Civil Asset Forfiture

24567

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    No, they happened. The fact is more than these happened, but NPR chose to write about those involving minorities only. This is called cherry picking and I think this is revealing of NPR's agenda. So they "MAY" have happened, but I don't rely on NPR to give me the whole story, just like MSNBC. I don't trust them for the whole truth.

    The seizures happened, but not the forfeitures. If I'd stopped a vehicle headed to Mexico with $40K, with the dog alerting on the car, I probably would have seized the money as well and let a court decide. To think forfeitures are illegal ignores this fact...court redressed the issues. They went through the legal process.

    Yes and had to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to get back what some cop assumed wasn't theirs. Note that most seizures aren't taking place at borders crossings, they're just people driving down the highway. It's the assumption that if you have more than a few dollars cash on you that you must be doing something wrong that I have a problem with. The law allows the police to take your property and you have to spend more money on lawyers and time in court to PROVE that you're innocent (in the case of seizures it's guilty until proven innocent). Imagine if instead of cash that this applied to guns. If you were pulled over, every time the police were allowed to ask if you had a gun in the car, and if they found one they could take it, no questions asked, because why would a law abiding citizen need a gun? And then you had to hire a lawyer and go to court to get it back. There isn't a chance in hell that you or any other gun owner would stand for that. Unfortunately cash doesn't have as powerful a lobby as guns and frankly the banking industry almost certainly tacitly approves of it, because practices like this just further scare people away from doing any business in cash so the banks get control of all your money (also see most companies forcing employees to use direct deposit). It all pushes towards a cashless system in which banks hold and track 100% of the money and transactions that take place in this country.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,985 Senior Member
    I get all my news and facts from Infowars!
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    Yes and had to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to get back what some cop assumed wasn't theirs. Note that most seizures aren't taking place at borders crossings, they're just people driving down the highway. It's the assumption that if you have more than a few dollars cash on you that you must be doing something wrong that I have a problem with. The law allows the police to take your property and you have to spend more money on lawyers and time in court to PROVE that you're innocent (in the case of seizures it's guilty until proven innocent). Imagine if instead of cash that this applied to guns. If you were pulled over, every time the police were allowed to ask if you had a gun in the car, and if they found one they could take it, no questions asked, because why would a law abiding citizen need a gun? And then you had to hire a lawyer and go to court to get it back. There isn't a chance in hell that you or any other gun owner would stand for that. Unfortunately cash doesn't have as powerful a lobby as guns and frankly the banking industry almost certainly tacitly approves of it, because practices like this just further scare people away from doing any business in cash so the banks get control of all your money (also see most companies forcing employees to use direct deposit). It all pushes towards a cashless system in which banks hold and track 100% of the money and transactions that take place in this country.

    So it's the banks pushing this? Cops and banks united to push toward a cashless society?

    And $40,000 buck is not just "a few dollars." I doubt if the majority of us could raise $40K in cash to ride down the road toward Mexico. Does this sound reasonable to you??

    Clearly you're paranoid, and not just in a good way. Never heard of such an opinion based on ...well, I don't know what it's based on.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,821 Senior Member
    Any cop shop using drug dogs alerting on cash as the only 'probable cause' to seize cash are lower down on the totem pole than the Mexican drug cartels. Studies have found that up to 85% of the cash in the U.S. is tainted with cocaine and other drug residue. When a gang banger robs you at gun point they at least don't hide behind a badge and the law to do it.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/new-study-finds-90-u-s-currency-cocaine-residue-article-1.401382

    Your money needs laundering.

    A new study found that almost all the bank notes in circulation in this country are contaminated with cocaine.

    An average of about 85% of US greenbacks had traces of the drug - up 20% since the same team did a similar study two years ago.

    "To my surprise, we're finding more and more cocaine in banknotes," said Dr. Yuegang Zuo, who led the researchers at the University of Massachusetts.

    "It could be related to the economic downturn, with stressed people turning to cocaine."

    Bills become drug money when users snort the powder through rolled up notes, or handle bills with powder-coated hands. Grains of cocaine then transfer to clean bills in pockets, wallets and bank counting machines across the country.

    Zuo presented his findings Monday at the biannual meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C. - the city that ranked highest in the survey for coke contamination.

    Fully 95% of the Washington bills sampled had cocaine on them. Of the 17 US cities tested, clean-living Salt Lake City had the lowest levels of contamination.

