Hi Outof the org,
I was talking about discussions I heard between grown ups when I was a child. The discussions were similar to this issue. There was fear that the gov. was going to go wild with police actions. I wasn't talking about any specific actions of the courts.
I understand. I too heard things as a child. But, I have not found any real evidence of those fears being justified. So, my point is that citing our childhood impressions is not sufficient to draw factual conclusions.
No being nervous is not a crime. However having been a sheriffs deputy I can tell you that a persons actions and behaviour are definite signs to be noticed. After a while any good officer can almost smell the kind of fear that needs attention. To act upon the smelling of alchol on a drivers breath is not an act of invasion of privacy.
I understand the expertise of police officers ... and as I stated earlier, for the most part they do a good job. We have also witnessed abuses such as the Rodney King beating. A friend of mine in the So. California area is a police officer. The information I get ... as well as experience from growing up in that area ... is that officers are allowed what is called "stick night" ... an evening where they are allowed to take out their aggressions and frustrations on some person they don't like. They got caught doing a "stick night" on Rodney King. The Rodeny King issue is not about search and seizure issues ... but it is about police corruption and illustrates the case for enforcing citizens rights.
Driving, as we have defined in our body of laws, is not a right, but a privilege. Therefore, when in court over a driving offense, the officer's word carrys more weight than the word of the accused ... because the traffic law rule used is that you are guilty until proven innocent, so the burden of proof is lower. So, if you stop a drunk driver, I as a citizen want you to remove the drunk from his car for public safety.
However, even police officers have been fooled when dealing with diabetics. Some diabetics have died in a holding cell because of poorly trained officers or officers who don't give a damn and think they know everything. That is why we have checks and balances called courts, judges and juries and even lawyers. It is precisely to keep law enforcement in check.
The act of letting a dog sniff the air around the outside of an automobile is not an invasion of privacy. Answering a neighbors call about screams next door and standing at the front door and seeing through the window a person with a bloody nose and then taking action is not an invasion of privacy.
The dog sniffing incident is wrong. The officer had no probable cause and no warrent and no immediate danger. Granted, in this case, the officer was proven correct ... but he could have been proven wrong in another instance, and caused needless harm to an innocent citizen. Therefore, what the Supreme Court did was not hurt efforts at catching druggies ... but opened a wide door for future abuses.
In the second case you mention, there is a request for help by a citizen, with evidence of harm in the form of screaming ... thus probable cause. If the officer can see through the window, he has a higher call to defend the victim if there is evidence of immediate danger. This is entirely different than an officer feeling suspecious because some guy seems nervous.
There was no search with out a right. If the officer had the smelling ability of the dog, and he smelled drugs there is probable cause. The dog was used and indicated the presence of drugs. That is probable cause. Then the search is started.
Then, let all officers walk around the neighborhoods with their dogs and sniff every person, car and house. Why stop at a simple pull-over. No, this is a dangerous erosion. Many folks, like yourself, are seeing this through the eyes of wanting to get the bad guy, and failing to see the danger and how such a ruling helps corrupt police ... of which there are too many.
I am not correlating this to the jw's in any way but to the similar highly emotional approach to life and changes in life. Seeing danger that does not exist.
Referencing and comparing the JWs is a false argument style called "ad hominem." It is a tactic to dispell the opposing argument by attempting to prejudice the attatude of the other side. Sometimes it is referred to as a personal attack. By way of comparison, I can illustrate it this way. Say to someone in an opposing argument, "your point is not valid because your attatude is like the Nazis." Once I make the comparison, then the viewing audience is affected, as well as it detracts from the main issue. How JWs act and bahave is irrelevant to this discussion. To introduced their reactions and emotions only clouds the issue in attempt to taint the opposing side of the argument. I am not saying you have a bad motive ... as I am sure your motives are good. But, JWs reactions are not at issue, nor even similar to a factual event.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruling is a fact, and a dangerous ruling. Also, I am not over-reacting nor feeling any specific emotion. I am legitimately concerned that the ruling has serious potential to be abused.
If we aren't doing illegal acts what have we to fear is justified. If there had not been any illegal drugs none of this would have taken place.
This too is a flawed argument. The first time I was ever pulled over by the California Highwy Patrol, I was scared to death. I was not guilty of anything. The officer made me sit in his vehicle, and I pissed in my pants and stained his seat. I was lectured and given an equipment violation. Now, suppose that he decided he was angry because I soaked his car ... under this new ruling he could have searched me and claimed to have found something on me ... and sent me off to jail ... no probable cause, no warrant, no checks available to protect my rights. But, in those days, probable cause prevented him from going any further. He was angry, so the situation was realistic.
Well, if he were corrupt, could he not fake all those steps anyway? Yes, but by having those steps, it makes it easier to expose lies and reveal the truth ... it allows me some way to come back at the officer in court and show he is corrupt. But, by taking away critical steps in the chain of evidence, it makes the trail cloudly and harder to protect our rights when we are innocent.
There was no search of the individual or the car, until the dog smelled drugs. Smelling the air around you is not a search. All of this fits the 4th amendment requirements.
Then again, let's get the police out in the neighborhoods with their dogs and start sniffing every man, woman and child ... its all just air. Let's have them sniff all of our doorways ... and around our cars. We are bound to catch someone doing something wrong ... while we are at it, why not strip search everyone ... have random stripping sessions.
The officer in this case had no cause to start sniffing. He simply felt that the guy was nervous and decided to sniff. The problem again is that he did so without warrant. The 4th Amendment requires the specific thing to be searched or seized be named ... could the dog or the officer name the specific thing? No, other than the dog is reacting to an odor that appears to be a drug of somekind.
Look, I am glad they caught the bad guy ... but the way they got him is wrong, sets bad precedant, and opens a wide door to abuses.
Jim W.
