This is interesting.

Ah, hit a nerve with the drugies I see........

"You have no right to stop me from having a good time, thats all you mommy and daddy, um er cops want to do".

But in ernest agitate for changes all you want, but no one in a representative republic picks and choses the laws they will or will not obey. The idea in my mind that there should be no laws re drugs because "it only affects" me is blind to the reality of our 200 years of experiance with them in this country. Not to mention the super drugs that have showed up in the last 15 like crack and meth. Drug use affects EVERYONE to state other wise is a lie.
 
Ah, hit a nerve with the drugies I see........

"You have no right to stop me from having a good time, thats all you mommy and daddy, um er cops want to do".
Click to expand...

No, you hit a nerve with people who thought the line "pursuit of happyness" wasn't a joke and included in the declaration for good reason. Whether you like it or not, our sacred founding fathers would have frowned upon how things have degenerated into a nanny state (frowned at best, violently opposed at worst). Furthermore, even the racist lawmakers who instituted our current prohibition could have NEVER dreamed that it would have had the far reaching effects that it's had thus far.

But in ernest agitate for changes all you want, but no one in a representative republic picks and choses the laws they will or will not obey. The idea in my mind that there should be no laws re drugs because "it only affects" me is blind to the reality of our 200 years of experiance with them in this country. Not to mention the super drugs that have showed up in the last 15 like crack and meth. Drug use affects EVERYONE to state other wise is a lie.
Click to expand...

I love your use of the word 'agitate'. Well played. Might as well call those pushing for reform agitators...and heck, that sounds about only a step from deviants, or maybe miscreants. As for your comment about the 200 years of experience letting our addictions affect others-Baloney.

Wild alaska put it best, I won't convince you, you won't convince me. But that being said, If I've failed to disturb or molest anyone else and their property, I should be left the funk alone. What was badbob's signature? There's only 2 types of people-Those that want to be left alone and those that won't leave us alone...Which do you think YOU fall under?

And oh by the way, meth has been around since the 40's, cocaine since at least the 1800s. I hate to admit that I've tried both. I was neither overwhelmed with the urge to rape white women nor the inablity to quit. There are no superdrugs, only superaddicts. On the plus side, now I've got the mental tools to spot any signs of fishyness if/when my son gets to grow up oneday. Doesn't make me proud, or a bad person. Just someone who did something, learned from it, and moved on. I can't say I would have learned my lessons any better if i'd spent months in a jail, as I'm sure you would have had me do. But as long as you have YOUR vices, please, continue being fixated upon the splinter in my eye.
 
It is indeed a VERY troubling notion.

This is so clearly an invitation for abuse, it's scary.

Why couldn't cops, under this scam, approach a house and lie and say that they saw a felon break in? They tell the homeowner that is the case, the homeowner lets them in, and, "Oopsie! We see you have drug paraphernalia here... And oh, we didn't really mean that about the fleeing felon. Turn around and put your hands on your head."


-azurefly
 
Manar, who acknowledged in court that he made up the story to get into Krause's home, now works for the FBI in Illinois.
Click to expand...


No doubt, what he does there is go house-to-house saying that they're checking for gas leaks, and then searches for illegal firearms. :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
In Washington, for example, a state court found in 2003 that Seattle police did not violate the Constitution when they tricked a serial murder suspect into providing a sample of his DNA by sending him a letter -- and a self-addressed, stamped envelope -- from a phony law firm, inviting him to join a nonexistent class-action lawsuit. He licked the envelope, providing the DNA sample.
Click to expand...


If they had asked the suspect to provide a DNA sample outright, he would certainly have refused. The reason for the lie is the heart of this matter. They knew he would not consent, so they did an end-run around obtaining that consent. That is what the courts should be looking at.

This should not be allowed to stand; the sickening thing is that the quote says it already has! :mad:

The police should be arrested for FRAUD in the above case. If anyone else obtained something they wanted from this guy by lying about something like a legal matter, it would be fraud.

I gotta admit, this case is infuriating.


-azurefly
 
If your stupid enough to let the police into your residence "voluntarily" while your possession of controlled substances in that residence, you deserve what goes along with it.

Some peoples kids...
Click to expand...


So, rights are only for those who are not intelligent? :confused: :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
sulaco2 said:
When did the TFL be come a pro drug forum anyway?
Click to expand...


Has nothing to do with being "pro-drug" -- and everything to do with opposing police-state tactics, erosion of liberty, invasion of privacy, loss of rights, reckless spending of tax dollars, risking of lives...