    New York was not tested.

    Levels of cocaine found ranged from .006 micrograms to 1,240 micrograms, or the equivalent of about 50 grains of sand. (That means you'd need 800 of the very dirtiest bills to extract a gram of coke, which has a street price of about $80.)

    "For the most part, you can't get high by sniffing a regular banknote, unless it was used directly in drug uptake or during a drug exchange," Zuo said in a release from the American Chemical Society.

    "It also won't affect your health and is unlikely interfere with blood and urine tests used for drug detection."

    Five dollar, $10 and $20 bills tended to be more contaminated than $1 or $100 bills.

    The researchers also looked at money from Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, and found just 20% of Chinese renminbi notes and only 12% of Japanese yen notes had coke on them.

    The Canadians and Brazilians were at US levels: 85% and 80% respectively.

    A 2007 federal drug use survey found 36 million Americans - or 14.5% of the population - had tried cocaine at least once. About 2.1 million - 0.8% of the population - had used it in the past month.

    The government estimates that Americans spend up to $77 billion annually on 300 metric tons of the drug.

    A German study in 2006 searched the Hudson River for by-products of human cocaine consumption and extrapolated that New Yorkers consume 16.4 tons a year.

    A study published last year in Trends in Analytical Chemistry comparing cocaine levels on banknotes in different countries found that U.S. notes were the most tainted.

    In Europe, Spanish Euro notes were the most contaminated, carrying five times the amount of cocaine as Euro notes circulating in Germany. Irish Euros were the cleanest in that study, though a year before, Irish authorities reported finding coke on 100% of the 45 bills they tested.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Tons of legitimate reasons why an individual might have thousands of dollars of cash on them. Small business owners come to mind. How much cash do you think the average dealer, or especially bigger dealers take home with them after a weekend selling at a gun show? For that matter, how much cash do many individuals carry with them to a gun show? Have you ever bought or sold a vehicle through a private party? Often those deals are cash deals, and most cars cost many thousands of dollars. According to one article I read more than half the seizures were of amounts less than $10k which is a very legitimate amount of money for any individual to have and there are hundreds of legitimate reason why they might be carrying that much money.

    On a slightly related topic, many of these searches involve drug dogs. While I've never dealt with the training of drug dogs, I did work on a project years ago that dealt with bomb dogs and while they have their place, they're highly unreliable and in the instance of drug dogs on traffic stops it certainly seems to me like they're a very easily abused method of gaining probable cause when there is none. All you have to do is bring in the dog, have them alert and you have probable cause. If they don't find anything, oh well, dogs are fallible, no harm. If they do the search and find no drugs, but find and take your cash, hey bonus!

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21/the-mind-of-a-police-dog
    The results? Dog/handler teams correctly completed a search with no alerts in just 21 of the 144 walk-throughs. The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false. Even more interesting, the search points designed to trick the handlers (marked by the red slips of paper) were about twice as likely to trigger false alerts as the search points designed to trick the dogs (by luring them with sausages). This phenomenon is known as the "Clever Hans effect," after a horse that won fame in the early 1900s by stomping out the answers to simply arithmetic questions with his hoof. Hans was indeed clever, but he couldn't do math. Instead he was reading subtle, unintentional cues from the audience and his trainer, who would tense up as Hans began to click his hoof, then relax once Hans hit the answer.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog
    The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia.

    For Hispanic drivers, the success rate was just 27 percent.

    Not exactly great success rates and the disparity based on race certainly lends at least some evidence to a hypothesis that at least in some cases dogs are induced to alert just because the handler is suspicious and wants to do a search vs. actually smelling drugs.

    Anyway none of this is to say these types of practices are definitely widely abused, but they do represent loopholes the size of semi-trucks that allow just about any cop or entire department that want's to to abuse their power with virtually no consequences.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    The guy with the $40K wasn't going to buy a vehicle. I think he was going to buy drugs. To look the other way when the guy has a weakly-explained excuse for having a large amount of money on a commonly used drug highway is not what I'd do. It is not my place to make up excuses for suspicious behavior. That's not doing a LEO job. Maybe the guy with the screwdrivers and the pry bar stopped at 3 a.m. says he is a carpenter, but he's probably a burglar.

