The NTSB recommends banning cell phone use in cars. Even hands free. This is at least keeping with research that shows hands free doesn’t matter for safety. I’m wondering whether banning passengers is next. Our state recently passed a ban that only covers texting, but interestingly enough it probably also has the unintended consequence of banning Apple’s Siri technology. This is really something politicians should just but their noses out of. There’s lots of potentially dangerous distractions in automobiles, and what problems technology can create, technology can fix.
Category: Civil Liberties
On the Militarization of Police
It’s good of the New York Times to finally notice, what has been discussed on the far reached of the Internet for years.
Trading Liberty for Security
Here’s a very quick introduction to the discussion about how security can mean trading away some liberty, but that TSA takes away the choice completely. To have such broad concepts broken down into 2 minutes, I like it.
(h/t Gary Leff)
More on Searches
A commenter brought up an interesting point in regards to the search of Cemetery’s vehicle, from a lawyer who says the 4th Amendment is alive and well, and it’s still possible to win 4th Amendment cases:
Your real concern is that all other things being equal, police are going to be believed in court over citizens. Well, yea, and that’s always been true, and likely always will be. The advice to have your own camera rolling is well taken.
I think that is partly my concern. If I think about the issue a bit more, what I really think I have an issue with are the dogs. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the use of dogs in police work, or even the use of dogs for their noses in police work. I do have an issue with dogs amounting to probable cause for a search. Let me explain.
It is conceivable that sometime soon, technology will allow us to replace the dog’s nose. In this instance, police will be able to circle your vehicle with a device that takes in air samples, and looks for signatures of contraband. The interesting thing about this technology is, I think it actually would enhance civil liberties. I can’t cross examine a dog to find out what was going through its mind when it “alerted.” I can demand the logs from the device, demand to see its service records, and examine the science behind its function.
Even if it ends up a matter of judicial notice that the devices are reliable, and a reading can amount to probable cause, the officer at least would have to induce a reading somehow if he wanted to act merely on his suspicion, rather than just read the tea leaves of a dog’s behavior.
What’s interesting about such a sniffing device is how it would be affected under Kyllo v. United States. Unless such a device was generally available, it’s hard for me to see how it would be distinguished from the Kyllo case, except that involved a residence, and this would only presumably involve a vehicle or personal effects such as luggage. Perhaps the court would rule you have a lesser expectation of privacy. But as it is, a dog sniff doesn’t even constitute a search for 4th Amendment purposes, but if I were to use a device the mimics a dog’s nose, it presumably would. This goes to show the court’s logic in this matter is not entirely consistent.
Cemetery Pulled Over. I’m Going to Guess DWJ.
Looks like Cemetery got pulled over near Nashville and got his car searched. I’m guessing, just a guess here, that his crime was DWJ, or Driving While Jersey. It matches my experience that cops in the South are a hell of a lot nicer and more polite while they are crapping all over your rights than they are up here.
The cops were right though, that you don’t need a warrant to bring a dog around the car, but the dog is just a front to get probable cause to do a search. The dog may have shown no objective interest, but had they found contraband, you can bet they would have testified the dog alerted, and would have pointed out to the court that it’s a highly trained dog. The dog could be about as good at finding dope as your neighbor’s Pekingese, but it’ll hold in court. It’s your word against theirs. Who do you think the judge or jury is going to believe?
Basically as long as the cops had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed, which would generally only take following your average driver a few miles, you have a legal stop. Once you have the dog on the car, you have the pretext for a search no matter what the dog actually does. Basically if the cops want to search your car, you’re not going to stop them. The key is not consenting to a search. If the dog comes out, roll with it, just make it clear you don’t consent to the search. Not much else you can do. The 4th Amendment has been dead letter for a long time. All searches are reasonable. Long live the War on Drugs.
Not Going to Fly
SayUncle links to a piece on the Genessee County, Michigan Sheriff using narcotics stops. This is a practice that has already been thrown out by the Supreme Court, and as such it is well-established precedent for the purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. So you could probably reach the Sheriff personally in a 1983 suit. I’m also fairly certain anyone caught in these roadblocks can get all the evidence against them tossed as fruit of the poisonous tree. So there is recourse here if you want to nail these guys personally. Though, I’m not sure how much you’ll recover if you were just stopped. Someone who had to hire a lawyer to fight charges that were a result of evidence obtained from the illegal stop might have a decent case though.
Disrespect for the First Amendment …
Arrested for “Lack of Common Sense”
Philadelphia police arrested some folks for using a raft to get around Main Street in Manayunk when it was flooded:
When Dray asked why the men were being arrested, he said the officers replied, “for lack of common sense.â€
No charges were filed against the boaters.
And I’m guessing the reason for that is there are no charges to be filed, because there’s no law against row, row, rowing your boat.
Hat Tip to SayUncle, who has several more examples of stuff like this.
More on Gibson Guitar Woes
Remember, they hate us because we are free:
It isn’t just Gibson that is sweating. Musicians who play vintage guitars and other instruments made of environmentally protected materials are worried the authorities may be coming for them next.
If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution.
We have to take our country back from these people. It’s not enough just to change Congress around. You really need a whole Congress and a President who’s on board with raining in the abuses of the bureaucracy. One man can’t do it, so don’t expect Ron Paul to be able to fix much as President.
Lemonade Freedom Day
Uncle has been touting Lemonade freedom. It seems a lot of people who don’t know how to mind their own business have been arresting and/or fining kids for selling lemonade. Glad to see we’ve solved all the big problems.