Dumb criminals

[Jeff Root]

Moose,

What gives you the idea that the dog did not correctly detect
something it had been trained to detect?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[NEOWatcher]

Moose,

What gives you the idea that the dog did not correctly detect
something it had been trained to detect?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ditto that. I would assume that if the criminals smoked it in public, then no matter what they did, marijuana was involved somehow, and everything they touched turned to Tijuana Gold. So, I would be inclined to believe they did smell something.

[Fazor]

I agree but didn't bring it up 'caus Moose already made the very correct point that we can only go on what was reported in the article. So, you're probably right and there was probably at least a pot cigg, but "probably" is purely speculative.

[Moose]

What gives you the idea that the dog did not correctly detect something it had been trained to detect?

Because it said so in the article, Jeff. If you have access to some public version of the police report that contradicts the article, by all means, post it.

[Moose]

Ditto that. I would assume that if the criminals smoked it in public, then no matter what they did, marijuana was involved somehow, and everything they touched turned to Tijuana Gold. So, I would be inclined to believe they did smell something.

I've already explained my reasoning, but I'll explain it again.

If they had to use the dog on the luggage rather than open it straight, then they did not have probable cause to search. They wouldn't have bothered with the dog if they didn't need to tick that box on their statement. That also means the cops could not have personally witness marijuana on the alleged criminals. (Remember, folks, innocent until proven guilty. Accusations of guilt do not equal proof.) If they had, they'd have probable cause to search the luggage without a search warrant. And would have.

So. They could not have had probable cause. They had to use the dog to try and obtain it. The dog indicated the presence of drugs. They opened the case. Per the article, they did not find drugs.

"Instead" (per the article) they found allegedly stolen bonds. That means that either the dog indicated a false positive, in which case (per precedent) the search was invalid (and so is any evidence coming from that invalid search), or the dog can somehow miraculously detect stolen paper products. Paper products on their own are legal. Therefore the presence of paper, on its own, does not make the search valid.

Ergo, barring additional information the article doesn't provide, or someone can demonstrate through a proper scientific paper that a police dog can be trained to reliably distinguish between stolen and non-stolen paper products (and if so, I think James Randi has a million dollars if you can, in fact, prove something like that), the search could only have been invalid.

[Doodler]

Rules of discovery are a little lenient in those cases, Moose. There've been a few drug busts recently associated with domestic violence calls. Incidental discovery is enjoying some tolerance from the Judiciary, so its possible this could stand. Keep in mind, in the post-9/11 world, those responsible for airline security have the right to take your luggage out back and blast it to well known smithereens without probable cause. Homie's gonna have a LOT of fun trying to fight this one.

[Donnie B.]

Moose:

Yes, yes, what you say is perfectly logical.

But then, if the law were perfectly logical, actual innocence would be valid grounds for appeal. However, it's not (per the Rehnquist court).

[Moose]

I can only argue from what your 4th amendment says about searches, Doodler, not from how they appear to be (at least from the peanut gallery) misused in practice.

I'm pretty sure that in Canada, they'd both get off scot-free for how the search was botched.

[Moose]

But then, if the law were perfectly logical, actual innocence would be valid grounds for appeal. However, it's not (per the Rehnquist court).

*blinks in confusion* Explain?

[NEOWatcher]

Next one: Let the cops do the crime for you.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11191717/detail.html

[Doodler]

I can only argue from what your 4th amendment says about searches, Doodler, not from how they appear to be (at least from the peanut gallery) misused in practice.

Its one of those fun gray areas that inundate American jurisprudence. Technically, random searches are a clear cut violation of the 4th Amendment, because the assumption becomes "anyone could be guilty", presumption of innocence exit stage left. Nevertheless, here they come.

Using the dogs, which are theoretically trained, certified, and whatnot, amount to probable cause. If it detects something its trained to find, you investigate. If the dog starts to slip, you either retrain it or you wash it out. They're not assumed to be perfect, but definitely better than nothing.

Consider: If the dog was looking for drugs, but a bomb was found, do you let the guy walk with the bomb? Should security have the final say on what illegal activities are acceptable or not? Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

[Doodler]

edit: stupid new post instead of edit...

[BigDon]

Ditto that. I would assume that if the criminals smoked it in public, then no matter what they did, marijuana was involved somehow, and everything they touched turned to Tijuana Gold. So, I would be inclined to believe they did smell something.