    I used to have a drug dog for three or four years. He was extremely accurate. I'd have people hide bait in as many unlikely places as possible, and he'd find it. I've worked with dogs before and they were all accurate. They would give an alert on where the scent was, or where the drugs had been, not necessarily where drugs are.Although where the drugs are, the scent is there also. But the scent can be there after the drugs have been removed, which is why some say they're giving "false alerts." The issue of the accuracy of drug dogs has been heard in multiple court cases and held to be reliable. But the issue of searches being done based on alerts isn't a real issue, since those searches usually occur in a situation where a vehicle search is involved, and exigent circumstances being what they are, they're almost never challenged because they know they'll lose the case.

    Some dogs won't hunt when it's too hot, but they never gave a false alert, or mine didn't. He didn't refuse to work, either.

    Drug dog handlers have to keep detailed logs on how the dog reacts. There's not a question of accuracy that hasn't been tested in court.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,821 Senior Member
    Speaking of 'crack head' dogs, I had an interesting time going to work once on 4th of July holiday weekend. The local sheriff's offices and THP had a DUI checkpoint set up on the East side of the dam across the TN river I had to cross to get to work. I knew I'd probably end up with a double shift, so I'd grilled 2 steaks and baked a couple of potatoes to have something to eat at work. Stupid 'meth head' dog alerted on my truck, deputy made me open up the passenger side door and then get out. The dog handler took my lunch cooler off the seat when the dog 'alerted' on it, set the cooler on the pavement, and opened it. Ol' Rin Tin Tin glommed onto one of the steaks and chowed down. It was obvious from the smell in the vehicle what was in the cooler; the steaks were still warm. I had two plates one sitting on the other so the dog only messed up one.

    I think, but am not sure, that I used every word in "The Sailor's Book of Magic Words and Phrases" TWICE on those two, and the dog got his share of verbal abuse. THP officer came running, and after finding out what happened, also pitched a hissy fit on the two deputies and their 'dopey dog'.

    As an aside, one of the dope dog handlers in a nearby county got busted for carrying a little baggie of MJ in his pocket, and sticking his finger in the bag and then wiping it on the car door or trunk lid of a car that had been stopped. He got an all expenses paid extended vacation at the Brushy Mountain Prison and Resort complex.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,271 Senior Member
    Do the dogs walk on water too? It seems all the cops do! Watch out for those speeding bass boats!
    :roll:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    A dog cannot be induced to alert where there is no scent. The 44% of no drugs being seized doesn't sound off, as the scent is there but not necessarily the drugs are there. A LEO can't make a charge based on a dog's alert, which is why they have the search after the alert. No drugs, no charge.

    Teach, I await the case cite your brother made where he took money away from us citizens left an agent in lifetime poverty. ::jester:
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    The guy with the $40K wasn't going to buy a vehicle. I think he was going to buy drugs.
    Yes, and as you have said before, you don't have to care about that little innocent until proven guilty thing. So go ahead and take his money, and if he is innocent and has to spend time and money getting it back you can tell yourself it is all good. All you did was seize it. There was no forfeiture so no harm done.
    Gene L wrote: »
    To look the other way when the guy has a weakly-explained excuse for having a large amount of money on a commonly used drug highway is not what I'd do.
    Since when does someone need to have an excuse to perform a perfectly legal action? Oh that's right I forgot. One needs an excuse when cops are out stealing private property. The whole point of this thread.
    Gene L wrote: »
    It is not my place to make up excuses for suspicious behavior. That's not doing a LEO job.
    I thought your job was enforcing the law. If they have done nothing wrong, but act suspiciously, I suppose just take their stuff. Makes perfect sense now.
    Gene L wrote: »
    Maybe the guy with the screwdrivers and the pry bar stopped at 3 a.m. says he is a carpenter, but he's probably a burglar.
    I agree take his tools, or better yet, just arrest him instead, and let the courts decide. You can be Tom Cruise and start arresting people for future crimes. Maybe with some of the seized assets you can get a cool jetpack like they have in the movie.

