and a drug dog trained to alert on cue.
We, John especially, call out shitty cops on this site, and we also call out the excesses of the war on drugs.
Well, somebody dropped this story in my lap about the Nevada Highway Patrol, and the federal lawsuit by several Troopers that alleges that NHP and Las Vegas Metro Police Department have drug dogs specifically trained to alert on command, thereby creating false probable cause to arrest and search and seize property.
The complaint alleges that after then-Gov. Jim Gibbons approved a K-9 program to target drug runners on Nevada’s highways, Nevada Highway Patrol Commander Chris Perry intentionally undermined the program.
The complaint alleges that the drug-sniffing dogs used by troopers in the program were intentionally being trained to operate as so-called trick ponies, or dogs that provide officers false alerts for the presence of drugs.
In this case, the shitty cops are being called out in a federal lawsuit that alleges RICO violations by other, not-shitty cops.
Also, too–open thread because Andrew Breitbart is still dead, and I never get tired of mentioning that.
jwb
Mitt Romney’s Summer Vacation. This would actually make a funny movie, but it’s also kind of horrifying.
piratedan
well those dogs could at least be cross trained to identify whenever Mitt Romney tells a lie……
Downpuppy
I liked the Junior Brown version better.
General Stuck
I recently read another case of this sort of nonsense with drug dogs used as set ups to search vehicles, when there is no other probable cause. This from a couple of guys traveling to Cleveland for a football game. I think most of it is part of the utterly odious seizure laws for property, when finding even small amounts of drugs. And sometimes larger amounts of cash the cops decide have to be drug money. Even when no other real evidence is found. Forcing people to go through a lengthy legal process to get their money and property back. With the thinking by these corrupt cops, (I’m speculating_), that most people won’t want to do that process, especially if far from home and out of state.
PeakVT
Breaking the law to enforce the law generally doesn’t work out so well.
AA+ Bonds
I’ve watched this happen in Tennessee; I was in the car. There was nothing there and I do not for the life of me believe the dog was reacting to anything but a cue from the LEO.
Valdivia
@jwb:
I read that and almost gagged.
Keith
@jwb: That picture reminds me of the SNL skit with all of Romney’s sons talking in unison, like they’re Children of the Corn.
Soonergrunt
@jwb: I understand that the Romney family rules of baseball are that there’s only third base and home plate and every swing is a home run.
PeakVT
Sounds like the most unfun vacation ever.
jwb
@Soonergrunt: Romney changed the rules of the family triathlon so that he wouldn’t lose. It’s very clear that changing rules for his own benefit is hard-wired into his soul.
PeakVT
Oops, wrong thread.
YellowJournalism
Hooray for non-shitty cops!
Gus
@PeakVT: Actually, it’s worked really well for lots of cops for lots of years.
Keith
The Nevada story reminds me of a time I got pulled over at 1am by a K9 patrol vehicle in Hammond, Louisiana (a shit town if there ever was one); the police were on the side of the road at every mile. The officer put his whole head into the passenger-side window to ask me to step outside.
Once outside, he looked me over and asked me where I was going (I had left work, gone home to pack, and hit the road) and then informed me that he pulled me over because I had a plastic bracket (from the car dealership where I bought my car new) around my license plate. He then informed me that is illegal “everywhere” (in Texas, it’s legal if the state and motto are fully visible, which they were.) I didn’t argue, and he let me on my way (although I got tailed by *another* cop at the next mile). The dog never came out, which was lucky for me because I had a sack sitting in the (locked) glovebox (a foot from his head when he poked it through my window)
The same town police pulled my mother (who was riding with the movers) over while going through Hammond at 2am and searched the moving van for *3 hours*, just on the suspicion of a white woman driving with 2 non-white men.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@piratedan: It’s not fair to keep dogs on constant alert, not to mention less than useful. As we know, the test is whether Mitt is in fact speaking.
