If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scotus Blog)   SCOTUS (unanimously): Once a dog has been trained to sniff for drugs, it doesn't matter how many false positives it's indicated, or if anyone's even kept track - its signal unconditionally establishes probable cause for a search   (scotusblog.com) divider line 359
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, probable cause, Florida Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan, no-contest plea, unanimous decision, dogs  
•       •       •

3478 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 9:39 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 05:26:43 PM
"If a man wearing a Nazi SS uniform kicks your door in, it doesn't matter.  He has exhibited a posture of authority and he can arrest you and  steal all your sh*t.  The august and high minded body of this court decrees it so."  Ever wonder what these fartknockers would do if they had to get an  actual job or live by the laws they blithely stuff up the constitution's flue?  My guess is starve.
 
2013-02-19 05:35:48 PM
ugh.  Sometimes I agree with my father.  I am in an abusive relationship with my nation.  I hate it, but I stay for the kids.
 
2013-02-19 05:41:26 PM
Well it's a good thing I'm more of a cat kind of guy.
 
2013-02-19 05:42:58 PM
www.dogsinduds.com
 
2013-02-19 05:50:21 PM

nekom: ugh.  Sometimes I agree with my father.  I am in an abusive relationship with my nation.  I hate it, but I stay for the kids.


Yeah. I keep thinking that if I work harder on my relationship with the nation, the nation will change. I just need to be patient.
 
2013-02-19 05:54:53 PM

Bontesla: nekom: ugh.  Sometimes I agree with my father.  I am in an abusive relationship with my nation.  I hate it, but I stay for the kids.

Yeah. I keep thinking that if I work harder on my relationship with the nation, the nation will change. I just need to be patient.


It doesn't mean to keep beating us, but we keep making it mad
 
2013-02-19 06:05:48 PM
I'm sure this will stand until Justice Robert's nephew is busted with a half ounce.
 
2013-02-19 06:18:59 PM
This is why winning the Presidential election to get a Liberal next on the Supreme Court was important?

Hahahahahaha!

Suckers
 
2013-02-19 06:46:29 PM
That opinion is just full of guano.
 
2013-02-19 07:28:10 PM
It's nice to see they can agree on something, I guess.
 
2013-02-19 07:50:41 PM
Here's a tip: Don't smuggle drugs or hide drugs.
 
2013-02-19 07:54:17 PM

cman: This is why winning the Presidential election to get a Liberal next on the Supreme Court was important?

Hahahahahaha!

Suckers


No, there are about 30 other cases that are why. This wasn't on anyone's radar.

You can't possibly be a dumb as you seem ... daily.
 
2013-02-19 07:54:59 PM

WTF Indeed: Here's a tip: Don't smuggle drugs or hide drugs.


Here's a tip: Drug sniffing dogs make mistakes.
 
2013-02-19 07:56:32 PM

MacEnvy: cman: This is why winning the Presidential election to get a Liberal next on the Supreme Court was important?

Hahahahahaha!

Suckers

No, there are about 30 other cases that are why. This wasn't on anyone's radar.

You can't possibly be a dumb as you seem ... daily.


I am as dumb as I seem

In fact I should probably just end it
 
2013-02-19 07:57:55 PM

WTF Indeed: Here's a tip: Don't smuggle drugs or hide drugs.


That's not how our constitution works.
 
2013-02-19 08:00:45 PM

2wolves: Here's a tip: Drug sniffing dogs make mistakes.


"Well boys, Lassie made one mistake too many. Time to "retire" her."
 
2013-02-19 08:06:16 PM

Bontesla: That's not how our constitution works.


Actually this ruling is exactly how our Constitution works. Just because, like the Teabaggers, you have some alternate version of what the Constitution means doesn't make your version right.  You know how wrong you are about this? Every member of the Supreme Court agreed with it.  So not for nothing, but I'm going to defer to what eight highly intelligent justices(and Clarence Thomas) say about it.
 
2013-02-19 08:10:03 PM
so why bother actually training a dog to find drugs in the first place?  just train the dog to give false positives on command of the officer holding his leash and its all good.
 