    In the end Gene, your arguments in favor of Civil Asset Forfeiture have convinced me I was right in my disdain for the practice.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,271 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Teach, I await the case cite

    Keep waiting- - - - -I doubt if he's going to violate attorney-client privilege for a has-been County Mountie.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    If the case has been adjuticated, it's a public record. No attorney/client privilege involved. I'm sure your brother recognizes this. I'm not sure why you are reluctant to state what must be an honor for your brother.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    Yes, and as you have said before, you don't have to care about that little innocent until proven guilty thing. So go ahead and take his money, and if he is innocent and has to spend time and money getting it back you can tell yourself it is all good. All you did was seize it. There was no forfeiture so no harm done.

    Since when does someone need to have an excuse to perform a perfectly legal action? Oh that's right I forgot. One needs an excuse when cops are out stealing private property. The whole point of this thread.

    I thought your job was enforcing the law. If they have done nothing wrong, but act suspiciously, I suppose just take their stuff. Makes perfect sense now.

    I agree take his tools, or better yet, just arrest him instead, and let the courts decide. You can be Tom Cruise and start arresting people for future crimes. Maybe with some of the seized assets you can get a cool jetpack like they have in the movie.

    In the end Gene, your arguments in favor of Civil Asset Forfeiture have convinced me I was right in my disdain for the practice.

    In a seizure, there is no "guilty" since no crime was charged in the incident. Common sense plays a prominent role...you see a guy with $40K traveling down a highway that drug dealers use...what to do. Maybe, if you have a lot of resources you wait to tag the guy on the way back, but if you're a uniform, you do what you can.Glad you are convinced about your disdain, which doesn't change the law, which has been tested numerous times in court. Seizing is NOT "stealing," for which there are legal definitions which you probably need to study.

    In GA, it's illegal to possess "burglary tools," an offense that takes into evidence time, place, and history. A guy at 3 a.m. with a screwdriver and a pry bar is in deep do-do. Common sense will prevail. Is he breaking a law and doing something that would be legal if done at noon on the same day? Well, yes.The courts will almost always convict a guy described in the referenced offense. Especially if there have been burglaries in the neighborhood.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,585 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    A dog cannot be induced to alert where there is no scent.

    This may be true, but all we are left with is the cops' word. All a cop with a K9 has to say is "Fido alerted, get out of the car." The reliability of the dog isn't the issue, it's the cops that want to search a car for no or any reason whatsoever. When the search finds nothing, the cops can say anything they want. "You must have had drugs in here previously" is the most common response. If the cops find cash then it is confiscated because "you must be a drug dealer".

    There may be no charges filed, but citizens are violated. There is absolutely no accountability. No one can question the dog.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,585 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    In a seizure, there is no "guilty" since no crime was charged in the incident. Common sense plays a prominent role...you see a guy with $40K traveling down a highway that drug dealers use...what to do. Maybe, if you have a lot of resources you wait to tag the guy on the way back, but if you're a uniform, you do what you can.Glad you are convinced about your disdain, which doesn't change the law, which has been tested numerous times in court. Seizing is NOT "stealing," for which there are legal definitions which you probably need to study.

    In GA, it's illegal to possess "burglary tools," an offense that takes into evidence time, place, and history. A guy at 3 a.m. with a screwdriver and a pry bar is in deep do-do. Common sense will prevail. Is he breaking a law and doing something that would be legal if done at noon on the same day? Well, yes.The courts will almost always convict a guy described in the referenced offense. Especially if there have been burglaries in the neighborhood.


    Now I know why I have a healthy distrust of cops. You don't see a guy driving with $40,000. You stop EVERYONE and find a guy with $40,000. And then take it at gun point. You are right, it isn't theft, it's armed robbery.


    God help the citizens of GA who are carpenters driving late at night.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    This may be true, but all we are left with is the cops' word. All a cop with a K9 has to say is "Fido alerted, get out of the car." The reliability of the dog isn't the issue, it's the cops that want to search a car for no or any reason whatsoever. When the search finds nothing, the cops can say anything they want. "You must have had drugs in here previously" is the most common response. If the cops find cash then it is confiscated because "you must be a drug dealer".

    There may be no charges filed, but citizens are violated. There is absolutely no accountability. No one can question the dog.

    Well, you generally have the cop's word and a camera for evidence. Plus, you have $40, 000 cash which is basically unexplained on a drug highway.

