Waiting for the dogs Unconstitutional
April 21, 2015 6:33 PM Subscribe
In the case, Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled (6-3) today that a police officer may not extend a traffic stop beyond the time needed to complete the tasks related to that stop for the purposes of allowing a trained dog to sniff for drugs. Supremecourt.gov pdf, Washington Post article.
In an alternate world, we would be allowed some time to have some dogs come over so that we could pet them. What steps could we take to make this world possible?
posted by ovvl at 6:43 PM on April 21, 2015 [35 favorites]
posted by ovvl at 6:43 PM on April 21, 2015 [35 favorites]
Looks like Jay-Z needs to change the lyrics to 99 Problems.
posted by sciurus at 6:48 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by sciurus at 6:48 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Delaying a traffic stop so drug sniffing dogs can be brought in, that's another one of those things the police mostly do to black people, right?
posted by ryanrs at 6:56 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 6:56 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
From the pdf:
posted by double block and bleed at 6:56 PM on April 21, 2015
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Emphasis mine.)
KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined, and in which KENNEDY, J., joined as to all but Part III. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
posted by double block and bleed at 6:56 PM on April 21, 2015
I think waiting for dogs is only fair, since a good dog will always wait for you.
*chin quiver*
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2015 [17 favorites]
*chin quiver*
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2015 [17 favorites]
A while back I got pulled over for obviously bogus reasons; the real reason became clear when the officer told me that they were working with a K9 team and inquired if there was anything illegal in the car. The apparently necessary first step of pulling people over on fake reasons should itself be considered improper, though I am glad that extending the stop is now less easy for them to do.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
FWIW, I will know if this is being abused, because I totally plan on hiding spicy meatballs in my wheel-wells.
If I see a dog chowing down, I'll know that the cop misused his traffic stop time. I'll also know that the K9 is going to be providing him with some awful farts later that night.
But seriously, can we just end this fucking drug war? Or, alternatively, can I check the cop's car for drugs? I'd be willing to bet that is a non-zero number that would embarrass more than one police force if discovered.
posted by quin at 6:59 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
If I see a dog chowing down, I'll know that the cop misused his traffic stop time. I'll also know that the K9 is going to be providing him with some awful farts later that night.
But seriously, can we just end this fucking drug war? Or, alternatively, can I check the cop's car for drugs? I'd be willing to bet that is a non-zero number that would embarrass more than one police force if discovered.
posted by quin at 6:59 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Or, alternatively, can I check the cop's car for drugs?
Sure can! Leaning in through the door it makes it much easier for them to shoot you fifty times in the back.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:01 PM on April 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sure can! Leaning in through the door it makes it much easier for them to shoot you fifty times in the back.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:01 PM on April 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Unless there is "reasonable suspicion," so now the cop has to say "I think I smell marijuana," and then it's business as usual. Am I reading this correctly?
One of the undersold advantages of marijuana legalization is that it takes away every policeman's favorite magic spell, in which the sacred incantation- "I think I smell marijuana"- is uttered and out of thin air probable cause is conjured.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:07 PM on April 21, 2015 [66 favorites]
One of the undersold advantages of marijuana legalization is that it takes away every policeman's favorite magic spell, in which the sacred incantation- "I think I smell marijuana"- is uttered and out of thin air probable cause is conjured.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:07 PM on April 21, 2015 [66 favorites]
a good dog will always wait for you
heart-breaking but manditory
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:08 PM on April 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
heart-breaking but manditory
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:08 PM on April 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
There will always be something illegal that a cop can claim to smell. Just off the top of my head:
Untaxed cigarettes if within 100 miles of a reservation
Recently fired firearms if in a city or state that restricts their possession
Methamphetamine manufacturing residue
Alcohol on the breath or in the vehicle
Foie Gras in a city that bans it
posted by Hatashran at 7:20 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Untaxed cigarettes if within 100 miles of a reservation
Recently fired firearms if in a city or state that restricts their possession
Methamphetamine manufacturing residue
Alcohol on the breath or in the vehicle
Foie Gras in a city that bans it
posted by Hatashran at 7:20 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Looks like Jay-Z needs to change the lyrics to 99 Problems.
sciurus
He actually doesn't, which is one reason the song is so great.