2013-02-19 08:13:47 PM

Weaver95: so why bother actually training a dog to find drugs in the first place?  just train the dog to give false positives on command of the officer holding his leash and its all good.


Because that would be illegal since only trained dogs are allowed give probable cause, and such a program would be massively ineffective and time consuming. Don't be obtuse.
 
2013-02-19 08:17:04 PM

WTF Indeed: Here's a tip: Don't smuggle drugs or hide drugs.


I don't.  Never have, never well.  Here's a tip:  I don't want my 4th amendment rights violated because some dog licked his balls and the trainer said "Hoo boy, we got a hit!  Time to ransack your car!"

Fark that noise.
 
2013-02-19 08:21:47 PM

WTF Indeed: Weaver95: so why bother actually training a dog to find drugs in the first place?  just train the dog to give false positives on command of the officer holding his leash and its all good.

Because that would be illegal since only trained dogs are allowed give probable cause, and such a program would be massively ineffective and time consuming. Don't be obtuse.


how is it illegal?  seriously - given this SCOTUS ruling, how can you prove in a court of law that the dog gave a false positive?  this ruling seems to indicate that if a drug dog says you've got drugs then the cops can tear your life apart until they find those drugs...and there's nothing you can say or do about it.

it'd be cheap to train a dog to respond to a handler's commands and less time consuming than actually training a dog to find illegal drugs.  since the drug dog is now apparently above and beyond approach and cannot be cross examined....there goes the 4th amendment.
 
2013-02-19 08:22:49 PM
Not cool, SCROTUS, not cool.
 
2013-02-19 08:23:13 PM

cman: I am as dumb as I seem

In fact I should probably just end it


If you're serious, please seek help from someone you trust. If you need someone to talk to I'm happy to lend an ear. There is always a better time ahead and people who care about you.

If you're not serious, that joke isn't funny.
 
2013-02-19 08:25:03 PM
cman:

In fact I should probably just end it

can I have your stuff?
 
2013-02-19 08:28:23 PM
That's not quite what the Court said, subby (as they also said a defendant must be allowed to put forth a challenge to the use of the evidence on the basis of any evidence purporting to show that the dog was providing a false positive or was being signaled to by the LEO), but sure, go with it.
 
2013-02-19 08:28:38 PM
Soon enough we will need to keep extra cash on hand to stave off the police beatings.  Well I guess this is how most of the 3rd world is treated.
 
2013-02-19 08:28:51 PM

Weaver95: how is it illegal?  seriously - given this SCOTUS ruling, how can you prove in a court of law that the dog gave a false positive?  this ruling seems to indicate that if a drug dog says you've got drugs then the cops can tear your life apart until they find those drugs...and there's nothing you can say or do about it.

it'd be cheap to train a dog to respond to a handler's commands and less time consuming than actually training a dog to find illegal drugs.  since the drug dog is now apparently above and beyond approach and cannot be cross examined....there goes the 4th amendment.


Read the article, the case, and decision before you start diving into massive police conspiracies to create shadow junta police state.
 
2013-02-19 08:30:21 PM

Weaver95: so why bother actually training a dog to find drugs in the first place?  just train the dog to give false positives on command of the officer holding his leash and its all good.


Well, first the dog has to be certified.

THEN you train it to give false positives.
 
2013-02-19 08:34:32 PM

I know this is Fark, but let's keep our heads, okay? On another site, GW law professor Orin Kerr writes about the decision:

The Supreme Court decided

If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog's alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.
Defense attorneys can then rebut the presumption with specific evidence:
A defendant, however, must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog's reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses. The defendant, for example, may contest the adequacy of a certification or training program, perhaps asserting that its standards are too lax or its methods faulty. So too, the defendant may examine how the dog (or handler) performed in the assessments made in those settings. Indeed, evidence of the dog's (or handler's) history in the field, although susceptible to the kind of misinterpretation we have discussed, may sometimes be relevant, as the Solicitor General acknowledged.
Perhaps I am misreading this, but at first blush it seems that the Court has said there is no particular test and then created a particular test: Certification from a "bona fide" organization based on reliability "in a controlled setting" or "recent[] and successful[]" completion of a training program creates a presumption of probable cause that then can be rebutted by defense counsel.
 