    There is accountability and the word of a cop who has sworn an oath to tell the truth. If you do not take the sworn oath of an officer, I'm sorry for you. Few people would lie under oath knowing to prove it wrong would mean their jobs at least. But maybe you know otherwise. Question: would YOU lie under oath?
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Now I know why I have a healthy distrust of cops. You don't see a guy driving with $40,000. You stop EVERYONE and find a guy with $40,000. And then take it at gun point. You are right, it isn't theft, it's armed robbery.


    God help the citizens of GA who are carpenters driving late at night.

    This doesn't involve "carpenters driving late at night," it involves skulkers on foot late at night. I'm quite sure you have a similar law in your state. Although if a burglary late at night involving a motorized burglar is reported, the people with screw drivers and pry bars are going to have some 'spainin' to do.

    Been waiting to hear your explanation to the "carpenter" in NYC who was carrying a hatchet and attacked the cops. I suppose he was a victim of police harassment? Hmm.......
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Seizing is NOT "stealing," for which there are legal definitions which you probably need to study.
    Oh I understand what the law says. That is irrelevant. It is stealing. It may be legalized by some worthless politician, but it is theft non the less. Hide behind your "legal definition" all you want, but the scenario you described is theft any which way you look at it. Honestly Gene how can you even begin to defend the action you describe? You are taking someones money for no other reason than you think they might be up to no good. What do you do if they resist your armed robbery Gene? Are you going to shoot someone for trying to defend themselves against an armed robber? How can you even begin to wonder why there is a growing distrust of law enforcement?

    There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. What you are describing, and even advocating, is wrong. Plain and simple.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Although if a burglary late at night involving a motorized burglar is reported, the people with screw drivers and pry bars are going to have some 'spainin' to do.
    Well I am a carpenter. I drive my work truck or van as my everyday drivers. I certainly hope I don't get pulled late at night after a burglary, and sadly I really hope I don't get pulled by you Gene.
    Lets see hammer, pry bars, and screw drivers. Check: I am a burglar
    Tape, and gloves. Check: I am a rapist
    Gun, and knives. Check: I am a murderer
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    Oh I understand what the law says. That is irrelevant. It is stealing. It may be legalized by some worthless politician, but it is theft non the less. Hide behind your "legal definition" all you want, but the scenario you described is theft any which way you look at it. Honestly Gene how can you even begin to defend the action you describe? You are taking someones money for no other reason than you think they might be up to no good. What do you do if they resist your armed robbery Gene? Are you going to shoot someone for trying to defend themselves against an armed robber? How can you even begin to wonder why there is a growing distrust of law enforcement?

    There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. What you are describing, and even advocating, is wrong. Plain and simple.

    Actually, you're not "taking" someone's money, since in the examples they get it back. That's not stealing by any definition. It's a temporary thing, which you've obviously missed in your reading of the definition of "stealing,". Got to go back to basic research, and since we're talking about a legal definition, I must insist on a legal interpretation. Stealing means a permanent deprivation of valuables.

    What's "wrong" is some turkey driving down the road to Mexico with $40,000 in his car. That is stupid. It violates common sense.

    There has always been, while not a "mistrust," a resentment for LEOs in certain communities. It's not only real, it's also misplaced. I expect well-informed posters on this board, while not to reject the resentment, to at least understand it for what it is. If you can't, then join Al Sharpton and his ilk. Pretty bad company, but you chose it, not me.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    So go ahead and take his money, and if he is innocent and has to spend time and money getting it back you can tell yourself it is all good. All you did was seize it. There was no forfeiture so no harm done.
    Gene L wrote: »
    Actually, you're not "taking" someone's money, since in the examples they get it back. That's not stealing by any definition. It's a temporary thing, which you've obviously missed in your reading of the definition of "stealing,". Got to go back to basic research, and since we're talking about a legal definition, I must insist on a legal interpretation.

    Wow I had no Idea I was a prophet.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    I am done with this argument.:worthy: Its all you Gene. Have fun in your delusion.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    Well I am a carpenter. I drive my work truck or van as my everyday drivers. I certainly hope I don't get pulled late at night after a burglary, and sadly I really hope I don't get pulled by you Gene.
    Lets see hammer, pry bars, and screw drivers. Check: I am a burglar
    Tape, and gloves. Check: I am a rapist
    Gun, and knives. Check: I am a murderer


    Well, if you're out at 3 am, and there's a burglary or a rape or a kidnapping victim taped up, you're a good suspect. Without suspects, no crime would ever get solved. The law of the land requires that you must give up certain things (I won't say rights because they're not rights) to live in a civilized society. If you have a good explanation, you're cool...if you do not, forget about it. The right of citizens to live without undue burglaries and kidnappers and rapists requirs some citizen participation. You don't like it? Tough.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,821 Senior Member
    I call bullbutter on the drug dog accuracy. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and the dogs aren't even close to being accurate. Was your dog a 'trick pony', Gene?

