair probability" that a search will discover evidence of a crime. The possibility that dogs will react to traces of drugs that are no longer present makes them less reliable for that purpose.
So does the possibility that a dog will react to smell-alike odors from legal substances, distractions such as food or cues from their handlers. Given all the potential sources of error, it is hard to assess a dog's reliability without looking at its real-world track record. That is why the Florida Supreme Court, in the 2011 decision that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned, said police should provide information about a dog's hits and misses.
"The fact that the dog has been trained and certified," it said, "is simply not enough to establish probable cause," especially when, as in most states, there are no uniform standards for training or certification.
Kagan, by contrast, minimized the significance of a dog's success at finding drugs in the field. She said police testing in artificial conditions is a better measure of reliability, even though handlers typically know where the drugs are hidden and can therefore direct the animals to the right locations, either deliberately or subconsciously.
Instead of requiring police to demonstrate that a dog is reliable, this decision puts the burden on the defense to show the dog is not reliable through expert testimony and other evidence that casts doubt on the training and testing methods used by police. But experts are expensive, and police control all the relevant evidence.
Police even determine whether the evidence exists. Many departments simply do not keep track of how often dog alerts lead to unsuccessful searches, and this decision will only encourage such incuriosity.
The court previously has said that police may use drug-sniffing dogs at will during routine traffic stops and may search cars without a warrant, based on their own determination of probable cause. Now that it has said a dog's alert by itself suffices for probable cause, a cop with a dog has the practical power to search the car of anyone who strikes him as suspicious.
Even the question of whether a dog did in fact alert may be impossible to resolve if there is no video record of the encounter, which is often the case. As Florida defense attorney Jeff Weiner puts it, the justices "have given law enforcement a green light to do away with the Fourth Amendment merely by uttering the magic words, 'My dog alerted.'"
He excerpts those parts most relevant to his point, and then includes a link to the entire article so his readers can decide whether they regard his excerpts as fair. In most cases, his excerpts agree pretty well with the broader points in the article. In a few cases they don't and readers' comments call him out on that.
Perhaps your concern is that people will infer that because there are occasional reports of cops doing bad things, there are probably be many more times when cops do bad things that are not reported. Perhaps some people will draw such inferences, but that's not the inference I draw. Rather, I draw inferences from the fact that even when cops' bad actions come to light, there's little or no desire on the part of there departments to hold them accountable. To my mind that indicates very strongly that even if such incidents may be "isolated" today, they are unlikely to remain so.
Suppose that a group of cops who have a warrant for 742 Evergreen Terrace bash down the door of 744 Evergreen Terrace and accost the occupants therein. Is there any reason why any and all cops involved on the raid should not be prosecuted for robbery? Such an officer is not lawfully serving a warrant. Forcibly entering a dwelling and accosting the occupants is robbery, and the fact that the cop has a warrant for some other dwelling is no justification. I see no reason for the punishment of a cop who engages in such conduct any less harsh than the punishment for anyone else who does so.
You and I may have different perceptions about how often the above sort of thing happens, but whether such things happen once a weak or once a decade, in those cases where it does happen, can you articulate any reason the cops shouldn't be prosecuted for robbery? I'm not talking about cases where a warrant which should have said 742 Evergreen Terrace got mistyped as 744. I'm talking about cases where the warrant clearly identified an address which was different from the one that was raided. How many (if any) cases can you identify any such cases in which cops searching an address not on their warrant were actually prosecuted as robbers? Can you offer any good reason why the number of stories of cops who raid the wrong address should significantly exceed the number of stories of cops being prosecuted for doing so?
You make unsubstantiated allegations and accusations like liberals, but claim to be a Republican.
I guess in your worldview, you are the only one allowed to pass judgement on the posts of others
There is a difference between passing judgement and making false accusations. That you seem incapable of grasping the fact is just another strike against you, LIEberTARDian.
Of course he does. He has an agenda.
I draw inferences from the fact that even when cops' bad actions come to light, there's little or no desire on the part of there departments to hold them accountable.
Of course you do, you have the same agenda. Have you ever taken the time to do a "cop sentenced" search? What can you infer from all those cases?
Suppose
A simplified hypothetical does nothing to support your LIEberTARDian case.
Even if the cop somehow knew that for every 9 people that visited the store from Illinois to make legitimate purchases, there would be one who was buying illegitimate cigarettes, that would not justify harassing nine law-abiding citizens for each bootlegger that was caught. A cop who used such a strategy, however, could appear to his superiors as taking effective action against smugglers. After all, they're not the innocent people getting harassed by the cop.