There's a St. Louis University Law School law review article that was posted a while back on MeFi that goes into the legal issues of the second verse, and notes that even at the time it was settled law that prolonging a traffic stop to bring in dogs would result in suppression of any evidence found.
That's why he has 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. He's never talking about a woman in the song, because he knows enough that the cop won't illegally search his shit.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015 [26 favorites]
sciurus
He actually doesn't, which is one reason the song is so great.
There's a St. Louis University Law School law review article that was posted a while back on MeFi that goes into the legal issues of the second verse, and notes that even at the time it was settled law that prolonging a traffic stop to bring in dogs would result in suppression of any evidence found.
That's why he has 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. He's never talking about a woman in the song, because he knows enough that the cop won't illegally search his shit.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015 [26 favorites]
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Emphasis mine.)
Actually, no. Scalia, for his many faults, has long been a consistent and *very* strong defender of the 4th amendment. Almost any time you see the court extending the 4th, he's on the side doing so, and he's often writing the majority opinion. In some ways, he's the pot smoker's best friend. His epic teardown of IR cameras used to detect grow houses should be standard reading.
So, I'm not surprised he joined the majority opinion, I'm only surprised he didn't write a concurring opinion. Ginsburg must have nailed it. Then again, Scalia has a great deal of respect for RBG, and must have decide that she hit all the salient points, and one of the agreements that you are supposed to follow is you're only supposed to write a concurring if there's a point you want to make that you feel the Court's opinion missed.
Note the three in the minority here. The two standard idiots, Alito and Thomas, and Kennedy.
Scalia, I don't agree with on social issues, but when it comes to criminal justice issues, he really is one of the best on the court -- the compete inverse, really, of Kennedy, who's often good on social issues but a complete tool of the police when criminal justice is involved.
posted by eriko at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015 [52 favorites]
Actually, no. Scalia, for his many faults, has long been a consistent and *very* strong defender of the 4th amendment. Almost any time you see the court extending the 4th, he's on the side doing so, and he's often writing the majority opinion. In some ways, he's the pot smoker's best friend. His epic teardown of IR cameras used to detect grow houses should be standard reading.
So, I'm not surprised he joined the majority opinion, I'm only surprised he didn't write a concurring opinion. Ginsburg must have nailed it. Then again, Scalia has a great deal of respect for RBG, and must have decide that she hit all the salient points, and one of the agreements that you are supposed to follow is you're only supposed to write a concurring if there's a point you want to make that you feel the Court's opinion missed.
Note the three in the minority here. The two standard idiots, Alito and Thomas, and Kennedy.
Scalia, I don't agree with on social issues, but when it comes to criminal justice issues, he really is one of the best on the court -- the compete inverse, really, of Kennedy, who's often good on social issues but a complete tool of the police when criminal justice is involved.
posted by eriko at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015 [52 favorites]
I'd hazard a guess that it's still illegal to drive stoned, so they can still make that claim...
posted by symbioid at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015
posted by symbioid at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2015
In an alternate world, we would be allowed some time to have some dogs come over so that we could pet them. What steps could we take to make this world possible?
Petting a working K9 is a bad idea. Anecdotally I have heard about several cases of dogs with, ah, dodgy temperaments working in K9 units who really should not have been cleared to be there, but even if you have a good one the dog is trained to ignore you so it can focus AND if it's dual trained in bitework it may view you as a potentially threatening stranger rather than a source of friendly pets. Just in general I try to ignore working dogs so they can focus on their jobs, but I would generally rather avoid working K9s on the job in particular. I don't really enjoy getting up close and personal with dogs who are encouraged to use their teeth, even on bite sleeves, and who are encouraged to view being mouthy as all part of a great game. Sure, if they're well trained they're not going to react without a cue from the handler--but how far do I trust a police handler?
And I mean, I am a Nice White Lady who generally does not catch shit from cops. I would be much more worried if I was a person the handler was likely to view as a potential threat, because that tenseness absolutely does travel down the leash in a K9 situation.
posted by sciatrix at 7:27 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Petting a working K9 is a bad idea. Anecdotally I have heard about several cases of dogs with, ah, dodgy temperaments working in K9 units who really should not have been cleared to be there, but even if you have a good one the dog is trained to ignore you so it can focus AND if it's dual trained in bitework it may view you as a potentially threatening stranger rather than a source of friendly pets. Just in general I try to ignore working dogs so they can focus on their jobs, but I would generally rather avoid working K9s on the job in particular. I don't really enjoy getting up close and personal with dogs who are encouraged to use their teeth, even on bite sleeves, and who are encouraged to view being mouthy as all part of a great game. Sure, if they're well trained they're not going to react without a cue from the handler--but how far do I trust a police handler?