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-questions-reliability-police-dogs

    In 2010, a team of researchers at the University of California, Davis set out to test the reliability of drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs.

    The team assembled 18 police dogs and their handlers and gave them a routine task: go through a room and sniff out the drugs and explosives.

    But there was a twist. The room was clean. No drugs, no explosives.

    In order to pass the test, the handlers and their dogs had to go through the room and detect nothing.

    But of 144 runs, that happened only 21 times, for a failure rate of 85 percent.

    Although drug-sniffing dogs are supposed to find drugs on their own, the researchers concluded that they were influenced by their handlers, and that's what led to such a high failure rate.

    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.

    The lawsuit goes on to make a number of other accusations in its 104-page complaint: that the Metropolitan Police Department is a racketeering organization, that money seized by motorists was misappropriated by the Department of Public Safety, that the two troopers were subjected to harassment and intimidation by their agency.

    But what has defense attorneys and civil advocates taking notice are the allegations of illegal searches, which could call into question the seizure of millions of dollars from motorists on Nevada highways and jeopardize an untold number of criminal cases stemming from those stops.

    Washoe County Public Defender Jeremy Bosler said the lawsuit's allegations are "definitely an issue of concern throughout the state."

    But the case could also shine a light on the use and reliability of drug-sniffing dogs, an area of policing where there are no mandatory standards and little scientific evidence, experts say.

    The abuses - of the dogs and the law - are a result of poor training by Las Vegas police, according to the lawsuit. Las Vegas police trained their dogs to be "trick ponies" that would respond to handlers' cues when searching for drugs.

    That caused the dogs to become more interested in getting treats or toys when searching for drugs, they claim. The Highway Patrol dogs, on the other hand, were not rewarded when they signaled for drugs.

    McKenna said he has video proof of Las Vegas police handlers "cueing" their dogs. Two of those videos have been uploaded to YouTube.

    One, apparently from the dashboard camera of a Highway Patrol car, claims to show a Las Vegas police dog repeatedly walking past an ice chest with four pounds of methamphetamine inside during a traffic stop. The handler, who knew the drugs were inside, eventually stops by the ice chest with the dog and gives it a toy, signaling that the dog was successful in finding the drugs.

    Las Vegas police declined to comment on the allegations of physical abuse and "cueing," saying they couldn't comment on pending litigation. But they said that all officers receive training to reflect updates to Fourth Amendment case law.

    Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Gail Powell dismissed the allegations, saying they were untrue and that the lawsuit was filed by "disgruntled" officers.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    What a bunch of crap. Four years and not a single decision passed to diminish a drug dog (never heard of drug/bomb dog) reliability.

    Time to you nay-sayers to put on your big boy pants and listen to court decisions rather than Liberal media. Get with it, fellows! Get over what you WANT it to be and face the reality of what it IS. Get a grip! Quit defending drug dealers and possibly bomb-planting terrorists. Love the USA.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    I cant imagine anyone driving around Las Vegas with large sums of cash...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,262 Senior Member
    When I lived in the dorms at McGuire AFB, they ran the dogs through regularly. Guy across the hall got busted and the SP took the bag of pot, placed it on top of the guys TV, maybe 4 ft up. The dog couldn't find it. Another guy down the hall had the dog alert on his room while he was having sex, no drugs found. I know he didn't do drugs, he was a health nut. Perhaps training has gotten better but in the 80s, dogs sucked.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,071 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    When I lived in the dorms at McGuire AFB, they ran the dogs through regularly. Guy across the hall got busted and the SP took the bag of pot, placed it on top of the guys TV, maybe 4 ft up. The dog couldn't find it. Another guy down the hall had the dog alert on his room while he was having sex, no drugs found. I know he didn't do drugs, he was a health nut. Perhaps training has gotten better but in the 80s, dogs sucked.

