Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:07 pm UTC

No reward for Dorner's death.

Because Dorner wasn't 'caught and convicted', the reward won't be offered to the couple who were tied up by Dorner but escaped to call the police. Of course, the fact that the police force killed him instead of capturing him...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:46 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No reward for Dorner's death.

Because Dorner wasn't 'caught and convicted', the reward won't be offered to the couple who were tied up by Dorner but escaped to call the police. Of course, the fact that the police force killed him instead of capturing him...


Ugh. The behavior of the LAPD has been just appalling from start to finish in this affair. It's almost enough to make one understand why people were rooting for Dorner.

User avatar
Mr Pete
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:17 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mr Pete » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:09 pm UTC

Because the Riverside City Council resolution stipulated the money was for information leading to Dorner’s arrest and conviction, the city will withdraw its pledge because neither condition was met, Riverside city spokeswoman Cindie Perry told NBCLA.
Forgive me if I am misinterpreting the link, but it's the city council that don't want to pay up.

LA's mayor and police chief have said they want to see the reward paid.
Not the police.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby omgryebread » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:12 pm UTC

This is relevant: Supreme Court decision on drug-sniffing dogs

The majority opinion is an odd mix. The author was Scalia and he was joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Kagan wrote a concurrence joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor.


Basically, the idea of the majority opinion is that bringing a dog onto someone's porch constitutes a search and requires a warrant. While the police can come to the front door, they cannot bring a dog to sniff, because that's a search, and its considered a search of your property. It's purely a decision based on property rights. This means that if the dog somehow detected marijuana from across the street, it would not constitute a search and would be permissible.

Kagan's opinion went further and would have decided the case on privacy grounds (Scalia and Thomas don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy.) This means that the search not only violated the person's property rights, but also their privacy rights. The difference is that privacy would extend beyond the immediate area. A search from across the street would also be impermissible.

The dissent, written by Alito, argued that because police have the license to approach the door, this didn't constitute a search. Bringing a dog doesn't magically change it into a search.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:13 pm UTC

That seems like a reasonable majority decision, based on your summary.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:24 pm UTC

It become an even better ruling when you consider the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that "drug-sniffing" dogs respond much more strongly to the suspicions of their handlers than they do to the presence of actual drugs. Which makes them little probable-cause generators: if the cop handling them suspects you have drugs, or otherwise thinks you look like "the wrong sort of person", the dog will behave as though you have drugs, at which point they have grounds for a search. And since most departments don't require officers to report the false negatives ("I searched this guy, but he had nothing, so I let him go"), the only cases that end up in court are the confirmation-bias-y ones.

Basically, drug dogs are a terrible idea all around.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby omgryebread » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

I would have preferred Kagan's opinion, but yeah, it's a decent ruling. It's just it's limited in some ways. If some detection system allowed them to detect drugs from across the street, this wouldn't matter. They can still walk a dog down the hallway of an apartment building.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:48 pm UTC

Yeah, it's not ideal. I would drastically prefer that A) they adopted kagan's ruling and B) there were some system in place to deal with the level of utter bullshit in a number of policing and investigative methods.

As it stands, the system is set up such that "studies have shown that this type of evidence is complete bullshit 99% of the time" is information that is inadmissable in most cases. Which means that conveniently-shitty methods of investigation (drug dogs, lineups, half of forensic "science") never go away.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

The way Belial described sniffer dogs reminded me of the search laws in the U.K

You can't be searched without your consent unless the police have a compelling reason to suspect you of a crime. YAY!

BUT. They can "politely request" you concede to being searched...

Refusing this request is suspicious behaviour and grants the police the necessary compelling reason to search you without your consent.

Yay.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby oxoiron » Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:27 pm UTC

If that is true, it is the most concrete example I've heard as to why it was deemed necessary to include the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution. That one goes in my top three, along with numbers 1 and 5. The 3rd is my favorite relic.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:12 pm UTC

oxoiron wrote:If that is true, it is the most concrete example I've heard as to why it was deemed necessary to include the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution. That one goes in my top three, along with numbers 1 and 5. The 3rd is my favorite relic.