2013-02-19 08:35:23 PM
I'm surprised there isn't a big market for Police State erotic fanfic given the imaginative nature of the people who think we live in a police state.

"50 Shades of Grey-Booted Officer"
 
2013-02-19 08:36:04 PM

cman: I am as dumb as I seem

In fact I should probably just end it


You've gone to this just because I stopped talking to you?
 
2013-02-19 08:37:55 PM

WTF Indeed:
Read the article, the case, and decision before you start diving into massive police conspiracies to create shadow junta police state.



I live in Pennsylvania - where this happened. I think my distrust of cops and the legal system is justified, thank you very much.
 
2013-02-19 08:41:44 PM

Weaver95: I live in Pennsylvania - where this happened. I think my distrust of cops and the legal system is justified, thank you very much.


I'm a fellow citizen of the Commonwealth.  Yeah, that's just an exclamation point on the whole system here, and no other state is much better.  Contempt of court?  Yes, complete and utter contempt for it all.  I've been in contempt of court for years now.
 
2013-02-19 08:41:47 PM

WTF Indeed: I'm surprised there isn't a big market for Police State erotic fanfic given the imaginative nature of the people who think we live in a police state.

"50 Shades of Grey-Booted Officer"


gee, now WHY would I have reason to distrust my local judges...

On February 18, 2011, following a trial, a federal jury convicted Ciavarella on 12 of the 39 counts he faced including racketeering, a crime in which prosecutors said the former judge used children "as pawns to enrich himself." In convicting Ciavarella of racketeering, the jury agreed with prosecutors that he and another corrupt judge had taken an illegal payment of nearly $1 million from a juvenile detention center's builder and then hidden the money.

oh yeah, that's why!
 
2013-02-19 08:42:50 PM

Weaver95: I live in Pennsylvania - where this happened. I think my distrust of cops and the legal system is justified, thank you very much.


So a in county 200 miles from where you live, two judges took bribes. Therefore a drug sniffing dogs shouldn't count as probable cause?  Okay then.....
 
2013-02-19 08:43:33 PM

nekom: Weaver95: I live in Pennsylvania - where this happened. I think my distrust of cops and the legal system is justified, thank you very much.

I'm a fellow citizen of the Commonwealth.  Yeah, that's just an exclamation point on the whole system here, and no other state is much better.  Contempt of court?  Yes, complete and utter contempt for it all.  I've been in contempt of court for years now.


In this state, you'd better gotdamn distrust the cops and court system.  they're corrupt as hell.
 
2013-02-19 08:46:23 PM

WTF Indeed: Weaver95: I live in Pennsylvania - where this happened. I think my distrust of cops and the legal system is justified, thank you very much.

So a in county 200 miles from where you live, two judges took bribes. Therefore a drug sniffing dogs shouldn't count as probable cause?  Okay then.....


actually, its about 120 miles away and that's just the two we know about.  if the guys at the top of the legal system are corrupt and taking bribes then how am I supposed to believe the guys down on the ground doing the dirty work aren't involved somehow?  the corruption reached that high before it got caught...odds are there's rot all through the system.
 
2013-02-19 08:48:57 PM
Godwinned in the boobies!

/end the WoD
 
2013-02-19 08:49:00 PM
Other Police State Erotic Fanfic Titles:

"Nineteen Eighty-Foursome"
"Brave New World in Bed"
"Animal Farmer's Daughters"
 
2013-02-19 08:50:03 PM

WTF Indeed: Other Police State Erotic Fanfic Titles:

"Nineteen Eighty-Foursome"
"Brave New World in Bed"
"Animal Farmer's Daughters"


its interesting how deluded you are.
 
