6 ms·

It looks like one implies an outside source, the other originates with the officer at the scene. In the case of a traffic stop, the officer stops me 'because I

by dhimes 13y ago

It looks like one implies an outside source, the other originates with the officer at the scene. In the case of a traffic stop, the officer stops me 'because I am speeding' and searches me until he finds something. In another case, s/he stops me because of a 'tip.' The cover story of the officer differs. If they won't stop this they should at least keep stats on how many of these things pan out.

joe_the_user 13y ago
You can be 100% sure these things "pan out" in the sense of resulting in convictions, because a lot of people are going to plea-bargain when confronted by the DEA, whether they are actually guilty or not. Essentially, once you have poisoned the actual trial process (and this shows just how poisoned it is), no statistics about "how effective this is" are going to mean anything. After all, I'm sure some DEA agents know they're convicting innocent people I'm sure others have blanket belief in the guilt of many innocent people. It's kind of a truism - once you abandon objective, unbiased inquiry, it's gone.
tptacek 13y ago
To the best of my (limited) understanding, if you pull someone over because of a 'tip' and then search them, absent some other cause, the source of the tip needs to be documented to the court. You can't generally search people based on anonymous tips. (It's a little more complicated than that, of course: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/illinois-v-gates-2/ http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...)
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Is that true if the policeman happens to observe an actionable infraction, like failure to keep right?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You can't search a car on a traffic stop without probable cause of an actual crime. However, if your traffic stop is for a moving offense that warrants arrest (DUI, for instance, or reckless driving), all bets are off, because the police can do intrusive searches incident to an arrest. Also, if you're stopped for a moving violation and either authorize a search, or have evidence of probable cause in plain view (for instance, a bag of weed in the passenger seat), all bets are again off.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Dogs can authorize searches: http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/scotus-approves-search-warrants-issued-b http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/scotus-approves-search-war... And to get this power, all the dog has to do is to pass a training program. That's like giving anybody who has a "diploma" from a "prestigious Internet university" powers to arrest and imprison. Only in this case you can't even argue with them because how can you argue with a dog? A dog barked, thus search is authorized. Now let's think - can there be any ways to make the dog bark? If somebody does that in order to make foolproof instant probable-cause-on-demand, what would be his risks that the dog will grow a conscience and tell everybody he's been lying for years?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Yes, I agree with you, strongly, about the ridiculousness of drug-sniffing dog PC.
      - makomk 13y ago
        Worse, from what I recall there are actual scientific studies out there demonstrating that many of these dogs do indeed bark when their handler thinks there are drugs rather than when they actually smell them.
    - nkurz 13y ago
      For those interested in the details, here's a good description of the cases in which vehicle searches can legally be conducted without a warrant: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/downloads/other/VehicleSearchVisorCard.pdf http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downlo...
- derefr 13y ago
  Right, and the reason SOD tips work is that they don't need to be anonymous--as with laundering money, there's a legitimate front that the information is passed to (e.g. some known minor criminal who can be leaned on), which can then be cited as its source.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Are there documented cases of that happening? It's one thing for an SOD tip to put a cop at the right place at the right time to observe a transaction or pull over a car driven by a guy with warrants out. It's another thing entirely for an SOD tip to be the totality of probable cause, and for the police to lie to prosecutors or prosecutors lie to a judge about it. The latter case sounds much less likely to me, given the effort these slide decks show of LEOs trying to stay within the confines of the law (I don't happen to agree with where those confines are, but the evidence we have shows the DOJ paying at least lip service to it).
    - smsm42 13y ago
      With the tactics being top-secret I doubt there would be a lot of documented cases of it happening that could prove it exists - that would kind of defat the whole purpose of it being secret. It would probably take another Snowden to get any evidence on it.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >It would probably take another Snowden to get any evidence on it. And I think that the possibility of another Snowden for this requires that there be some functioning mechanism by which requests to do this are centrally cleared, or even recorded, which I don't think is a sure thing. I see it just as likely that different agencies and departments within them are operating under a lot of different standing blanket orders in the form of legal interpretations, and that once a parallel construction is created, the records of any alternate explanation are destroyed (or were never created.)
        13y ago
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  If the 'tip' is "it sounds like my neighbor is gonna kill his girlfriend or something", and police enter and see contraband, is that admissible? Are "drug dogs" keyed to a specific substance? Is the cause given by a drug dog alert enough to conduct a general search and everything found admitted as evidence?

