6 ms·

You're missing the point entirely. We don't care terribly much about the people who eventually go to jail, at least not in isolation. The problem is innocent p

You're missing the point entirely. We don't care terribly much about the people who eventually go to jail, at least not in isolation. The problem is innocent people who get searched illegally. Being sent to jail is not the only bad thing which can happen to people; being searched without probable cause is inherently unacceptable without regards to the results of the search.

harryh 11y ago
Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Therefore the standard of evidence for sending people to jail is higher than the standard of evidence to search people. Therefore the standard of evidence for probable cause is lower than the standard of evidence for a criminal conviction.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Your statements are correct but you are still missing the point.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Clearly you (and some others) think that the standard for probable cause should be higher than it is. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. It's a grey area for sure.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      No, I think that training dogs to reliably provide probable cause rather than to reliably find drugs is both stupid and unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with how high the bar for 'probable cause' should be.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    No, his statement isn't even correct. The Bill of Rights is not divided into venial and mortal sins, and even if it were, I'd argue that the Fourth Amendment would not fall into the former category.
    - harryh 11y ago
      The Fourth Amendment reads "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Why do you think it says this instead of "no Warrants shall issue, but upon cause beyond reasonable doubt." ?
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        If the tool for determining probable cause is no better than a coin flip -- which is in fact the case (see my other post) -- then the intent of the amendment is being circumvented. It's the whole "probable" thing that's the issue at hand.
        harryh 11y ago
        You didn't answer my question.
        CamperBob2 11y ago
        Here's what usually happens at this point in a politically-charged HN thread: I ask a question along the lines of, "Why are you so interested in defending an indefensible aspect of an indefensible war on an abstract noun?", and then I get a nasty note from the admins warning against personal attacks, even though none was intended. So we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I suspect we're coming from two very different places.
        harryh 11y ago
        Our legal system very much distinguishes between venial and mortal sins. You can see that in the very language of the 4th amendment which is why I asked my question. The amendment recognizes that searching someone puts a far smaller burden on them than putting them in jail which is why the standard of proof is very different for those two actions. My point here has nothing to do with the war on drugs. The same standard applies if law enforcement is searching for drugs or guns or stolen property. You should ponder this some and then consider changing your point of view so that you can be correct more often in the future.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Not from a Constitutional law standpoint. They are both violations of the subject's civil rights, when the search is based on a pretense, a pretext, or a coin flip.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    He is not talking about being worse 'constitutionally'. He is absolutely correct in saying that being sent to jail is worse than being searched. I suspect he is correct positing that is why the standards of evidence for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) are higher than for search (probable cause). He is however missing the point in that he is bringing up a separate standard of evidence that has no bearing on the issue being discussed. Being searched isn't bad just because it can lead to you going to jail.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      He is not talking about being worse 'constitutionally'. He is absolutely correct in saying that being sent to jail is worse than being searched. I suspect he is correct positing that is why the standards of evidence for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) are higher than for search (probable cause). Perhaps, but my point is that neither standard is being met. If the officer didn't have PC before calling in a dog with the performance history described in the article, then he doesn't have PC afterwards either. It is not OK to violate one aspect of the Fourth Amendment just because it appears (in someone's opinion) to call for less stringent adherence than other aspects.

harryh 11y ago

Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Therefore the standard of evidence for sending people to jail is higher than the standard of evidence to search people. Therefore the standard of evidence for probable cause is lower than the standard of evidence for a criminal conviction.

shkkmo 11y ago
Your statements are correct but you are still missing the point.
- harryh 11y ago
  Clearly you (and some others) think that the standard for probable cause should be higher than it is. Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not. It's a grey area for sure.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    No, I think that training dogs to reliably provide probable cause rather than to reliably find drugs is both stupid and unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with how high the bar for 'probable cause' should be.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  No, his statement isn't even correct. The Bill of Rights is not divided into venial and mortal sins, and even if it were, I'd argue that the Fourth Amendment would not fall into the former category.
  - harryh 11y ago
    The Fourth Amendment reads "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Why do you think it says this instead of "no Warrants shall issue, but upon cause beyond reasonable doubt." ?
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      If the tool for determining probable cause is no better than a coin flip -- which is in fact the case (see my other post) -- then the intent of the amendment is being circumvented. It's the whole "probable" thing that's the issue at hand.
      - harryh 11y ago
        You didn't answer my question.
        CamperBob2 11y ago
        Here's what usually happens at this point in a politically-charged HN thread: I ask a question along the lines of, "Why are you so interested in defending an indefensible aspect of an indefensible war on an abstract noun?", and then I get a nasty note from the admins warning against personal attacks, even though none was intended. So we'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I suspect we're coming from two very different places.
        harryh 11y ago
        Our legal system very much distinguishes between venial and mortal sins. You can see that in the very language of the 4th amendment which is why I asked my question. The amendment recognizes that searching someone puts a far smaller burden on them than putting them in jail which is why the standard of proof is very different for those two actions. My point here has nothing to do with the war on drugs. The same standard applies if law enforcement is searching for drugs or guns or stolen property. You should ponder this some and then consider changing your point of view so that you can be correct more often in the future.
CamperBob2 11y ago
Being incorrectly sent to jail is much worse than being incorrectly searched. Not from a Constitutional law standpoint. They are both violations of the subject's civil rights, when the search is based on a pretense, a pretext, or a coin flip.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  He is not talking about being worse 'constitutionally'. He is absolutely correct in saying that being sent to jail is worse than being searched. I suspect he is correct positing that is why the standards of evidence for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) are higher than for search (probable cause). He is however missing the point in that he is bringing up a separate standard of evidence that has no bearing on the issue being discussed. Being searched isn't bad just because it can lead to you going to jail.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    He is not talking about being worse 'constitutionally'. He is absolutely correct in saying that being sent to jail is worse than being searched. I suspect he is correct positing that is why the standards of evidence for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) are higher than for search (probable cause). Perhaps, but my point is that neither standard is being met. If the officer didn't have PC before calling in a dog with the performance history described in the article, then he doesn't have PC afterwards either. It is not OK to violate one aspect of the Fourth Amendment just because it appears (in someone's opinion) to call for less stringent adherence than other aspects.