Minor qubble, that's Acapulco Gold, Neo. Which has been unavailable since the late 70's, at roughly the same time genuine Thai stick disappeared. You kids.

[Jeff Root]

What gives you the idea that the dog did not correctly detect
something it had been trained to detect?

Because it said so in the article, Jeff. If you have access
to some public version of the police report that contradicts
the article, by all means, post it.

The article said no such thing. It said:

Helper [Utah] Police Chief George Zamantakis sent his
drug-sniffing dog through the outside of the men's luggage.
The dog hit on something in one of the pieces of luggage and
police were certain they would find more marijuana. They
instead they found more than $700,000 in U.S. Savings Bonds.

It is your interpretation that the dog did not correctly detect
something in the luggage that it had been trained to detect.
Your interpretation is wrong. Possibly the dog made a mistake,
but you cannot deduce that from the article.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[NEOWatcher]

...You kids.

Um, not because I'm a kid, it's because I am not familiar with details or exact lingo related to Marijuana. I was a teenager in the 70's. Besides, I was more trying to get the "Midas touch" visual not knowing the exact terminology.

[SeanF]

It is your interpretation that the dog did not correctly detect something in the luggage that it had been trained to detect. Your interpretation is wrong. Possibly the dog made a mistake, but you cannot deduce that from the article.

We may need a ruling from Gillianren here, but I think the usage of "instead" does, in fact, imply that what the dog was looking for was not found.

[BigDon]

No! We ought to PM Dons on this one! He's a lawyer!

[sarongsong]

...There were a number of cases (last year?) that were thrown out because a certain sniffer dog was making it up as it'd gone along...

My fave:

...From Reuters: A San Diego arena was evacuated for about two hours...after a hot dog cart attracted the attention of a bomb-sniffing dog...It was meat and not explosive heat attracting the dog's attention... RexCurry

[Fazor]

The real crux comes down to if they found any drugs OR drug paraphenalia when they searched the luggage.

I know I know Moose, you said the article says they did not. BUT, at least the one I read, did NOT say that. It was worded "They expected to find drugs but instead found stolen bonds". It doesn't say explicitely that they didn't find anything drug related. You're right in that we'd need to see the arrest papers for that. To me, the reporter seems to be trying to say that they expected them to be smugglers but instead arrested them for theft. Let me do some digging and see if I can find a report, as a good deal of the time they are public information.

[Fazor]

Welp, still looking for the report, but when I actually bothered to read the article and not just the blurb that was posted on this board there was this:

When police arrived the group of men: Johnny Raymond, 23, Danny Leo, 31, Dino Nick Mitchell, 36, Shawn Mitchell, 32, and Tony Mitchell, 42, who police say admitted to smoking the illegal drug.

There's your probable cause right there. But I'll still look for the incident report

[Gillianren]

We may need a ruling from Gillianren here, but I think the usage of "instead" does, in fact, imply that what the dog was looking for was not found.

Quite right. Otherwise, they'd have said "also."

[Doodler]

Thou shalt not mug American soldiers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17284416/

The grin this put on my mug hurt.

[Fazor]

Quite right. Otherwise, they'd have said "also."

You'd think. But I still am not convinced that is the case. There's another problem here too, which has become apparent after searching and reading some more on the incident (Utah charges for their reports so I can't get court records).

The theft of the bonds is only being linked to a couple of the 5 men, though the articles have been very unclear on which of them are implicated. None admitted to the theft (however they admitted to smoking pot, see my last post re: probable cause).

I think the problem is the bond theft is being handled by the FBI, whereas any drug charges would be handled locally by the Helper City PD, or Utah State Patrol (Dunno thier drug laws, but being mostly Mormon, I'd guess any possession is a felony.). So what we're seeing from the news articles is the part on the FBI arrest/case, and nothing from the Helper City PD. Oh well, I don't really care anymore, as I was done with work 30 min ago and am still here searching for the arrest record. From what I can tell, "Dino" Nick Mitchell is the one that was in possesion of the bonds, and Tony is accused of mailing some of the bonds to a Chicago address. *Shrugs* I'm headed home...happy BAUTing.

[Donnie B.]

But then, if the law were perfectly logical, actual innocence would be valid grounds for appeal. However, it's not (per the Rehnquist court).

*blinks in confusion* Explain?

I'll excerpt a quote from a review of the book Actual Innocence, which is by and about the people behind the Innocence Project (which has managed to get quite a few convictions overturned and whose work led to the moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois).