-azurefly
 
2. Ultimately, the search was consensual (whether is was "voluntary" is a slightly more complicated inquiry, and the whole crux of the matter, since the alleged voluntariness was obtained via deception, so was it really "voluntary" when the guy thought the search was for different purpose?)
Click to expand...

Exactly. You disproved your own argument, here. He was not consenting to what he was told he was consenting to. There was a deliberate deception BECAUSE the police KNEW the man would not consent to a search for the true reason it was sought.

Do you all remember the Droopy cartoon, about the slow, soft-spoken dog? (It was connected with the Woody Woodpecker ones, I think.) He was in an athletic competition with an unscrupulous other dog, who wrote out a confession that said, "I cheated on every event". The bad dog got Droopy to sign the confession unwittingly, by flipping a different sheet on top of the confession on the paper pad; he left only the bottom line of the confession page showing, for the signature. Droopy signed the line at the bottom, but it was the page underneath (the confession) that he was signing. Should Droopy's "confession" be upheld?


-azurefly
 
But here, the consent itself was obtained by deception. Hmmm. How is that different from gaining "consent" to get a guy to talk to you using deception? I dunno.
Click to expand...


The difference, it seems to me, is that there is no legal basis for protecting people from someone (an authority) trying to TALK with them. There IS a legal basis for protecting people from having authorities enter their private property.

No one is expected to have to get a warrant to TALK with someone -- EVER.
They ARE expected to have to get a warrant to SEARCH someone's HOME.


-azurefly
 
I just keep going back to the fact that the permission to search was in fact voluntary.
No matter what means were used to get that permission as long as there is no threat or coercion
Click to expand...


It was not voluntary, because the subject of the search was told he was allowing something different from what he was actually allowing. This is as plain as day! He could not be said to have agreed to what was proposed, because what was actually proposed (a search for drug evidence) was concealed from him.

If I convince you to go along with something, and you ask me what the risks of it are, and I lie to you about them, and you agree to take the risks and engage in the behavior because you have been given only part of the information necessary to make a truly informed decision, then you haven't really given true agreement.


The same way if you refused permission for a cop to search your vehicle and he tells you that you will have to wait on the dogs and that can take all day.
Click to expand...

That kind of thing makes me sick. And the fact is, a dog search is still a search. If the cops would not have been permitted to manually search the car, they should not be allowed to use dogs for that purpose, either.

At what point does it fall to the citizen to know and exercise his rights
Click to expand...

We should not have to accept that we are living under a government that will abuse our rights any and every time we are not sure how or whether to assert them.

Should the government allow confessions in court that were obtained from anyone who did not know he had a right to an attorney, and a right to keep silent?


-azurefly
 
If the cops would not have been permitted to manually search the car, they should not be allowed to use dogs for that purpose, either.
Click to expand...
That may be true but it does not change the fact that a search is permissible based on the dogs reaction. It also does not change the fact that a cop can tell you that it can take all day when n fact he doesn't have that long.
Or the fact that it is up to you to know that
It was not voluntary, because the subject of the search was told he was allowing something different from what he was actually allowing. This is as plain as day! He could not be said to have agreed to what was proposed, because what was actually proposed (a search for drug evidence) was concealed from him.
Click to expand...
Actually it is not as plain as day. And since you like what if scenarios
What if the officer lied to the homeowner in order to gain access to search for drugs. While walking back to the bedroom he notices a decapitated cadaver on the living room floor. Should that evidence also be ignored if that is not what the search was supposedly for.
We should not have to accept that we are living under a government that will abuse our rights any and every time we are not sure how or whether to assert them.
Click to expand...
You can accept it or you can allow a cop to search your home for evidence of a sex crime while your stash ,or dead mother, sits out in the open and defend that decision in court.

Another what if
What if the officer had actually been looking for evidence of a rape and come across the dope, would that be acceptable
Should the government allow confessions in court that were obtained from anyone who did not know he had a right to an attorney, and a right to keep silent?
Click to expand...
Obviously not, because the courts have deemed it so.
How many times have I heard on this forum that ignorance of the law is no excuse, cuts both ways.
 
And since you like what if scenarios
What if the officer lied to the homeowner in order to gain access to search for drugs. While walking back to the bedroom he notices a decapitated cadaver on the living room floor. Should that evidence also be ignored if that is not what the search was supposedly for.
Click to expand...


We already know that the courts accept evidence of other crimes if that evidence is found during the course of the search for which the warrant is served.

You mislead with your example, because if we were to keep it true to the basic thread, the cop would have known he was going in there to look for the decapitated cadaver, and made an excuse other than that, over which the homeowner would not object to the search. (And yes, I agree that it would be mindless of the homeowner, knowing he has the cadaver there, to agree to a search for any other offered reason.)

( edited to remove ad hominem attack. azurefly, you have a PM. )


-azurefly
 
You mislead with your example, because if we were to keep it true to the basic thread, the cop would have known he was going in there to look for the decapitated cadaver, and made an excuse other than that, over which the homeowner would not object to the search. (And yes, I agree that it would be mindless of the homeowner, knowing he has the cadaver there, to agree to a search for any other offered reason.)
Click to expand...
OK fine
He had as much evidence of a cadaver as he had of the drugs. Basically not enough for a warrant but still wanted to look around.

The whole reason for using cadaver is to steer away from the drug issue that really is not what the case is about. Too many people are getting hung upon the morality of the drug laws and paying less attention to the ethics of allowing the cop to lie which is the point of the case.

As I have said I'm not sure which side I'm on, but I do know that the homeowner was an idiot that allowed the cop to come in.
 
Someone posted about the usage of drugs by Native Americans.

The use of peyote and the datura root for ceremonies is long established. However, we never made a practice of becoming whacked out on the stuff on a regular basis.

As for cocaine use in the last century, you're a bit dated. If you ever check into a hospital for EENT surgery, guess what's put on the small blood vessels to keep them from bleeding? That's right, 99.9% pure Cocaine Hydrochloride, USP.

And, here's a hot flash: If I had my way, I would legalize the possession and use of marijuana, with the exception of:

Anyone in a public safety profession;
Doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel;
Airline Pilots
Commercial drivers.

Now, I DO have a problem with the way the search was conducted.

Yes, I have and do use various forms of subterfuge with suspects and arrestees. However, if a home contains drugs, then I believe that a warrant should be secured, based on a valid statement of probable cause articulating what is being searched for.

Now, if a search is being conducted for the items listed in the warrant, AND if items readily recognizable as contraband are observed in plain or open view in the area to be searched, including the curtilage thereto if the officer must conduct their search there or must access the premises and area to be searched by passing through such space or curtilage, then I would use articulable training and experience to (a) note and recognize such articles as contraband, and (b) develop probable cause to place the occupant under custodial arrest.

It seems to me that lying to gain access and then seizing these items, even if they are contraband, without a warrant when entry to the domicile is gained under false pretenses, would be "fruit of the poisonous tree", and inadmissable as evidence.

IANAL, of course; I am just your average joe Tribal cop. But, that's the way I do business. :)
 
I have actually been mulling this over today at work.

So here's another what if, the one that finally made my mind up on the whole issue, and I feel kinda silly about it now.

The judge basically ruled that an officer can lie to gain permission to search a private home, right?
So what if
The officer comes to your door and tells you that there is a gas leak or some sort of power surge in the neighborhood that is life threatening not only to you but the entire block, can he come in and look around ?
Farfetched I know, but until today so was the idea of a cop lying about a rape in my house

Precedence is precedences if a cop can lie about one thing then he can lie about another.
I don't know enough about gas leaks and power surges to argue with the officer and possibly endanger my home and neighbor hood,why should I
So I would allow the search.

I still think that this guy was a moron and that it is up to us to know and enforce compliance with our rights.
But I also believe that the case should be judged in favor of the greater good according to the rule of law.

Whether you believe that drugs are a scourge on out society or harmless recreation the greater good in this case has to be protection of the constitution.
And in my opinion it is unreasonable to allow the police to violate the trust place in them in order to search and seize.

There, now you have had the rare privilege of seeing my thought process in action.
Maybe now you will understand why I stand so stubbornly on opinions that I have worked at forming instead of basing my decisions on whether or not I like the people who have a differing opinion.
 
The officer comes to your door and tells you that there is a gas leak or some sort of power surge in the neighborhood that is life threatening not only to you but the entire block, can he come in and look around ?
Click to expand...

Even before this incident had ocurred, I would have refused. I believe I have much more training in this sort of thing than most officers would have. If he was posing as a utility worker, complete with identification, it probably would be a different story but the run-of-the-mill cop has no particular expertise in these areas.
 
If he was posing as a utility worker, complete with identification, it probably would be a different story but the run-of-the-mill cop has no particular expertise in these areas.
Click to expand...
Please do not try to interject intelligence into my scenario. It was just the first one that came to mind

The point is if it is ruled that a cop can lie to get permission to search then he can lie to get permission to search, which lie is irrelevant
 
Powerman how would you write legislation that would violate the "rights" of a class of people based on employment? How bout bus drivers or those driving cars at 70 MPH or fly private planes or ride motorcycles....I thought the use was harmless and a "natural right" not to be denied. And we never did get that cuppu did we?:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top