[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lixy wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
lixy wrote:
Laws aren’t worth shit when cops can make defending rights unpractical. They thought this guy should be punished for being a smartass, and that’s what they did. As long as they stick to the dog-sniffed-something line, they should be safe.
Meanwhile, most people (as in, have families, can’t afford to be delayed for hours in check points, etc.) for watching this video would simply reinforce the belief that one shouldn’t piss off cops. And next time they’re in a similar situtation, they’ll happily waiver their rights because they “have nothing to hide”.
I’m not so sure about them being safe. They supposedly repeatedly refused to repeat the action with the dog. Even when requested by other agents. That to me, would support the guys account of the actions.
I don’t think they’re obligated to repeat anything. That he missed the (ficticious) dog sign is not the cops’ problem. It’s his word against that of many sworn officers.
With a good publicity (and this guy being a pastor will make it very easy – imagine an imam in a similar case!) they might get a slap on the wrist, and he might get a fat check. But that’s about the best case scenario.
Unless they found anything in the car, it doesn’t make sense. If the dogs are that accurate, for the officers to be correct, the guy would have to be lying, AND the dog would have had to of been wrong. If they are 99% accurate, it’s a 99% chance the officers are lying. Its the officers word vs. the guy AND the dog.[/quote]
They can claim so much shit that this discussion almost doesn’t make sense.
They can say that it was the 1% occurence. That the dog was in heat and reacted to some pheromones. That the pastor acted suspiciously. That they tazered him for his own good because he seemed nervous. That they were tipped by an anonymous source and the pastor fit the profile. That the “PATRIOT” Act this or that. That his attitude seemed threatening. etc.
The dog can’t testify in court that the cops were lying. The cops are in charge of the dog, and they are the only ones habilitated to interpret the dog’s “word”.
I’ll go even further and ask why should a dog’s bark constitute probable cause. Why does a wiretap need a court order (well…in principle), but sniffing someone’s scent is routine?