Where Does a Cop With an 80-pound Dog Search? Anywhere He Wants.

Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

[dirtboy]

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I see you left out the part where the Constitution then limits the powers of the federal government. Typical for a liberal.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling, The Rutherford Institute documented empirical research showing dog alerts are not inherently reliable. One recent study at the University of California—Davis, showed that in a test where handlers were told drugs might be found at the test site, but no drugs were present, dogs gave false positive alerts an astonishing 85% of the time. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on a related case, Florida v. Jardines, which challenges the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police to carry out warrantless searches of private homes. The Rutherford Institute also filed an amicus brief in Florida v. Jardines. (Excerpt)

Handlers' Beliefs Influence Drug Sniffing Dogs' Performance-UC Davis Study-18 Dog Detection Teams, Over 200 False Positives

Good finds! Evidence trumps bluster every time.

[Alaska Wolf]

I see you left out the part where the Constitution then limits the powers of the federal government.

I could have posted the whole US Constitution if I'd thought you were a total dumbass. Are you admitting that you are?

[dirtboy]

You are basically staking the position that Congress, the President and SCOTUS can pass, sign and uphold whatever law they want, usurping powers not enumerated to them by the Consitution - on a conservative, limited-government website - and you’re calling ME the dumbass? Go to DU, they’ll embrace you over there.

[Alaska Wolf]

Evidence trumps bluster every time.

So why do you bluster? Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian? Are you too lazy to do the research or just too dumb?

Florida v. Jardines (11-564)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-564

[dirtboy]

Seriously, you are exactly the kind of person Franklin was concerned about when he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[Alaska Wolf]

You are basically staking the position that Congress, the President and SCOTUS can pass, sign and uphold whatever law they want, you’re calling ME the dumbass?

Have you suffered head trauma?

Do you need me to hold your hand and walk you through one step at a time? Who elects the the legislators? Who elected Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Obama, etc.? Who was stupid enough to re-elect them. The problems clearly lie within the electorate. The bigger problem is how do we common sense conservatives convince the leftards to start helping us bail this sinking ship to keep it afloat long enough to make permanent repairs.

Go to DU, they’ll embrace you over there.

You can have it all to yourself. There are enough dumbasses on conservative forums to deal with.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian? Are you too lazy to do the research or just too dumb?

Show me where you asked me a question.

[Alaska Wolf]

Seriously,

When are you going to begin posting like an adult?

[Alaska Wolf]

Show me where you asked me a question.

#58 and #61. You may want to address those posed to your fellow LIEberTARDian, fattigermaster, as he/she/it seems to not possess the stones or ability to properly respond. Thanks in advance.

[dirtboy]

Yeah, we have dumbasses that elect the likes of Obama. And then we have dumbasses like John Roberts who twists language to uphold Obamacare. And then we have dumbasses like you who pretend the Constitution is being followed. The Constitution was meant to constrain the excesses of democracy, not facilitate such. Any conservative with a clue reflexively understands such from the slightest reading of the intent of the Founders.

It happens time and time again. Clear concepts are warped to get around the clear Constitutional constraints on federal power. Ex post facto application of sex offender registration is justified by saying such isn't a punishment, even though that section of the Constitution doesn't limit prohibition of ex post facto laws to punishments (and I have no problem with registration of sex offenders, just not ex post facto application of such). Obamacare is decreed to be a tax and therefore allowable as a federal law.

Sandra Day O'Conner, despite her many flaws, nailed this kind of problem in her dissent in Kelo:

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public–such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words “for public use” do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

[snip]

Finally, in a coda, the Court suggests that property owners should turn to the States, who may or may not choose to impose appropriate limits on economic development takings. Ante, at 19. This is an abdication of our responsibility. States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them.

[snip]

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Why do you avoid answering the questions posed to you, LIE berTARDian? Are you too lazy to do the research or just too dumb?

Show me where you asked me a question.

#58

Answered in post #59.

and #61.

Answered in post #93: 85% of deployments where no drugs are present.

And you call others "dumb" and "tards"? Very amusing.

[fattigermaster]

I provided two dozen references and studies while you contributed nothing to the dialogue except screeching like a butthurt bitchboy. I’m satisfied I made my case.

The only manhood you’ve got left is writing checks on the internet your ass can’t cash on the street. Good luck with that, Poindexter.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

FYI, the original paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0373-2/fulltext.html

[Alaska Wolf]

Yeah, we have dumbasses that elect the likes of Obama.

How about all the leftard legislators? The very people who create the laws and confirm the USSC justices. You expect them to follow the US Constitution? Those people are elected by YOUR dumbass fellow citizens. Why is it that we conservatives can't get honorable people elected to office?

Your mindless, idiotic accusations about me are indicative of your juvenile emotionalism.

[dirtboy]

I see you completely failed to even attempt to counter the points I raised in my previous post regarding limited government as enumerated in the Constitution. Yet you harp on others for not answering your inane questions? Face it, you are an authoritarian who applauds the usurpation of powers as long as it fits your agenda.

Since rational, fact-based debate clearly is not possible with you, you may have the last post.

[dirtboy]

OK, one more post. Since you ignored this statement in my larger post, I will ask it by itself.

The Constitution was meant to constrain the excesses of democracy, not facilitate such.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Alaska Wolf]

you call others "dumb" and "tards"

You continue to reinforce that observation.

[Alaska Wolf]

Since rational, fact-based debate clearly is not possible with you,

Funny that's exactly what I've witnessed in your responses. The US Constitution was conceived and written by men and all of its provisions and limitations have to be enforced by men. What is it about that that you fail to comprehend?

[PapaBear3625]

I was thinking more along the lines of a sniper who’s a member of a street gang. A police dog is a serious threat to this bunch, and they’ll take it out.

If the penalty for taking out the dog is the same as for a human cop, the gang bangers may decide to just take out the handler. This would result in the cops deciding that hassling the gang bangers is too risky.

If the gang banger sniper is really smart, he'll do it when the cop is hassling one of his gang's rivals. That way the rivals get the heat, but the intimidation effect on the cops is the same.