It's correct to my understanding, but it's colloquial knowledge, not the opinion of a legal scholar. Its what I've learned from aquaintainces in security who liase with the police, and at the opposite end of the spectrum people who illegally carry restricted items.

Even if it's not the letter of the law, its how the law is actually applied in (some) English cities.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:16 pm UTC

oxoiron wrote:If that is true, it is the most concrete example I've heard as to why it was deemed necessary to include the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution. That one goes in my top three, along with numbers 1 and 5. The 3rd is my favorite relic.


And then every cop in the US learned the words "furtive movements" and it became irrelevant anyway.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:35 am UTC

Belial wrote:It become an even better ruling when you consider the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that "drug-sniffing" dogs respond much more strongly to the suspicions of their handlers than they do to the presence of actual drugs. Which makes them little probable-cause generators: if the cop handling them suspects you have drugs, or otherwise thinks you look like "the wrong sort of person", the dog will behave as though you have drugs, at which point they have grounds for a search. And since most departments don't require officers to report the false negatives ("I searched this guy, but he had nothing, so I let him go"), the only cases that end up in court are the confirmation-bias-y ones.

Basically, drug dogs are a terrible idea all around.


Yeah, these studies worry me strongly.

That said, this is the right call, even if we take the dogs out of this. Your property is, well, your property. For property rights to mean anything, the warrant system needs to be upheld strongly, and using non-human means to search is still searching by any reasonable interpretation. Kagan's ruling would have made me happier, I admit. The right to privacy could also use some strengthening, I feel.

And yeah, highly subjective, vague language like "suspicious behavior" or "furtive movements" should not be a sufficient bar for searching. If it's "he saw me, and quickly stuffed the bag of white powder into his pocket", you've got something legit. If you have to abstract it out to something incredibly generic, you either need to learn basic reporting, or you've got squat for actual cause.

It also irks me that an anonymous informant can be considered sufficient evidence for a warrant(see also, swatting). It leaves me with the niggling feeling that all it takes is a cop asking his buddy to call in a "tip" to entirely negate due process.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:25 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It leaves me with the niggling feeling that all it takes is a cop asking his buddy to call in a "tip" to entirely negate due process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSR6ZzjDZ94&t=50s
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:32 am UTC

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/weed- ... gerous.htm

What is this?!

I don't know what to think.
The Police are still finding it Fun to raid Farmers?

It, still, looks like a war.
It is a civil war?

Years and years ago The War was being waged using Army equipment.
I saw it. I was there. No. I did not grow Pot.

The point is: Helicopters are big expensive Toys!

Those guys are having all the fun!
Hunting Human? Well?

The voice over talks about all the Millions and Millions of US dollars worth of Pot are being kept off The Street.
Hey!
So wrong. And; It is a War that has been going on for (?) what? Thirty years? Forty.

Beware the military industrial complex?
I listened to the local Sheriff today.

I wonder. Do you ever wonder?
Some people love their jobs.

That guy. He is paid handsomely.
Would he keep doing the job if he were not paid?
I bet he would do it different.

Don't complain about the Police.
They are being 'nice' now?

It is not important What you know.
It is important Who you know.

eww. I am not good at that.
Still; Is there anybody out there?

Do you see that? TV programs about a War?
That is what it looks like to me.

I don't understand. Pot is legal.
Yet; There is a Real Profit of some kind being made on making is only Semi Legal?
Bastards. Enough lives have been damaged.

I listened to a man, in the flesh, say that when he and his crew 'Bust' a farmer then they must bill The Feds or Someone.
He was talking fast And he was not speaking clearly.

They can Bust locals and bill the larger government?
Really?
Oh. And; He spends 90 thousand dollars every year on two new cars?
It is hard to keep up in some of those boring meetings.

The Real important decisions are not made in Public.
The meetings have one or two jewels per hour.
That is a very low jewels per hour.

Misbehavior? Nah. They said in the meeting, "Status Quo."
It was said, over and over. We have enough money to maintain "The Status quo."