And I mean, I am a Nice White Lady who generally does not catch shit from cops. I would be much more worried if I was a person the handler was likely to view as a potential threat, because that tenseness absolutely does travel down the leash in a K9 situation.
posted by sciatrix at 7:27 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]
Well yes, like a clock stuck at 4:00am except Scalia is the clock and the 4th Amendment is the time. Everybody is right!
posted by VTX at 7:28 PM on April 21, 2015
posted by VTX at 7:28 PM on April 21, 2015
One of the undersold advantages of marijuana legalization is that it takes away every policeman's favorite magic spell, in which the sacred incantation- "I think I smell marijuana"- is uttered and out of thin air probable cause is conjured
Which is why Andy Cuomo's medical marijuana offering was such weak sauce. Does anyone doubt NYPD threw a hissy fit over the loss of their favorite tool ?
posted by mikelieman at 8:12 PM on April 21, 2015
Which is why Andy Cuomo's medical marijuana offering was such weak sauce. Does anyone doubt NYPD threw a hissy fit over the loss of their favorite tool ?
posted by mikelieman at 8:12 PM on April 21, 2015
I was in criminal court almost every day when the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana came into effect in my state, and the look of total "duh" on the faces of police officers as they learned that the "odor of burnt marijuana" in a police report was no long a sufficient explanation for whatever the hell they did, inevitably to a car full of young black people? That was so nourishing that I didn't have to eat breakfast for days at a time after seeing one of those hearings.
posted by 1adam12 at 8:17 PM on April 21, 2015 [103 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 8:17 PM on April 21, 2015 [103 favorites]
I'm just a caveman layperson, but it sounds like the police just have to pretend that it took longer than usual to run the license plates if they want to bring the K-9 around. To say nothing of the use of dogs at Border Patrol checkpoints.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:19 PM on April 21, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:19 PM on April 21, 2015
Also, remember, while the cop can shoot your dog at any time for any reason without repercussions, shooting THEIR dogs is pretty similar to shooting them.
not that you should ever shoot a dog, even if it is being used as a tool of oppression.
posted by el io at 8:36 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
not that you should ever shoot a dog, even if it is being used as a tool of oppression.
posted by el io at 8:36 PM on April 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
SCoTUSblog has a good analysis with this great finale -
Have you ever accidentally knocked something over and then embarrassedly just walked away rather than helping to clean it up, hoping that no one noticed? Sometimes the Supreme Court corrects its own mistakes this way – not overruling, but just quietly and slowly walking away, over years and various decisions, from a rationale that increasingly seems mistaken. As Justice Thomas’s dissent noted today (not happily), the majority’s “reasoning appears to come down to the principle that dogs are different.” Perhaps he is correct. But specially trained dogs do not seem different from thermal heat-imagers, GPS locators, or wiretapping, all of which have been ruled “searches” by the Court in the past. Their employment may or may not be reasonable – it depends on the circumstances. But they are all investigative tools. Perhaps Justice Thomas is actually noting that the Court is moving toward the realization that drug-sniffing dogs are actually no different from other “search” devices.
posted by Garm at 8:40 PM on April 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Have you ever accidentally knocked something over and then embarrassedly just walked away rather than helping to clean it up, hoping that no one noticed? Sometimes the Supreme Court corrects its own mistakes this way – not overruling, but just quietly and slowly walking away, over years and various decisions, from a rationale that increasingly seems mistaken. As Justice Thomas’s dissent noted today (not happily), the majority’s “reasoning appears to come down to the principle that dogs are different.” Perhaps he is correct. But specially trained dogs do not seem different from thermal heat-imagers, GPS locators, or wiretapping, all of which have been ruled “searches” by the Court in the past. Their employment may or may not be reasonable – it depends on the circumstances. But they are all investigative tools. Perhaps Justice Thomas is actually noting that the Court is moving toward the realization that drug-sniffing dogs are actually no different from other “search” devices.
posted by Garm at 8:40 PM on April 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Another bunch of words with nothing at all behind them - designed to quiet the masses.
posted by aryma at 8:41 PM on April 21, 2015
posted by aryma at 8:41 PM on April 21, 2015
I actually think drug sniffing dogs are different from a wiretap or thermal heat imager or GPS locator. Because a GPS locator actually tells you where something is, a thermal heat imager actually tells you if there is a heat source, and a wiretap actually records what people say.
Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present. I can pretty much guarantee it. It's nothing but an excuse to search whatever the cop wants to search.
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing.
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on April 21, 2015 [31 favorites]
Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present. I can pretty much guarantee it. It's nothing but an excuse to search whatever the cop wants to search.
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing.
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on April 21, 2015 [31 favorites]
aryma: That's true when politicians open their mouths, or TV anchors, or pundits of any sorts, or the newspapers... But Supreme Court decisions have meaning - cases get thrown out because of them, police change their conduct, these decisions actually matter.
I assure you, I was literally called 'cynical' before I knew what the word meant; my cynicism runs strong and deep... But when the supreme court decides on something, it has meaning, it has impact.
posted by el io at 8:46 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I assure you, I was literally called 'cynical' before I knew what the word meant; my cynicism runs strong and deep... But when the supreme court decides on something, it has meaning, it has impact.
posted by el io at 8:46 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I knew this would be about Nebraska.
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:08 PM on April 21, 2015
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:08 PM on April 21, 2015
Petting a working K9 is a bad idea.
Indeed.
As James talked about the raid, he mentioned Cairo’s role. “There was a dog?” Obama interrupted. James nodded and said that Cairo was in an adjoining room, muzzled, at the request of the Secret Service.
“I want to meet that dog,” Obama said.
“If you want to meet the dog, Mr. President, I advise you to bring treats,” James joked. Obama went over to pet Cairo, but the dog’s muzzle was left on.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:20 PM on April 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Indeed.
As James talked about the raid, he mentioned Cairo’s role. “There was a dog?” Obama interrupted. James nodded and said that Cairo was in an adjoining room, muzzled, at the request of the Secret Service.
“I want to meet that dog,” Obama said.
“If you want to meet the dog, Mr. President, I advise you to bring treats,” James joked. Obama went over to pet Cairo, but the dog’s muzzle was left on.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:20 PM on April 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
b1tr0t: "Police dogs are a terror tactic. End them."
Very similar to fire hoses if I remember my civil rights footage correctly.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 10:10 PM on April 21, 2015
Very similar to fire hoses if I remember my civil rights footage correctly.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 10:10 PM on April 21, 2015
This has been the case in Arkansas for almost 20 years now. They may be owned by total nuts now, but the Arkansas Supreme Court has long been ahead of the curve on illegal search and seizure. They did at one time have a bad habit of basing their opinions on the federal Constitution, which would lead to a federal court reversing them, but they would almost always come back with the same opinion, but based on the Arkansas Constitution.
No long waits for dogs, no pretextual stops, a wide ranging definition of curtilage. Pretty much a good place to be if you don't want your shit searched and you can afford a high dollar attorney.
FWIW, a large part of why handlers get annoyed if you are friendly toward their dog isn't so much that you'll get your hand bitten off, but that it makes them less likely to be aggressive when it is actually necessary. One of my aunt's dogs was forced into early retirement for just that reason. I think her dogs are awesome, but I'm certain my opinion would be quite different if I were on the wrong side of a chase.
posted by wierdo at 10:28 PM on April 21, 2015
No long waits for dogs, no pretextual stops, a wide ranging definition of curtilage. Pretty much a good place to be if you don't want your shit searched and you can afford a high dollar attorney.