    Maybe the other guy in the sex episode had dope.:nono: Dogs only alert on SCENT. If the scent wasn't there or was new, no alert. They're not trained to alert on drugs that are planted a few minutes before, just not their training...new planted dope 4 ft high doesn't always provide scent. And it's not practical, as the officer can see it without a dog. You must understand that dogs find dope that's not evident from visual inspection. Humans are the best for making charges and finding dope, dogs are secondary to making charges. Dogs aren't robots and they're not infallible. And dogs can't testify.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,821 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    What a bunch of crap. Four years and not a single decision passed to diminish a drug dog (never heard of drug/bomb dog) reliability.

    Time to you nay-sayers to put on your big boy pants and listen to court decisions rather than Liberal media. Get with it, fellows! Get over what you WANT it to be and face the reality of what it IS. Get a grip! Quit defending drug dealers and possibly bomb-planting terrorists. Love the USA.

    Nobody is defending drug dealers or terrorists. You need to get a grip. What is being defended is the right to travel with cash (most of which is tainted with cocaine and MJ residue) without being robbed at gunpoint by jack booted thugs with a dog trained to alert from subtle directions of the handler.

    Maybe you should get acquainted with court rulings. Since you've already said you don't care about the law and court rulings, and only the enforcement of GA laws, this might come as a surprise to you.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/03/28/supreme-court-says-a-dogs-sniff-can-be-a-fourth-amendment-intrusion/

    If you’ve ever worried about whether the U.S. Constitution protects you from a dog’s nose, there’s no need to fret: even a canine cop needs a warrant to sniff your front porch.

    The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on Tuesday that a police drug-sniffing dog picking up a scent outside of your home still constitutes a search for which law enforcement would have to obtain a warrant. The ruling may limit how police use animals‘ sensitive noses to detect illicit substances on private property.

    (MORE: To Sniff or Not to Sniff? Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog’s Nose Went Too Far)

    The justices made their decision after hearing arguments in Florida v. Jardines, in which Franky, a Miami-Dade police dog, searched for marijuana in the home of Joelis Jardines. Jardines’ front door was closed and no search warrant had been issued. But when the chocolate labrador got a good enough whiff, he sat down at the front door, indicating that he smelled pot. Police felt that was good enough to obtain a warrant, and they arrested Jardines with more than $700,000 worth of marijuana.

    In his trial, Jardines’s attorney argued that Franky’s sniff was an unreasonable search without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, which made the search warrant invalid. Jardines’ motion was successful, but a Florida appellate court disagreed, saying that the sniff wasn’t an unconstitutional search.

    But Jardines lawyers would not relent, arguing that because Franky smelled the plants outside the house, it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection. The case bounced between courts for years before landing in Florida’s Supreme Court, which eventually took Jardine’s side and ruled that the sniff was an “unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home.”
    State attorneys last year filed to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which handed down its ruling in a 29-page document. Justice Antonin Scalia led the majority opinion, which stated that a search did indeed take place when Franky smelled the marijuana. His nose was considered to be a detection device (citing Kyllo v. United States), which cannot be used by police to peer into the homes of private citizens without a warrant.


    And yet another study confirming the unreliability of dogs. Below is small part of article at site:

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

    Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment. We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers’ beliefs. Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions). Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence). Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence). Conditions were (1) control; (2) paper marker; (3) decoy scent; and (4) paper marker at decoy scent. No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable. Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence. There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions. Response patterns differed by condition. There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers. Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations. Handlers’ beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts. Human more than dog influences affected alert locations. This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments.


    As to why the unreliable detection abilities of the dogs has not taken out or limited their use is as obvious as the nose on your face. The state and federal lawmakers, and the police, have HUGE pecuniary interest in keeping the dogs working. And that goes for seizures of cash without any drugs being present. Why would the cops or the state governments be interested in slaughtering their cash cows and losing out on all that free money that can be taken at gunpoint with no danger to themselves? All kinds of 'reasons' can be found to justify something when lots of free cash is there for the taking. Just ask any street thug, burglar, or bank robber.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,271 Senior Member
    Virtually all the K9 handlers in the Air Force Police squadron on Okinawa taught their dogs to lift a leg and pee when they heard the word "lifer". They also carried a broken leash in their pocket to show when the dog "accidentaly" mauled somebody on command. The "trick pony" moniker is a pretty accurate assessment of some of the sniffer dogs I've seen in action.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.