Everyone in the room was fine with the "Status quo."
I don't know what the "Status quo'' is. So, I have no basis for complaint.

Well; The Police have Helicopters and The People need food stamps.
That is the Status quo? That is wrong, somehow.

What do you think?

One of the men in that meeting room spoke about The People.
He said something about Poor People. Tisk. Tisk.

It is easy to see the connections from poverty to vices like drugs and alcohol.
The man spoke like that then walked out fired up a joint or a cigarette and I Know he drinks.
I have seen him do it.

I see his point. He is smart enough to not do stupid shit while he is drinking or high, so far.
When he does he has the telephone number of the Sheriff in his contact list on his telephone.

The thing with The Pot. Jeeze.
The enemy? The evil Pot Heads?
The one film I was able to watch did not do the Pot Heads justice.

They are not all the same.
Yes. I saw a three hundred pound man talk about Big Money, today.
And; I saw a man that is nearly eighty years old and ill.

If they want to smoke Pot it is OK with me.
Both of them. Together; If they want.

The little old Pot Heads are heroes in some ways.
Everyman is a hero. Remember what Joseph Campbell said?

He smoked Pot. Prove me wrong.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Arrian » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:It become an even better ruling when you consider the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that "drug-sniffing" dogs respond much more strongly to the suspicions of their handlers than they do to the presence of actual drugs. Which makes them little probable-cause generators: if the cop handling them suspects you have drugs, or otherwise thinks you look like "the wrong sort of person", the dog will behave as though you have drugs, at which point they have grounds for a search. And since most departments don't require officers to report the false negatives ("I searched this guy, but he had nothing, so I let him go"), the only cases that end up in court are the confirmation-bias-y ones.

Basically, drug dogs are a terrible idea all around.


Unfortunately, only about a month ago, the Supreme Court ruled that dogs provide probable cause as long as "a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting." They overturned Florida's Supreme Court ruling requiring a history of the dog's results in the field:

Florida v Harris via the Volokh Consipracy wrote:The Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris today, the Fourth Amendment case on when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause. In a 9-0 decision by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court standard that had required production of records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to determine probable cause. Today’s opinion emphasizes that the probable cause inquiry is a practical common-sense judgment based on a totality of the circumstances that cannot follow any specific rules. As a result, the Florida Supreme Court’s specific rules are improper. So far, nothing surprising. The problem is that dog-sniffing cases are very common, and yet judges are not well-suited to know when a dog is sufficiently reliable. So how should judges apply this “totality of the circumstances” standard? Here’s the key language from Harris:

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.


So they explicitly increased the reliance on opaque measures (what defines a "bona fide organization?" what about the criter for certifying a dog?) for deciding whether dogs are qualified to provide probably cause. <sarcasm> But the good news is that the defense is free to challenge the quality of training: "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..." Not that history in the field is actually recorded, mind you, and it's apparently only sometimes relevant according to the Court. That's totally going to help everyone relying on a public defender to keep them out of jail after the cops tossed their car and found marijuana residue from who knows when! </sarcasm>

Florida vs Jardines, the walking-up-to-your-house-with-a-drug-sniffing-dog case wasn't really about dogs, it was about what you authroize people to do on your property. A front door is certainly part of your property, but it's there for people to walk up to and communicate with you. So a police officer is assumed to be authorized by the homeowner to go onto their property, walk up to your front door, and talk to the homeowner. But going up to their front door and using a tool to identify what's in the house (be it a dog, infrared goggles, microphone, it doesn't matter) isn't authorized. Just like looking into a window from the street is authorized but walking up to the window to peek through a gap in the blinds isn't.

Of course, Scotusblog does a much better job of explaining than I ever could.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:55 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No reward for Dorner's death.

Because Dorner wasn't 'caught and convicted', the reward won't be offered to the couple who were tied up by Dorner but escaped to call the police. Of course, the fact that the police force killed him instead of capturing him...


It's annoying the couple has to go to the trouble...but you watch: The mayor said, "capture". The court will rule that minor details like Dorner's death don't matter; he was effectively captured.