The Constitution doesn't give a numeric probability requirement when defining probable cause, in some measure because there will be many inter-related probabilities involved. For example, if there is clear video of a person who is dressed very unusually (possibly uniquely) committing a crime, and a person dressed in such fashion is arrested near the crime scene, the person's dress may constitute probable cause for searching the person's car, because while it would be perfectly legal for a law-abiding person to dress in such fashion, it would seem highly unlikely that anyone not affiliated with the criminal would do so. By contrast, in the bootlegger scenario, the fact that it was not only legal for Illinoisans to go to the store and make legal purchases, but that many law-abiding Illinoisans routinely did so, would suggest that doing something that many other law-abiding citizens routinely do should not in and of itself be considered probable cause.
Are you insinuating this is occurring ? Or are you attempting to make another LIEberTARDian hypothetical?
Did you do the internet search for " cop sentenced"?
Most situations where cops are sentenced for crimes involve actions outside their nominal duties (e.g. dealing drugs, etc.). I'm interested in cases where cops with warrant for one address, broke into another address not listed on the warrant. Can you either offer any reason why a cop who does such a thing should not be prosecuted for robbery, or else offer a link to even one story of a cop who was so prosecuted?
Then why not list them all and the circumstances under which they occurred? You must have a list that you've been keeping from your internet searches, don't you?
Pick a profession and we’ll see. I suggest you start with Policemen, since that’s what the thread is about. I think you’d be surprised at how many admit to lying in court.
How many? What percentage of the approximately 800,000 LEOs in the US lie in court?
So go ahead. Point out one post you have made supporting limited, Constitutional government.
The fact that you have not done such is telling. You demand I answer your tangental questions. Yet you cannot present one post you have made on this thread in support of limited government.
So go get stuffed. I'm done with your deliberate obfuscations.
No LIEberTARDian, you make the accusations and allegations, you provide the proof, substantiation and documentation. Your bullsquat, liberal tactics aren't working. Just admit that you made a false accusation, or be viewed as a liar. Your choice.
I'm done
You're correct about that. You've been stuffed, skewered, roasted and now you are indeed, DONE.
Considering the lies are used to deprive people of their freedom, I should ask what percentage is acceptable to you? It’s difficult to measure because most lies are never discovered. I assume you wouldn’t mind of a cop’s lie put you in jail? I can tell you don’t consider it a big deal if it’s somebody else.
How’s that badge taste?
Zero, the same percentage that criminal activity and criminal apologists are acceptable to me.
I assume you wouldn’t mind of a cop’s lie put you in jail?
You know what is said about people who ASSume, don't you? Do you believe being an ass is becoming?
How’s that badge taste?
Never tried to eat one. Have you?
Good riposte. I'm not sure I could have thought of something that clever. I'm not suggesting you eat them, not when mere licking gives you the flavor.
Experienced court observers put the number of cops who lie in court at over 50%, easily. People are sent to jail for that and told they got off easy, ruining their lives. I agree 0% is the acceptable answer but it's way, way higher than that. It's been said an encounter with a cop is like landing a plane: it's a good one if you can walk away from it. When I was a kid being a cop was a considered noble profession. With today's SWAT teams and RICO, it's become a glorified street gang with fancy uniform and jackboots bent on theft of your assets.
In today's police state, if you're a victim of a crime you are better off if you "take care of it" on your own. Inviting a cop into your home to discuss a crime on you is inviting a cop to inspect it for criminal activity without a warrant.
I don't know what country you reside in, but in the US where I live and have traveled, I haven't experienced a police state.
Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.
Count this as one more casualty of the "war on drugs." It is simply additional collateral damage from using the American criminal justice system as the battlefield of that war. It stands alongside the wasteful wreckage of hundreds of thousands of imprisoned Americans locked up for drug use, and the destruction of Mexico as a functioning state because of criminal cartels enriched through outlawed American drug use. The corruption of America's police officers as the most identifiable group of perjurers in the courts is one more item on that list.
The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
Remarkably, New York City officers have been found to engage in patterns of deceit in cases involving charges as minor as trespass. In September it was reported that the Bronx district attorney’s office was so alarmed by police lying that it decided to stop prosecuting people who were stopped and arrested for trespassing at public housing projects, unless prosecutors first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure the arrest was actually warranted. Jeannette Rucker, the chief of arraignments for the Bronx district attorney, explained in a letter that it had become apparent that the police were arresting people even when there was convincing evidence that they were innocent. To justify the arrests, Ms. Rucker claimed, police officers provided false written statements, and in depositions, the arresting officers gave false testimony.
You must have missed a dose or two of your antidepressant medication when you wrote this... most middle aged guys buy shiny sports cars to get attention... In your case you write shi##y opinion pieces. Hey look at me.. I say the most outlandish things and without merit so i get attention.. Hello Im here..stay tuned next week when i paint the medical profession with the same paint brush...
Man, the apologists for these types of abuses all use the same playbook.
It's sad to see someone try to engage in a flamewar and then produce only a wet paper match.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.