FWIW, a large part of why handlers get annoyed if you are friendly toward their dog isn't so much that you'll get your hand bitten off, but that it makes them less likely to be aggressive when it is actually necessary. One of my aunt's dogs was forced into early retirement for just that reason. I think her dogs are awesome, but I'm certain my opinion would be quite different if I were on the wrong side of a chase.
posted by wierdo at 10:28 PM on April 21, 2015
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I basically wanted to say what eriko said much better than I would have. Scalia is often a defendant's best friend. And he and Ginsburg are very close, personally, from what I know (and I've known a number of people close to both of them.)
posted by Navelgazer at 10:30 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
I basically wanted to say what eriko said much better than I would have. Scalia is often a defendant's best friend. And he and Ginsburg are very close, personally, from what I know (and I've known a number of people close to both of them.)
posted by Navelgazer at 10:30 PM on April 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Foie Gras in a city that bans it
I want to see the footage where dogs are somehow trained to sniff out and discern illegal foie gras from other delicious contraband.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:40 PM on April 21, 2015
I want to see the footage where dogs are somehow trained to sniff out and discern illegal foie gras from other delicious contraband.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:40 PM on April 21, 2015
Does this mean that a police officer may not ask you any questions "unrelated to vehicle and driver safety" at the start of the stop? I suppose they could still ask them while they're waiting for a response on the radio or whatever, but questions at the start would be extending the length of the stop for reasons "unrelated to vehicle and driver safety".
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:25 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:25 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
eriko: "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (Emphasis mine.)
Actually, no. Scalia, for his many faults, has long been a consistent and *very* strong defender of the 4th amendment."
That's true, and I'm glad that he made the right decision in this case, but he has also long been a consistent and *very* strong denier of our other important rights, especially on social issues. Maybe you're right that my broken clock analogy overstates my point that, on balance, he's done more harm than good. The 4th amendment, as incredibly important as it is, isn't the sum and total of the rights accorded to us.
Justinian: "Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present. I can pretty much guarantee it. It's nothing but an excuse to search whatever the cop wants to search.
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing."
I agree completely. Like a "counting" horse that senses the anticipation of the crowd and its trainer when it reaches the right number of hoof stomps, a K9 dog lives above all else to make its owner (the K9 officer) happy. The dog can sense what the police officer wants it to do, even if the officer isn't intentionally manipulating the situation, which itself is no safe bet.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:24 AM on April 22, 2015
Actually, no. Scalia, for his many faults, has long been a consistent and *very* strong defender of the 4th amendment."
That's true, and I'm glad that he made the right decision in this case, but he has also long been a consistent and *very* strong denier of our other important rights, especially on social issues. Maybe you're right that my broken clock analogy overstates my point that, on balance, he's done more harm than good. The 4th amendment, as incredibly important as it is, isn't the sum and total of the rights accorded to us.
Justinian: "Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present. I can pretty much guarantee it. It's nothing but an excuse to search whatever the cop wants to search.
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing."
I agree completely. Like a "counting" horse that senses the anticipation of the crowd and its trainer when it reaches the right number of hoof stomps, a K9 dog lives above all else to make its owner (the K9 officer) happy. The dog can sense what the police officer wants it to do, even if the officer isn't intentionally manipulating the situation, which itself is no safe bet.
posted by double block and bleed at 4:24 AM on April 22, 2015
Does this mean that a police officer may not ask you any questions "unrelated to vehicle and driver safety" at the start of the stop?
Well, he's going to continue doing whatever the hell he wants. Your defense attorney might have more options after you're beaten, held for a few days, and released.... Of course, if all you get is beaten, held for a few days and released without charges, you're either fucked or got off easy, depending on your skin color.
posted by mikelieman at 4:28 AM on April 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well, he's going to continue doing whatever the hell he wants. Your defense attorney might have more options after you're beaten, held for a few days, and released.... Of course, if all you get is beaten, held for a few days and released without charges, you're either fucked or got off easy, depending on your skin color.
posted by mikelieman at 4:28 AM on April 22, 2015 [4 favorites]
Does this mean that a police officer may not ask you any questions "unrelated to vehicle and driver safety" at the start of the stop?
One thing many people forget is that a police officer, while still being an officer of the law, is still a person and still retains all of the rights of personhood. Just as I can walk up to you on the street and ask how you are doing, so can a police officer.
This is why one of the questions you should ask is, "Am I being detained?" A police officer can talk to you about absolutely anything, including the weather, sports, movies, and ask you where you're going, what you're doing, etc.
Being detained on the street or at a traffic stop is another matter; that's what was at question here.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:09 AM on April 22, 2015
One thing many people forget is that a police officer, while still being an officer of the law, is still a person and still retains all of the rights of personhood. Just as I can walk up to you on the street and ask how you are doing, so can a police officer.
This is why one of the questions you should ask is, "Am I being detained?" A police officer can talk to you about absolutely anything, including the weather, sports, movies, and ask you where you're going, what you're doing, etc.
Being detained on the street or at a traffic stop is another matter; that's what was at question here.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:09 AM on April 22, 2015
Also, remember, while the cop can shoot your dog at any time for any reason without repercussions...
False, anyone who shoots my dog had better shoot me too, consequences be damned.
Before I watched John Wick my understanding of the premise was that some bad guys came and robbed him and killed his dog in the processed. His response of killing everyone in whole organization seemed, at least to me, perfectly reasonable then. All the details about (spoiler alert) the dog being his wife's last gift before she died from cancer were unnecessary.
I feel very strongly that it's wrong to shoot dogs, is what I'm saying.
posted by VTX at 7:27 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
False, anyone who shoots my dog had better shoot me too, consequences be damned.
Before I watched John Wick my understanding of the premise was that some bad guys came and robbed him and killed his dog in the processed. His response of killing everyone in whole organization seemed, at least to me, perfectly reasonable then. All the details about (spoiler alert) the dog being his wife's last gift before she died from cancer were unnecessary.
I feel very strongly that it's wrong to shoot dogs, is what I'm saying.
posted by VTX at 7:27 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
As eriko aptly explained, Scalia is not the surprise here: it's Justice (I LOVE the government) Breyer and Justice (I LOVE corporations) Roberts.
This is good law, though. Seems narrow at first glance, but will hopefully prove somewhat useful in the future, at least in dog search cases.
Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court's recent opinions in Florida v. Jardines and Florida v. Harris explicitly discussed this difference, and also the reliability of dog sniffing in general.
posted by likeatoaster at 7:43 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is good law, though. Seems narrow at first glance, but will hopefully prove somewhat useful in the future, at least in dog search cases.
Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court's recent opinions in Florida v. Jardines and Florida v. Harris explicitly discussed this difference, and also the reliability of dog sniffing in general.
posted by likeatoaster at 7:43 AM on April 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Drug sniffing dogs alert whenever the handler wants them to alert whether or not there are drugs present. I can pretty much guarantee it. It's nothing but an excuse to search whatever the cop wants to search.
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing.
To be fair, this is why the dogs are supposed to be regularly trained in handler-blind conditions--dogs that alert when the person who laid the scent baits knows there's no bait there, regardless of what the handler knows, are supposed to be washed out of training. Of course, that assumes that your local K9 units are keeping up with that training routinely and that the dog is trained in handler-blind conditions with, for example, people of all races serving as "innocent searches" so the dog doesn't start cuing in on things like race as a clue about where to find searches. (And since the dog is rewarded for a find, you're supposed to put a bait down after a clean search and let the dog find that so you can reward it.) Dogs are not race-blind and do pick up on racial cues like skin color, so if you've got a dog who is trained primarily or entirely around white cops but is primarly "working" around cars driven by people of color... well, that can introduce some unfortunate expectations into not only the handler but the dog itself.
I've watched scent dogs work on a variety of scents and even done a little nosework training myself, and handlers have to be aware of biasing the dogs to train the work. Handlers are supposed to stand well back from the dog and stand as neutrally as humanly possible, and as I was trained you put the dog on a long lead so you don't distract it with cues via tension coming down the leash. You definitely do not place scent baits yourself in training unless you have no other option. Scent dogs do work really well if these training guidelines are observed and if handlers follow the rules, but you have to be careful... and protection-trained and detection-trained German Shepherds and Malinois are unfortunately pretty big business, with pre-trained dogs going for tens of thousands of dollars. Like I said, I've heard some damned dodgy things going on with people selling poorly trained or poorly bred animals to K9 units, and some dodgier things about K9 handlers who don't keep up with training properly once the dog is purchased.
Me, I'd rather that handling and training practices be completely transparent if local agencies are going to use dog, period. Dogs are not inherently cuddly innocents OR slavishly obedient biting machines; they're living beings which can have the same sets of biases and expectations that human handlers do and opinions of their own. They're... well, they're dogs. Unfortunately, people tend to assume they are either far more or far less effective than they actually are, no matter what task they're doing.
posted by sciatrix at 7:45 AM on April 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think drug sniffing dogs should go the way of bite analysis and dowsing.
To be fair, this is why the dogs are supposed to be regularly trained in handler-blind conditions--dogs that alert when the person who laid the scent baits knows there's no bait there, regardless of what the handler knows, are supposed to be washed out of training. Of course, that assumes that your local K9 units are keeping up with that training routinely and that the dog is trained in handler-blind conditions with, for example, people of all races serving as "innocent searches" so the dog doesn't start cuing in on things like race as a clue about where to find searches. (And since the dog is rewarded for a find, you're supposed to put a bait down after a clean search and let the dog find that so you can reward it.) Dogs are not race-blind and do pick up on racial cues like skin color, so if you've got a dog who is trained primarily or entirely around white cops but is primarly "working" around cars driven by people of color... well, that can introduce some unfortunate expectations into not only the handler but the dog itself.
I've watched scent dogs work on a variety of scents and even done a little nosework training myself, and handlers have to be aware of biasing the dogs to train the work. Handlers are supposed to stand well back from the dog and stand as neutrally as humanly possible, and as I was trained you put the dog on a long lead so you don't distract it with cues via tension coming down the leash. You definitely do not place scent baits yourself in training unless you have no other option. Scent dogs do work really well if these training guidelines are observed and if handlers follow the rules, but you have to be careful... and protection-trained and detection-trained German Shepherds and Malinois are unfortunately pretty big business, with pre-trained dogs going for tens of thousands of dollars. Like I said, I've heard some damned dodgy things going on with people selling poorly trained or poorly bred animals to K9 units, and some dodgier things about K9 handlers who don't keep up with training properly once the dog is purchased.
Me, I'd rather that handling and training practices be completely transparent if local agencies are going to use dog, period. Dogs are not inherently cuddly innocents OR slavishly obedient biting machines; they're living beings which can have the same sets of biases and expectations that human handlers do and opinions of their own. They're... well, they're dogs. Unfortunately, people tend to assume they are either far more or far less effective than they actually are, no matter what task they're doing.
posted by sciatrix at 7:45 AM on April 22, 2015 [9 favorites]
In an alternate world, we would be allowed some time to have some dogs come over so that we could pet them. What steps could we take to make this world possible?
There's always something like this...
posted by Hal Mumkin at 10:02 AM on April 22, 2015
There's always something like this...
posted by Hal Mumkin at 10:02 AM on April 22, 2015
As for impact, I imagine the initial retreat to the cruiser and peck away at the keyboard will simply, miraculously, take as long as it takes for a k9 unit to show up. Seriously, I've spend over half an hour waiting for them to enter in the data and decide whether to give me a ticket or not. Who'd notice that the time spent doing paperwork also allowed for additional units to show up? How could the courts know whether it was slow typing, a bad connection, or villainy at work?
posted by Blackanvil at 10:17 AM on April 22, 2015
posted by Blackanvil at 10:17 AM on April 22, 2015
As for impact, I imagine the initial retreat to the cruiser and peck away at the keyboard will simply, miraculously, take as long as it takes for a k9 unit to show up. Seriously, I've spend over half an hour waiting for them to enter in the data and decide whether to give me a ticket or not. Who'd notice that the time spent doing paperwork also allowed for additional units to show up? How could the courts know whether it was slow typing, a bad connection, or villainy at work?
Discoverable evidence such as keyloggers and event trackers on cruiser computers would be nice in this case. Much like cameras, if you're not misbehaving, they're irrelevant. Never happen, though.
posted by kafziel at 10:19 AM on April 22, 2015
Discoverable evidence such as keyloggers and event trackers on cruiser computers would be nice in this case. Much like cameras, if you're not misbehaving, they're irrelevant. Never happen, though.
posted by kafziel at 10:19 AM on April 22, 2015
The tellers at banks have all that stuff on their computers and all the security folks that I've ever talked to have said that they prove a teller's innocence most of the time.
At least from that example, it should protect the good cops as much as it damns the bad ones. It seems that we have a hard enough time getting body cams used in a way that makes sense (always on and recording when on duty, 3rd party controls the data, etc.) so I won't hold my breath for them to put that kind of tracking on their computers.
posted by VTX at 10:25 AM on April 22, 2015
At least from that example, it should protect the good cops as much as it damns the bad ones. It seems that we have a hard enough time getting body cams used in a way that makes sense (always on and recording when on duty, 3rd party controls the data, etc.) so I won't hold my breath for them to put that kind of tracking on their computers.
posted by VTX at 10:25 AM on April 22, 2015
Hooray for marginally better!
I drink very, very little. But I like beer and it's good for digestion, the hops help you sleep, and I've always liked the taste.
So I drink non-alcoholic beer (yeah yeah, I know)
Took me a few times around to realize the bureacracy doesn't care and most traffic cops can't (or aren't allowed to) make the call that it's, y'know, without alcohol - at least legally (Illinois less than .5 of one percent of alcohol by volume ain't consuming alcohol while driving).
But it's always a hassle so I don't.
I've gotten pulled over for drinking IBC root beer as well. The bottle looks like a beer bottle.
Nice conversation there too. (So, the idea is, I would be more likely to smuggle alcohol in a beer shaped bottle than pouring Jack Daniels or something into a can of Coke?)
In an alternate world, we would be allowed some time to have some dogs come over so that we could pet them.
Anyone else hear that in Mitch Hedberg's voice?
Looks like Jay-Z needs to change the lyrics to 99 Problems.
You know, I hate getting stuck at a desk. But reading that made today worth it. :-)
the officer told me that they were working with a K9 team and inquired if there was anything illegal in the car.
Reminds me of an old joke about being pulled over for speeding:
Well, technically it's not really my car since I stole it. Which is good because my license expired. Although technically the owner is in the car, just in the trunk. Though she's probably bled out by now. I stabbed her pretty bad. And her kid too. At least I think I did. I was high on a lot of the coke I'm smuggling.
So just the coke would be illegal, if they're still alive. Oh, and the guns.
*later, after spending half hour on the pavement cuffed, covered by shotguns*
2nd Officer: 'Sir, I don't understand. The officer that pulled you over said the car was stolen, you had guns and cocaine and there were dead bodies in the trunk."
Yeah, and I bet he told you he pulled me over for speeding too!
posted by Smedleyman at 10:31 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
I drink very, very little. But I like beer and it's good for digestion, the hops help you sleep, and I've always liked the taste.
So I drink non-alcoholic beer (yeah yeah, I know)
Took me a few times around to realize the bureacracy doesn't care and most traffic cops can't (or aren't allowed to) make the call that it's, y'know, without alcohol - at least legally (Illinois less than .5 of one percent of alcohol by volume ain't consuming alcohol while driving).
But it's always a hassle so I don't.
I've gotten pulled over for drinking IBC root beer as well. The bottle looks like a beer bottle.
Nice conversation there too. (So, the idea is, I would be more likely to smuggle alcohol in a beer shaped bottle than pouring Jack Daniels or something into a can of Coke?)
In an alternate world, we would be allowed some time to have some dogs come over so that we could pet them.
Anyone else hear that in Mitch Hedberg's voice?
Looks like Jay-Z needs to change the lyrics to 99 Problems.
You know, I hate getting stuck at a desk. But reading that made today worth it. :-)
the officer told me that they were working with a K9 team and inquired if there was anything illegal in the car.
Reminds me of an old joke about being pulled over for speeding:
Well, technically it's not really my car since I stole it. Which is good because my license expired. Although technically the owner is in the car, just in the trunk. Though she's probably bled out by now. I stabbed her pretty bad. And her kid too. At least I think I did. I was high on a lot of the coke I'm smuggling.
So just the coke would be illegal, if they're still alive. Oh, and the guns.
*later, after spending half hour on the pavement cuffed, covered by shotguns*
2nd Officer: 'Sir, I don't understand. The officer that pulled you over said the car was stolen, you had guns and cocaine and there were dead bodies in the trunk."
Yeah, and I bet he told you he pulled me over for speeding too!
posted by Smedleyman at 10:31 AM on April 22, 2015 [6 favorites]
Scalia is like a clock that's right twice a day and the rest of the time shouts "FUCK YOU" over and over.
posted by gottabefunky at 8:47 PM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 8:47 PM on April 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older If you are not paying for it et cetera | If you can beat level 1, please tell me how kthx Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Behemoth at 6:42 PM on April 21, 2015 [8 favorites]