The city, at least, will be ordered to pay the reward.
In all fairness...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:45 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:
Belial wrote:It become an even better ruling when you consider the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that "drug-sniffing" dogs respond much more strongly to the suspicions of their handlers than they do to the presence of actual drugs. Which makes them little probable-cause generators: if the cop handling them suspects you have drugs, or otherwise thinks you look like "the wrong sort of person", the dog will behave as though you have drugs, at which point they have grounds for a search. And since most departments don't require officers to report the false negatives ("I searched this guy, but he had nothing, so I let him go"), the only cases that end up in court are the confirmation-bias-y ones.

Basically, drug dogs are a terrible idea all around.


Unfortunately, only about a month ago, the Supreme Court ruled that dogs provide probable cause as long as "a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting." They overturned Florida's Supreme Court ruling requiring a history of the dog's results in the field:

Florida v Harris via the Volokh Consipracy wrote:The Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris today, the Fourth Amendment case on when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause. In a 9-0 decision by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court standard that had required production of records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to determine probable cause. Today’s opinion emphasizes that the probable cause inquiry is a practical common-sense judgment based on a totality of the circumstances that cannot follow any specific rules. As a result, the Florida Supreme Court’s specific rules are improper. So far, nothing surprising. The problem is that dog-sniffing cases are very common, and yet judges are not well-suited to know when a dog is sufficiently reliable. So how should judges apply this “totality of the circumstances” standard? Here’s the key language from Harris:

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.


So they explicitly increased the reliance on opaque measures (what defines a "bona fide organization?" what about the criter for certifying a dog?) for deciding whether dogs are qualified to provide probably cause. <sarcasm> But the good news is that the defense is free to challenge the quality of training: "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..." Not that history in the field is actually recorded, mind you, and it's apparently only sometimes relevant according to the Court. That's totally going to help everyone relying on a public defender to keep them out of jail after the cops tossed their car and found marijuana residue from who knows when! </sarcasm>

Florida vs Jardines, the walking-up-to-your-house-with-a-drug-sniffing-dog case wasn't really about dogs, it was about what you authroize people to do on your property. A front door is certainly part of your property, but it's there for people to walk up to and communicate with you. So a police officer is assumed to be authorized by the homeowner to go onto their property, walk up to your front door, and talk to the homeowner. But going up to their front door and using a tool to identify what's in the house (be it a dog, infrared goggles, microphone, it doesn't matter) isn't authorized. Just like looking into a window from the street is authorized but walking up to the window to peek through a gap in the blinds isn't.

Of course, Scotusblog does a much better job of explaining than I ever could.

Dogs? Yes. I have had The Police in my house with a Dog.
So, strange.
Spoiler:
Probable cause?
They said, "We got a call."

They were showing up inside my house, without knocking.
If it happened to me, it happened to others.

Sometimes they knocked. Sometimes they didn't.
When I left my house, I took my computer, because I wanted to keep it.

It was made obvious someone had been in the house.
My belongings were moved around.
The settings on the controls to the fireplace were changed.

A friend was visiting me. He was so funny.
He thinks he is a Scientist. He is smart and knows a great deal about Science.

Still; We had returned from an outing;
He looked around and said, "Your house may be haunted."

I thought he was funny. "Haunted? Really?"
"Maybe, I can capitalize on that."

"Come test your Courage at the Haunted Guest House!"
Catchy. Right?

What I was dealing with was worse.

One time I was doing dishes.
My favorite kitchen sink did not have a window.
The wall above the sink was covered with a mirror.

The mirror reflected the windows across the kitchen.
The mirror reflected the room and its contents.
I liked that mirror.

As I was washing dishes, I noticed a movement in the mirror.
I looked up into the mirror. Two men in Blue uniforms were standing behind me watching me do dishes.

I had a dog! Where was My Dog!
Sleeping. She was not much of a watch dog.

I turned around and asked, "What are you doing here?"
They said, "We got a call.''

How many time were uniformed Police inside my home?
I have no idea! Lots!

How poorly did they behave?
Not too bad, usually.