2013-02-19 08:51:34 PM

ib_thinkin: I know this is Fark, but let's keep our heads, okay? On another site, GW law professor Orin Kerr writes about the decision:


Well, I'm no lawyer, but my experience is that the V.C. defers too much to juridical statism as it is, and the SCOTUS has essentially created a roaming probable cause for police to use whenever they want. The burden does not remain on the state to prove probable cause because by jettisoning the FL test they've already said that the training of the dog creates a presumption of credibility to begin with. By placing the burden of refuting the presumption on the defense, they've shifted the burden of proof more toward the defendant.
 
2013-02-19 08:53:42 PM

WTF Indeed: "Brave New World in Bed"


Rather: "Brave Nude World".
 
2013-02-19 08:53:43 PM
OBEY
 
2013-02-19 08:54:21 PM
how about we stop the circlejerk long enough to discuss what ib_thinkin pointed out.. that is essentially that the headline is full of shiat - the justices actually said the dogs have to be trained and reliable, and the defense has the opportunity to rebut that.
 
2013-02-19 08:55:08 PM

Somacandra: ib_thinkin: I know this is Fark, but let's keep our heads, okay? On another site, GW law professor Orin Kerr writes about the decision:

Well, I'm no lawyer, but my experience is that the V.C. defers too much to juridical statism as it is, and the SCOTUS has essentially created a roaming probable cause for police to use whenever they want. The burden does not remain on the state to prove probable cause because by jettisoning the FL test they've already said that the training of the dog creates a presumption of credibility to begin with. By placing the burden of refuting the presumption on the defense, they've shifted the burden of proof more toward the defendant.


now imagine a corrupt cop and/or prosecutor railroading someone on a bogus charge for kickbacks from a corporate prison official or three.  hey, it's already happened once in Pa.  no reason it couldn't happen again.  and i'm not even gonna mention drug seizure laws.  hope the cop doesn't like your car...you're about to have it seized and sold at auction.
 
2013-02-19 08:55:49 PM
Does USA Today work for you?

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the unanimous court, said searches generally would be upheld if "a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting," or if "the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs."


so not only is the headline full of shiat. it's FLAGRANTLY full of shiat. the dogs have to show that they're reliable!
 
2013-02-19 08:56:29 PM

Kazan: how about we stop the circlejerk long enough to discuss what ib_thinkin pointed out.. that is essentially that the headline is full of shiat - the justices actually said the dogs have to be trained and reliable, and the defense has the opportunity to rebut that.


We already did that. When presented with the evidence, those defending the headline's inference started into "The whole government is corrupt and out to get us." So now we are making Police State Erotic Fanfic titles.
 
2013-02-19 08:58:33 PM

Weaver95: oh yeah, that's why!


Do you have a similar distrust of teachers? There are some that have sex with students, I'm told. How about parents? Some of them beat their children. Do you hold a similar level of contempt for pilots? Some of them fly drunk. When out on the street at night, do you constantly fear for you life around other people? Some people kill other people for their wallets.

Just because you can link to certain cases of abuse does not mean that your paranoia about law enforcement is reasonable. People are good and bad in all walks of life, and some of the bad people are in power, the good news is that we have a system which catches them and publishes the results so that you can post them on the internet and be afraid.

This particular Supreme Court decision seems reasonable to me. It's saying that a trained police dog can generate probable cause, and that the defendant has the right to challenge that cause in court. This is the same as saying that the police officer who "heard someone call for help" has probable cause to search your place, and is as capable of being abused. The thing is, if they are wrong nearly as often as they are right, as in the case of all of you who don't want to get pulled over by a random dog's bark, then if they DO ever get anything, it's going to hurt their case because it makes the probable cause weaker, since they've had so many false positives, so in the long run, just guessing hurts them more than it helps, and therefore it probably won't be abused because the cops like farking with you for shiats and giggles.
 
2013-02-19 09:00:11 PM

nmrsnr: ...


what this man said, ALL OF IT.

stop panicking long enough to think Weaver. chill man.
 
2013-02-19 09:00:16 PM

WTF Indeed: I'm surprised there isn't a big market for Police State erotic fanfic given the imaginative nature of the people who think we live in a police state.

"50 Shades of Grey-Booted Officer"


"The Turner Diaries" is already a thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report