by dhimes 13y ago

joe_the_user 13y ago

You can be 100% sure these things "pan out" in the sense of resulting in convictions, because a lot of people are going to plea-bargain when confronted by the DEA, whether they are actually guilty or not. Essentially, once you have poisoned the actual trial process (and this shows just how poisoned it is), no statistics about "how effective this is" are going to mean anything. After all, I'm sure some DEA agents know they're convicting innocent people I'm sure others have blanket belief in the guilt of many innocent people. It's kind of a truism - once you abandon objective, unbiased inquiry, it's gone.

tptacek 13y ago

To the best of my (limited) understanding, if you pull someone over because of a 'tip' and then search them, absent some other cause, the source of the tip needs to be documented to the court. You can't generally search people based on anonymous tips. (It's a little more complicated than that, of course: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/illinois-v-gates-2/ http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/crimin...)

Spooky23 13y ago
Is that true if the policeman happens to observe an actionable infraction, like failure to keep right?
- tptacek 13y ago
  You can't search a car on a traffic stop without probable cause of an actual crime. However, if your traffic stop is for a moving offense that warrants arrest (DUI, for instance, or reckless driving), all bets are off, because the police can do intrusive searches incident to an arrest. Also, if you're stopped for a moving violation and either authorize a search, or have evidence of probable cause in plain view (for instance, a bag of weed in the passenger seat), all bets are again off.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Dogs can authorize searches: http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/scotus-approves-search-warrants-issued-b http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/scotus-approves-search-war... And to get this power, all the dog has to do is to pass a training program. That's like giving anybody who has a "diploma" from a "prestigious Internet university" powers to arrest and imprison. Only in this case you can't even argue with them because how can you argue with a dog? A dog barked, thus search is authorized. Now let's think - can there be any ways to make the dog bark? If somebody does that in order to make foolproof instant probable-cause-on-demand, what would be his risks that the dog will grow a conscience and tell everybody he's been lying for years?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Yes, I agree with you, strongly, about the ridiculousness of drug-sniffing dog PC.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Worse, from what I recall there are actual scientific studies out there demonstrating that many of these dogs do indeed bark when their handler thinks there are drugs rather than when they actually smell them.
  - nkurz 13y ago
    For those interested in the details, here's a good description of the cases in which vehicle searches can legally be conducted without a warrant: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/downloads/other/VehicleSearchVisorCard.pdf http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downlo...
derefr 13y ago
Right, and the reason SOD tips work is that they don't need to be anonymous--as with laundering money, there's a legitimate front that the information is passed to (e.g. some known minor criminal who can be leaned on), which can then be cited as its source.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Are there documented cases of that happening? It's one thing for an SOD tip to put a cop at the right place at the right time to observe a transaction or pull over a car driven by a guy with warrants out. It's another thing entirely for an SOD tip to be the totality of probable cause, and for the police to lie to prosecutors or prosecutors lie to a judge about it. The latter case sounds much less likely to me, given the effort these slide decks show of LEOs trying to stay within the confines of the law (I don't happen to agree with where those confines are, but the evidence we have shows the DOJ paying at least lip service to it).
  - smsm42 13y ago
    With the tactics being top-secret I doubt there would be a lot of documented cases of it happening that could prove it exists - that would kind of defat the whole purpose of it being secret. It would probably take another Snowden to get any evidence on it.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >It would probably take another Snowden to get any evidence on it. And I think that the possibility of another Snowden for this requires that there be some functioning mechanism by which requests to do this are centrally cleared, or even recorded, which I don't think is a sure thing. I see it just as likely that different agencies and departments within them are operating under a lot of different standing blanket orders in the form of legal interpretations, and that once a parallel construction is created, the records of any alternate explanation are destroyed (or were never created.)
      - 13y ago
MichaelGG 13y ago
If the 'tip' is "it sounds like my neighbor is gonna kill his girlfriend or something", and police enter and see contraband, is that admissible? Are "drug dogs" keyed to a specific substance? Is the cause given by a drug dog alert enough to conduct a general search and everything found admitted as evidence?