They are individuals, just like you and me.
Some are Assholes, some are Jack Asses, some are, just, following orders.

Dogs. How do drug dogs work?

In the book, 'Number The Stars', Dutch men put meat juice and cocaine into their kerchiefs.
When the Police and The Dogs came, the Dutch men took out their kerchiefs and held them down at dog level.
The cocaine numbed the Dogs noses. That is what the stories said.

The brave Dutch were using drugs to make the world a better place, way back then.
How does it work, Now?

I was never allowed to handle the dogs.
Is that how it is done, Now?

Yes. The Dogs react to their handlers.

What Dogs are good for is people that Run.
It is not necessary to shoot people that Run.
A Dog can catch a running man and take him down, fast.

I have been downed by Dogs. It's fun, sort of.
A set of two or more dogs can take me down and blow cold, gross Dog snot in my ears faster than I can formulate a plan.

No. It is not that much fun. I do not recommend it.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Vash » Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:20 pm UTC

Where are all the studies on drug-sniffing dogs?

I found one so far: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10071-010-0373-2

This is a study with only 18 dogs from only one department. I think it's hard to say that it's a representative sample. Specific training and practice could differ widely. I would say that there are other methodological flaws with the study as well. It could also be that given the right training, drug-sniffing dogs could be effective. This is true whether or not any police department has such training. However, there is not necessarily very good evidence that drug-sniffing dogs work, either. (as far as I can see, there is none on the internet at least) I would definitely not say that law enforcement is a highly scientifically based enterprise.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:50 am UTC

Vash wrote:This is a study with only 18 dogs from only one department. I think it's hard to say that it's a representative sample. Specific training and practice could differ widely. I would say that there are other methodological flaws with the study as well. It could also be that given the right training, drug-sniffing dogs could be effective. This is true whether or not any police department has such training. However, there is not necessarily very good evidence that drug-sniffing dogs work, either. (as far as I can see, there is none on the internet at least) I would definitely not say that law enforcement is a highly scientifically based enterprise.


About six years back, I crashed at a friends place who did dog training for this sort of thing. Both attack and drug dogs in this case, though they were two distinct training programs. Got a full tour...it was fascinating. My overall, albeit untrained, assessment, was that the dogs definitely could sniff out drugs, but it took a very rigorous training protocol to make it work, and a few dogs just never got it. The dogs were trained daily, by many handlers, with standardized commands, etc. Now, you take the dog outside of that everyday training environment, and you're pretty dependent on the handler. Maybe this handler does a good job, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he doesn't even realize that he doesn't, and has been accidentally training the dog to cue off something else.

I don't think it's necessarily a problem of "dogs can't work", so much as it is a problem of "dogs are only as good as the people they work with".

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:11 am UTC

Specifically, when the handler is bound by the rules of probable cause, and the dog has the capacity to act as a "get one (1) free probable cause!" card, the dog's training is pretty much doomed: it will very quickly learn to cue off of the handler's desire for an excuse to search.

The issue is that the law treats them as some sort of neutral drug detecting device, rather than a living, learning thing that shares its handler's goals and therefore should be subject to the same limits.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:22 am UTC

The solution, of course, is wasps (not WASPs).

http://visualstoryteller.wordpress.com/ ... -sniffers/

Or just full "Fuck it, make it all legal." There's still the issue of bombs, but I think there's less room for abuse with explosives. I figure we are probably not too far off from having non-biological electronic detectors for explosives anyway.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:28 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Or just full "Fuck it, make it all legal."

The solution to like 95% of the problems of the war on drugs. But then where does all that money being spent on it go?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:37 am UTC

Buying us all totally rad scooters.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:39 am UTC

I'm sure we can start some new wars to make up for it.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:40 am UTC

Yep. Dogs want to please the pack leader.

We have a problem, Houston.
The number of persons in prisons is criminal.

Yes. It has been suggested that we get all drug related prisoners out of prison.
That is such a good idea. But; Only a bunch of Nobodies in a strange, funny backwater of the internet discuss the idea, at all.

The men and women with any power to Do something about it are not allowed to consider the issue.

We have even more of a problem, Houston.
I have been thinking.

The US system of Justice is a mess. The mess may be all the way through the system.
During the last 10 to 15 years the number of Political Prisoners may have become a large number.

Think about it. Political prisoners are not booked as Political Prisoners. But; They are booked.
I was threatened with imprisonmentt. The reasons had nothing to do with any illegal activity I engage in.

It is so sad. I know men and women are inside that system and some of those people are what I was.
As horrible as what I have been through has been; I know there are people that were not able to 'Get Out' and ask for assistance.
I was lucky. For lucky This Sucks.

Think! The Tea Party is strong and vocal and ruthless.
Where is The Other Side? In jail, lying low, attempting to put out fires in their own lives; Busy, Busy, Busy.
The other side.
The side that wants to know The Agents of our Government are doing The Right Thing.
The side that wants to read policy papers and discuss them.
Where are those people? Frightened? Victims of an oppressive national hobby?

I have heard people say, "This nation needs inspiration."
How about a different national hobby?
We can go though and look for innocent people in the nations prisons.

There have Always been innocent people in prison.
But; What is happening in the US is Shades of old stories of Political Prisoners from Europe and Asia.
People are destroyed and imprisoned for having Big Ideas and doing what I am doing, now.


If I had anything more to take, it would be taken. I am not in jail, but the threat is always present.

No. I do not trust the System. It is a mess. The Police begin the punishment process during the arrest.
How horrible! So, very wrong.
Yet; That is the way they are trained. And; It is not only easier, it is fun for some. Different people are drawn into different professions.

We lost, even the pretense of, 4th amendment rights when we gained the Pat Act.

The prisons seem to be set up as punishment only.
The punishment begins at arrest.
Many prisons are For Profit.
The Police are rewarded for arrests.
The court system rewards convictions.
What can anyone do to change any of that?

Where is Justice considered and served?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:46 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
Thesh wrote:Or just full "Fuck it, make it all legal."

The solution to like 95% of the problems of the war on drugs. But then where does all that money being spent on it go?


I can think of roughly a billion things that we'd get more for our money with.

Imagine, for instance, if the saved money went into research instead....

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
Thesh wrote:Or just full "Fuck it, make it all legal."

The solution to like 95% of the problems of the war on drugs. But then where does all that money being spent on it go?


I can think of roughly a billion things that we'd get more for our money with.

Imagine, for instance, if the saved money went into research instead....

How about Social Services for the Victims of The War of Terror?
History.
Spoiler:
How will History judge? Do you remember the Media Blize of the Early 21st Century? I do.
On TV. In 2002 and 2003. ( ech. It may have gone on longer.)

The President of The US, Mr. George Bush II, was on TV, every fricking day.
He said, "History will judge what we are doing."
He said words to that effect, over and over.

Can you imagine? I can.
That is not the Point.

Our commander in chief does not have Media access?
In 2013, There is a man that lives in The White House.
He lives there with is wife, two daughters and a funny looking Dog. Right?

Well? That was true when George II was in office, also.
How will History judge what we do?

History will not know I walked across The Stage.
History will not judge me. I am an extra.

The Georges were Main Characters. Right?
His name goes into the History Books.

Sure. He knows he will be dead for a good long time, before History, gets around to judging him.
That's the way it works.


ok. ok! It is a War On Terror.
War On Terror? War Of Terror?

What is the Difference?
Social Services might be a nice place to put some effort.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby folkhero » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:25 am UTC

Relevant to drug sniffing dogs. A few years ago I had my car searched thanks to a drug sniffing dog getting a false positive while crossing a state border, so I'm less than happy to see how much SCOTUS thinks they are great.

And then you have Scalia saying things like:
Why would a police department want to use an incompetent dog
and
What incentive is there for a police department?
and you have to wonder if he understands the purpose of the 4th amendment. I mean, he's a justice on the Supreme Court, so presumably he does, but... I just don't know sometimes.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

Police Misbehavior or Status Quo?

I have no idea.
Fricking weird stuff.

Spoiler:
I listened to some people talking.
I could not understand every word.

I asked some questions. Still; I did not know What they were talking about.
I asked to see it.
What I saw was a gray box (6X4X0.5 inches) with a truncated plastic tube coming out of one narrow side.
The other narrow side had a spiraled plastic cord. It looked like a thick old telephone cord.
It looked to be for electric cables of some kind.
On one broad side of the box was an area for digital display.

I have no idea what it is.
What I was told it is is Bazaar.

I was told That Thing is hooked up to The Ignition System of The Car it is in.
I was told Those Things are common. Holy Fuck!

I had been listening to two victims. I did not know What they were talking about.
It was Ordered by The Court?!
The Police Recommended it?

What is That Thing and why does Mary Sue have one?
Back up! How hard are Those Things to use?

The conversation I listened to, was between two old friends.
The Device is to prevent Drunk Drivers.
It is a random sample Breatherizer of some kind.

The story The People tell is That Thing is hard to use and causes more problems than it cures.
I do not know why Mary Sue's friend has one.
I know why Mary Sue has one.
And; I think it is so weird.
And; So does Mary Sue.

Any one else ever seen one?
What Mary Sue said, "It goes off making a beeping sound that is loud when the car is off. That beeping sound gets drowned out by engine noise and exterior noise."

Mary Sue was doing fine with That Thing. Then she went through a Construction Zone. There was a lot going on. Traffic was funneled from multi-lanes to one lane. There was some big equipment running beside the road. She says That is when That Thing started beeping. She did not hear, it at first.

Then she did not Blow in the proper code of some kind. I swear. Three different people said the Same Thing!
It is so stupid. Mary Sue Does Not Drink, much. A glass of wine before dinner. Half a beer on a sunny afternoon. Not much.

So; This Thing is so dangerous. It first triggers the horn to honk. Then it cuts the ignition system?
Her car was honking. There are Police at those construction sites.
Because! Police like to watch, too!
Watching construction is like watching Big Kids play in Mud.
It's fun. And; They get paid to be there. (?)

The Police pulled her over and gave her another Ticket.
The first ticket was unjust. She is innocent!
The second ticket was salt in the wound.

The second ticket was for being belligerent. That is what they said. Maybe the word was aggressive.
She was not honking the horn!
The car was Possessed by the Evil Demon of The Device.

Try explaining That.
I wonder; Will they let me look at it, again?


Spoiler:
I looked at That Thing, again.
I would be frightened to drive with That Thing in the car.
I want to do it, anyway.


Yes. There may have been misbehavior.
That kind of misbehavior is Status Quo.

It seems from what The People say;
When a person has an accident around These Parts,
That person is arrested.

Then, that person is given some choices.
Mary Sue was told, "Plead to DUI and you can go home. Plead Innocent and you will be fighting The Government. We will press charges of Reckless Driving. You will go to jail for Reckless Driving. Not for DUI.

She may have pled guilty for a crime she did not commit so that she will not go to jail for a crime she did not commit.
She was at fault of not knowing mechanical stuff.

The front end alignment in her car was 'Off'. She lives out on the edge of nowhere. The journey from her home to the gravel road is enough to rattle her front end out of alignment. The gravel road is hard an the suspension system of a car.

She knew the car was getting hard to handle. Someone, Who knows who, told her she needed front tires.
Sweet, Mary Sue. She had two new tires put on the front. Those tires were not Balanced. They did not align the front end.

That car was harder to handle After the new tires than before the new tires.
Poor Mary Sue. She hit a bump with that car and it danced and jumped off the road.

It was a big deal to Mary Sue. She used her cell phone to call the Police, for help.
When the Police arrived, they gave Mary Sue a field sobriety test. She failed.

She had, just, had a auto accident! She was shaking and weak and upset and; She Failed.
They arrested her. They took her to a cell. Not! To the hospital. To Jail!

A person that goes from a car accident to a jail cell is a person that is at high risk of morbidity.
She may have been injured. She Was! She was injured. Her back was hurt and a few other minor things.
She was in shock and it got worse, before it got better.

