|
DRUG DOGS
The government tried to overturn a victory against drug-dogs by taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Florida's Attorney General was fighting against the case of "Florida v. Matheson" and its requirement that narcotic K-9s must be continually trained and tested under higher standards or they cannot be used to search people and cars. PLAYBOY MAGAZINE debunks drug dogs at http://members.ij.net/rex/drugdog.jpg the very libertarian opinion from the appellate court http://members.ij.net/rex/1case-sniffdogs-2DCA-win.pdf Docket information is at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1668.htm Here is another one of my wins in a sniffer dog case http://members.ij.net/rex/law-drugs-suppress.pdf Dogs are used as ruses against humans, to violate constitutional rights against searches and seizures. Here's how - * Some cops ask to search cars for no reason at all during routine traffic stops. They ask to search because they know that most victims do not know that drivers can "just say no" (most drivers are know-nothings about constitutional rights). Drivers who do know are often too meek to "just say no." It is unknown how often cops ask for consent to search and how often consent is given under duress or ignorance. Drivers who do not complain roadside will not complain, learn or litigate later. * If drivers say "no," then some cops tell drivers that an ordeal is inevitable because the cop radioed for a canine and it is coming to the scene. That warning is often a lie to induce consent. There is no dog on the way. * If a dog is or is not "on the way," some cops add additional lies to make drivers think that there will be a long wait and that the driver must stay until a dog arrives. Cops rely on driver ignorance of the fact that evidence will be suppressed if drivers are detained longer than it takes to complete the traffic stop (e.g. write the ticket). Drivers are induced to consent to search to avoid a long wait based on lies. * If a dog is en route, some cops let drivers think that they are obliged to stay even when the cop has no reason to detain drivers any longer. Cop's rationalize that drivers inexplicably loiter roadside with cops, or that drivers enjoy waiting for dog sniffs. Cops take advantage of drivers who are too stupid (or too meek) to ask if they are free to go, so that drivers "consent" to unwarranted detention by not leaving. * Cops lie about how long it takes to write tickets or to obtain a radio response on tag inquiry. If a dog is actually en route, then some cops write tickets very slowly, until the dog arrives. * When cops need consent, and drivers say "no," then there is no basis to search. Without consent, cops need "probable cause" to search. Cops can create cause by claiming that canines alerted, even if there are no alerts, or canines can be cued. A search is forced against the driver's will. In January 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois vs. Caballes that a dog sniff during a traffic stop was not a "search." Caballes and similar cases turn canines into props for lies. When dogs are used as props for lies, it doesn't matter whether dogs are well-trained. * If a dog alerts and nothing is found, then cops will never record that as an error. If cross-examined later, they will testify that the dog detected lingering odors of contraband that were recently present. Cops will testify that dogs never make mistakes, never have and never will, and that apparent errors are skillful detections of lingering (residual) odors of contraband. No one can question a dog about whether the cop is lying or mistaken, and it is usually a waste of time to ask a cop the same types of questions. * Many errors by drug dogs cause lawyers to wonder if police carry drugs to plant scents so that drug dogs will alert. Some news items support such speculation in cases where drugs have been planted by police. Drug laws are wrong in the first place, and in the second place drug laws cause more wrongdoing by government during enforcement. Government's attitude toward your liberty is like a dog at a fire hydrant. Police-state tactics witnessed worldwide via videotape from Goose Creek High School in South Carolina, where children were forced to the floor in handcuffs and terrorized by dogs and cops with guns drawn. Nothing was found. In other schools, classes have been interrupted and the children were marched out and lined up to be harassed by a dog. The Caballes case foreshadows more police-state possibilities: Uniformed law enforcement marching through neighborhoods with German shepherds on leashes sniffing anything and everything -every car parked on or near the street, the air emanating from homes, neighbors walking outside. Imagine the same thing at any place of business or employment, and police marching German shepherds through parking lots, car to car, for no reason other than fishing expeditions. Imagine the same nightmare in any shopping area or a downtown street area, a festival, a bar's parking lot, with uniformed agents with German shepherds sniffing pedestrians and their bags and cars and anything, and stopping anyone on an alleged alert and going through their purses, persons, cars, etc, right there on the street. Drug dogs are like humans in that they must be taught to approach peaceful people and search them, so that humans can be arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned for decades under modern prohibition. That is not an easy trick to teach a dog. It is easier to teach humans. The Matheson case points out the lack of credibility of drug dogs and their employers. No one can question a dog about whether the cop is lying or mistaken, and it is usually a waste of time to ask a cop the same types of questions. Drug dogs are like humans in that they must be taught to approach peaceful people and search them, so that humans can be arrested, handcuffed and imprisoned for decades under modern prohibition. That is not an easy trick to teach a dog. It's easier to teach humans. All drug dogs are "playing a game," as are some humans who support modern prohibition. The dogs are taught using dog toys. The toys are hidden with drugs to trick the dog into a game of searching for its toy by associating it with drug odors. Many errors can happen. There is always the danger that the dog will alert on anything that resembles or smells like its toy (towels, tennis balls, car carpet, etc.). Cabelles holds that cops can take dogs fishing. Caballes involved a "legitimate" traffic stop for speeding (that turned into 12 years for pot). Dog-fishing in parking lots or on sidewalks should still be opposed. Random drug checkpoints have already been found unconstitutional by the Court. Here are the totalitarian police-state possibilities that the U.S. Supreme Court opened up: Imagine uniformed law enforcement marching through your neighborhood with German Shepards on leashes sniffing anything and everything -your car and every car parked on the street, the air emanating from your home, you walking outside. Imagine the same thing at your place of business or where you work, police marching German Shepards through the parking lot, car to car, for no reason other than a fishing expedition and entering any vehicle where there is an alleged alert. Imagine the same thing in any shopping area or a downtown street area, a festival, a bar's parking lot, uniformed agents with German Shepards sniffing pedestrians and their bags and cars and anything and stopping anyone on an alleged alert and going through their purses, persons, cars, etc, right there. Dogs are used for human lies. Police cannot search a car without probable cause or consent, and an easy way to claim probable cause is to claim that a dog alerted. It doesn't matter whether a dog is accurate. The dog is just present as cover-up to testalie in court. Dogs are perfect pets for perjury. If contraband is found then the arrest will probably stand. If nothing is found, the driver leaves shaken, but I know of no case where the driver even complained or sued. Drug dogs turn simple traffic stops into fishing expeditions for drug busts. Driver's are asked for consent to search without any suspicion at all. When drivers refuse consent, an officer threatens to bring a dog in order to intimidate drivers into consenting to avoid a wait. Persistent refusal prompts cops to radio for a dog, and then claim that the dog alerted. Any case that lacks a videotape of a dog's actions on the scene should result in rejection of testimony that the dog alerted, or did so without cueing. Drugs dogs often bark up the wrong tree. Motions to suppress should argue that the dog's training and history show false positives and problems that make the dog unreliable for searches. In Cabelles, Justices Souter and Ginsburg dissented, pointing to studies showing that drug dogs frequently return false positives (12.5-60% of the time, according to one study). Moreso than in humans, the libertarianism of drug-dogs always resurfaces, and must be suppressed constantly by law enforcement retraining. Without constant retraining the dogs lose interest and stop performing accurately. Record-keeping is a must to know whether dogs are guessing, or seeing cues. Only with record keeping and independent testing can any judge draw any conclusion from the dogs game playing out on the street. Dogs approximate humans in that they go along with the system to avoid disapproval from peers (teachers, school students, friends, etc., in the case of humans). Drug dogs do not want disapproval from their police handlers. Dogs play the game, and will try to guess and read cues, because they are searching for approval, not for drugs. Dogs match humans in that if you influence them enough they will do anything -- like passing the 18th amendment (alcohol prohibition). In the dogged pursuit of modern prohibition, some dogs are slow learners as are some humans. The government's war on drugs is a dog chasing its own tail. Many drug dogs are so inaccurate that they could be replaced with the "drug coin." Flip it and heads means that there is an alert and probable cause to search. Tails means there is no alert, and no probable cause, but a search occurs anyway. |