YellowJournalism
@jwb: That’s not a family vacation! That’s a description of hell. And what’s up with the part about Mittens being put out by being outdone by his DIL who just gave birth?
Ella in New Mexico
You think this hasn’t been happening for, oh, I don’t know….
DECADES?
Brachiator
Very interesting stuff. I wonder what is done to certify that dogs are trained and used correctly.
It also appears that if the good cops had not blown a whistle on the bad cops, they would continue to get away with this. Who would suspect the magic trick of alert cues?
Carl Nyberg
Don’t these seem like criminal acts being perpetrated by law enforcement?
Isn’t the Justice Department supposed to prosecute civil rights violations and criminal conduct by members of law enforcement?
catclub
Time to watch “Touch of Evil” again.
burnspbesq
@Carl Nyberg:
If there is admissible evidence sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. If not, no.
There appears to be sufficient information to justify an investigation. It’s wildly premature to suggest that anything more should happen.
Redshift
@jwb: Yeah, that was very telling. There a people who are successful because they are ambitious and hard-working (and of course, most have good connections.) Then there are “highly competitive” people who only care about winning, and any means, including rigging the rules, is acceptable.
But someone who cares so much about winning that he rigs the rules for games with his own family? How twisted do you have to be to even consider that winning?
catclub
I read
“we also call out the excesses of the war on drugs”
as “we also call out the excesses of the war on dogs”
The real reason no one here likes Romney.
KCinDC
Even if police aren’t engaging in such corruption, drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs can give false alerts based on handlers’ unconscious signals of expectations. Dogs aren’t pseudo-science like polygraphs, but they aren’t nearly as reliable as the public thinks, or as the law apparently considers them.
Punchy
Isnt this the equiv of cops pulling you over for “erratic” driving? Completely subjective, unable to prove otherwise.
Rafer Janders
@burnspbesq:
The question was “Isn’t the Justice Department supposed to prosecute civil rights violations and criminal conduct by members of law enforcement?”
To which you answered “If there is admissible evidence sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. If not, no.”
Really? You might want to re-read that, Sparky. The question was whether Justice is supposed to prosecute civil rights violations and criminal conduct, not whether there’s sufficient evidence to convict. You seem to have confused the standards necessary to initiate the prosecution with the standards necessary for a conviction at trial.
Mike Jones
@Brachiator: Who would suspect? Oh, anyone who’s done more than a trivial amount of dog training.
Mike Jones
@KCinDC: Oh, the *dogs* are perfectly reliable. It’s just that they do what they’re trained to do, and (sort of like computers) you have to be very clear and careful about what you’re asking them to do.
Soonergrunt
@Rafer Janders: Show me a prosecutor anywhere–just one–who will go into court without a prima facie case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, and an answer/rebuttal to any likely legal defense. I’ll show you an incompetent prosecutor whose about to lose a case.
The civil case might work, because the standard of proof there is much lower. It’s only preponderance of the evidence.
Rafer Janders
@Soonergrunt:
I think you’re confusing several separate legal concepts. Prosecutors of course often think they have a prima facie case, but whether their case meets the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a question for the jury, not them.
Basically, all prosecutors have to ask themselves is “is this a strong case, backed up by the evidence, that is more likely than not going to win” and they’ve satisfied their duty. The question of whether or not it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is a separate question, one they never have to answer, because that is a question for the jury to consider, and the question of whether the evidence is admissible is one for the judge to decide.
It’s a case they can assert, but if everyone already knows, as burns wrote , that there is “admissible evidence sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt” then we’d hardly need a trial or a jury.
Rafer Janders
Or, since this is in many ways a confusing topic, let me put it this way: the question of whether “there is admissible evidence sufficient to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt” is a question that is answered in the courtroom and in the jury room, not in the prosecutors’ office. Prosecutors do not have to satisfy these burdens before proceeding to court, because these questions are not theirs to definitively answer. They only have to make a strong argument for their interpretation of the answer.