Mary Sue is a sweet, smart advantaged woman.
This ordeal has aged Mary Sue.

She was tall, confident, competent, dignified and youthful when this all began.
She had aged in, just, a few months. She is showing signs of depression.
She is much more frail. Poor Mary Sue. She is so worried. And; For good reason.

If Mary Sue is being treated like this;..?... God!
The shit on TV about what jerks the police are is True?!? Damn.

They go after The Bad Boyz. Then they are all practiced up to pick on sweet innocent little old ladies?
Mary Sue Was Not Too Old to Drive when this began! She may have become too old sense it began.

The stories from the AP are good sources. Our personal stories are just as credible.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:22 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:Relevant to drug sniffing dogs. A few years ago I had my car searched thanks to a drug sniffing dog getting a false positive while crossing a state border, so I'm less than happy to see how much SCOTUS thinks they are great.

And then you have Scalia saying things like:
Why would a police department want to use an incompetent dog
and
What incentive is there for a police department?
and you have to wonder if he understands the purpose of the 4th amendment. I mean, he's a justice on the Supreme Court, so presumably he does, but... I just don't know sometimes.


Scalia doesn't believe in rights that don't exist in the Constitution; has said as much. The Fourth amendment says, "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". As he would read it, that does not include automobiles (not on the list).

The law says the dog "indicating" is probable cause; and Scalia wouldn't want to look beyond that because the Constitution doesn't say anything about prohibiting manufacture of probable cause.

(Dogs sniffing at the door of your house, are okay for another reason: the Amendment says "in their ... houses", and any smoke that leaks out from under the door isn't "in" anymore.)

The concept of "fundamental right" is foreign to him: People don't have any, except where the Constitution is explicit about a Right, and even then he interprets it as narrowly as it can possibly be construed.

I rate him our worst justice.
In all fairness...

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Prefanity » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

As do I. I've often wished that being a shitty justice was an impeachable offense.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:20 am UTC

I try not to outright wish people would die, but making "Supreme Court Justice" a lifetime job makes it a hard thing to avoid.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby folkhero » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:26 am UTC

Belial wrote:I try not to outright wish people would die, but making "Supreme Court Justice" a lifetime job makes it a hard thing to avoid.

What's so hard about hoping someone decides to retire?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10186
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:38 am UTC

Belial wrote:I try not to outright wish people would die, but making "Supreme Court Justice" a lifetime job makes it a hard thing to avoid.

I'm sorry Honey;
But, wishing them a speedy meeting with God does very little good.

There is another Mean Old Man waiting in the wings.
A seemingly endless parade of Mean Old Men.
Pushed forward through time by even Meaner Old Women.

Yet; Thank you for the consideration.
The Americans would be grateful, if they knew.

Spoiler:
The People have had their Asses Kicked.
Divide and Concur?
It is an effective plan.
It works, bitches. (?)
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Belial » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:40 am UTC

folkhero wrote:
Belial wrote:I try not to outright wish people would die, but making "Supreme Court Justice" a lifetime job makes it a hard thing to avoid.

What's so hard about hoping someone decides to retire?


I believe Scalia is fundamentally incapable of intentionally doing something that would make me happy. I'm hoping death serves as a big enough trump.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:47 am UTC

Wait, why can't the President and Congress expand SCOTUS to 13 members if they get too uppity? I forget what was blocking FDR from doing that, but the system is supposedly designed so that 2 branches can override the 3rd. Pres and Con can change the constitution if what they do is 'unconstitutional' (or in the case of the trail of tears, just ignore SCOTUS), congress and SCOTUS can impeach a president, pres and SCOTUS combined can block any legislation.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:49 am UTC

And yet all three branches working together, or even simply being filled with people whose interests are similar enough that working in their own interests is effectively the same as working together, renders those checks impotent.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:57 am UTC

If you want to eliminate a good portion of the BS, you need term limits for both Congress and SCOTUS. I would say 12 and 18 years respectively, with each justice having to be approved by Congress and the President every 6 years. I would say the people who are the most problematic in both Congress and the Supreme Court are the people who have been there the longest.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric and 13 guests