...in Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404 (1993) (Rehnquist, C.J.) [it was held by the Supreme Court] that "a claim of 'actual innocence' is not itself a constitutional claim." Under Herrera and the cases following it, a federal court can reject a defendant's petition for relief even if it is based on proof of innocence, even if that proof is, as in the cases represented by the Innocence Project, of a scientific nature (DNA evidence showing that the defendant cannot have committed the crime he has been convicted of), and even if the deadlines for submitting that proof are so short that it is virtually impossible for a defendant to present evidence obtained post-conviction in time for a consideration at least in the state court system, which review has to precede a review by the federal courts.

In Herrera, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas death sentence after the defendant had missed the state law's 30-day deadline to get a new trial based on new evidence. And while that particular case involved [other evidentiary issues], these exclusionary rules apply regardless of the type of evidence presented. ...[in other cases] this sometimes meant that DNA evidence which, due to scientific advances, had only become available years after the conviction, was not admitted, even if it conclusively proved that the wrong person had been convicted. The defendants were left to petition for executive clemency, which is discretionary and frequently depends on the amount of political pressure exercised.

The bottom line is that right now, irrational as it may seem, proof of innocence is not sufficient cause to reopen a case that has been decided by a jury. Once a verdict is read and the "new evidence" deadline expires, the only basis for appeal is error in the original trial. That's a pretty wide scope in itself, but it does not include proof of actual innocence.

It's the law of the land in the USA. And this isn't even Bizzarro World.

[Moose]

Right. "Instead" being the key word. It's possible that this is an example of sloppy writing, but we can't assume that this is the case barring additional evidence. Until the trial evidence becomes available, this is all we have to play with.

[Moose]

The bottom line is that right now, irrational as it may seem, proof of innocence is not sufficient cause to reopen a case that has been decided by a jury.

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, that's not my intention, but that's horrifying, Donnie!

Goodness knows we have enough wrongful convictions on our* (*Canadian) hands (Donald Marshall comes immediately to mind) that the idea of intentionally chaining our society in such a way that justice ceases to be the primary (and only) consideration of significance of our justice system...

Donnie, I believe it because it's you saying so, but it's taking everything I've got to believe it.

[Donnie B.]

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, that's not my intention, but that's horrifying, Donnie!

Goodness knows we have enough wrongful convictions on our* (*Canadian) hands (Donald Marshall comes immediately to mind) that the idea of intentionally chaining our society in such a way that justice ceases to be the primary (and only) consideration of significance of our justice system...

Donnie, I believe it because it's you saying so, but it's taking everything I've got to believe it.

I share your sentiments completely, but can't really say more because of BAUT's rules about political discussions.

In general terms, though, all legal systems have that characteristic to greater or lesser extent. You can't write a law that says "justice will always be served". That's too vague; it leaves the question of what comprises justice up in the air -- rather, in the hands of some judge who is potentially corrupt or malicious.

So laws become extremely specific and, generally, more and more specific over time. One of the fundamental principles of the American justice system is that "a jury's decision is final" (or "the judge's decision", if a jury trial was waived), and the exceptions to that are limited and specific. Right now, in most states and the Federal courts, the pendulum has swung such that defendants' rights are losing ground, and the Herrera case is a milestone in that trend.

At the risk of treading too close to the political threshold, I will state that I'm one who is looking forward to the reversal of that particular pendulum.

[BigDon]

Um, not because I'm a kid, it's because I am not familiar with details or exact lingo related to Marijuana. I was a teenager in the 70's. Besides, I was more trying to get the "Midas touch" visual not knowing the exact terminology.

Guess you weren't raised in California in the 70's. What a minute, according to That 70's Show you guys up in the Wisconsin area had pot all the time! Are you telling me the show is fake?

[Moose]

In general terms, though, all legal systems have that characteristic to greater or lesser extent. You can't write a law that says "justice will always be served".

I don't disagree with you, but as I understand it, a major principle behind our law is that errors must always be redressable. I'm trying really hard not to get political, but that was a major argument behind our having gotten rid of the dealth penalty back in the '70s. (I think it was the 70s?)

[Jeff Root]

Moose,

I agree that the word "instead" in the article means that the article
is saying that no visibly obvious quantity of marijuana (or other drug)
was found in the luggage. But your assertion that "either the dog
indicated a false positive, [...] or the dog can somehow miraculously
detect stolen paper products" is wrong. There is no reason to jump
to the conclusion that the dog did not correctly identify something
in or on the luggage that it had been trained to detect.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis