6 ms·

It's a really stupid theory. Destroying evidence is just another charge to throw on and doesn't really suggest any risk of violence. Though sure, if they flush

It's a really stupid theory. Destroying evidence is just another charge to throw on and doesn't really suggest any risk of violence. Though sure, if they flush in time maybe the police lose out. But it hardly seems worth it. It ought to be possible to serve warrant without instigating a violent encounter. And it's not like the risk of destruction of evidence is anything new. You could easily destroy evidence well before the US was even founded. Might have been even easier, historically. Burn it, throw it in a river, etc. No-knock aggression should be reserved for situations where there's a very very strong expectation of violent resistance and that's it.

danielsiders 12y ago
Also in general the severity of the charge is directly proportional to the quantity of drugs. So if the quantity is instantly flushable, how serious of a charge can it have been, and thus how much accidental damage is acceptable in the arrest?
- danielweber 12y ago
  What is involved in blocking the sewer line coming from a house? Is it even possible? (short of a back-hoe)
  - refurb 12y ago
    It probably depends on the design of the sewer system, but an ex's father worked for the city sewer system. He was asked by police on one occasion to help out with a bust where they thought evidence was going to be flushed.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    From their point of view what is easier throw a flash grenade into a crib or build sewer shut-off valves through-out the city. Control them, repair them. Can you prove that these drugs belonged to this particular house. That this one person flushed them. What if they are 10 people in the house. Are they all drug dealers because they found pot flushed in some sewer trap?
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "they found pot flushed in some sewer trap?" How is that worse than "they found pot under the floorboards"?
      - rdtsc 12y ago
        It is not worse, it is still easier to throw a flash grenade in a crib. Worst case they get time off with pay while and internal investigation by their friends determine that procedures are followed.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        This doesn't feel like a coherent response to my comment.
        rdtsc 12y ago
        That is their response. It is not coherent, but this is not propositional logic. This is a militarized force that cannot be punished for their abuses, can and does inflict those abuses as will and it attracts saddists and psychopaths that cover each other asses. You are trying to come up with technical solutions (oh install sewer traps). The problem is not technical. It legal, and regulatory. There is no, 0, nada, zilch repercussion for just throwing a flash grenade in barge in. Why install sewer traps and spends all that money? That is irrational from their point of view. The floor boards and all that sewer stuff is just noise. All those "problems" are just a list hurdles they will never and or even think about solving, that was the main point.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        They may not care, but the rest of us do.
        vsl 12y ago
        The point is that there's nothing you can do. You are not the one making the choice. Hence the only solution is to restrain the police.
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  Some substances are extremely valuable per unit volume. Especially prohibited ones.
- chc 12y ago
  OK, so, to the best of my knowledge, 1 kg of cocaine is worth about $20K. Assuming cocaine has roughly the density of baking soda, this amount ought to be easily disposable in a single flush. So you could flush $100K worth of coke down a toilet in under a minute.
  - Bootvis 12y ago
    Seems optimistic to me. If you flush in rapid succession the reservoir has to fill again. I guess that a good flush requires, depending on circumstances, 20s of refilling. That would lower the throughput significantly. Also, the suspect has to move the cocaine from hiding to the toilet. Sure, $20K is a lot of money but were not talking Pablo Escobar-like quantities here. Edit: also clogging, not sure when this happens and not really willing to experiment.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "not really willing to experiment." That would be an interesting use for all those seized drugs. I wonder if they do this.
    - erroneousfunk 12y ago
      Cocaine is far more water soluble than baking soda. Extremely, extremely water soluble -- about 2 grams of cocaine can dissolve in 1 ml of water (compare to baking soda: About .1 grams per ml of water) You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        "You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine." At least, you can't afford to.
      - Bootvis 12y ago
        But you also have to get rid of the packaging. I was imagining dumping a package of cocaine, but that's stupid: at least opening the packaging would help with the clogging by letting the cocaine dissolve. Not sure what the packaging would do with the pipes and whether this only packaging holds up as evidence.
mikeash 12y ago
I think the problem is that it's really hard to police recreational quantities of chemicals. Physical evidence related to crimes is usually either bulkier objects which you can't just put down the toilet, or documents which do take some time to destroy and often exist in multiple places. A sane person would probably argue that you don't get to run roughshod over people's freedoms just because a particular law is hard to enforce otherwise. But I think that's where it's coming from. You get a pervasive environment where the guys at the top are trying to be tough on drugs and the guys at the bottom keep having to let criminals go because they flushed the evidence, and it's only natural that they'll start to push for more draconian measures.

danielsiders 12y ago

Also in general the severity of the charge is directly proportional to the quantity of drugs. So if the quantity is instantly flushable, how serious of a charge can it have been, and thus how much accidental damage is acceptable in the arrest?

danielweber 12y ago
What is involved in blocking the sewer line coming from a house? Is it even possible? (short of a back-hoe)
- refurb 12y ago
  It probably depends on the design of the sewer system, but an ex's father worked for the city sewer system. He was asked by police on one occasion to help out with a bust where they thought evidence was going to be flushed.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  From their point of view what is easier throw a flash grenade into a crib or build sewer shut-off valves through-out the city. Control them, repair them. Can you prove that these drugs belonged to this particular house. That this one person flushed them. What if they are 10 people in the house. Are they all drug dealers because they found pot flushed in some sewer trap?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "they found pot flushed in some sewer trap?" How is that worse than "they found pot under the floorboards"?
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      It is not worse, it is still easier to throw a flash grenade in a crib. Worst case they get time off with pay while and internal investigation by their friends determine that procedures are followed.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        This doesn't feel like a coherent response to my comment.
        rdtsc 12y ago
        That is their response. It is not coherent, but this is not propositional logic. This is a militarized force that cannot be punished for their abuses, can and does inflict those abuses as will and it attracts saddists and psychopaths that cover each other asses. You are trying to come up with technical solutions (oh install sewer traps). The problem is not technical. It legal, and regulatory. There is no, 0, nada, zilch repercussion for just throwing a flash grenade in barge in. Why install sewer traps and spends all that money? That is irrational from their point of view. The floor boards and all that sewer stuff is just noise. All those "problems" are just a list hurdles they will never and or even think about solving, that was the main point.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        They may not care, but the rest of us do.
        vsl 12y ago
        The point is that there's nothing you can do. You are not the one making the choice. Hence the only solution is to restrain the police.
JonnieCache 12y ago
Some substances are extremely valuable per unit volume. Especially prohibited ones.
chc 12y ago
OK, so, to the best of my knowledge, 1 kg of cocaine is worth about $20K. Assuming cocaine has roughly the density of baking soda, this amount ought to be easily disposable in a single flush. So you could flush $100K worth of coke down a toilet in under a minute.
- Bootvis 12y ago
  Seems optimistic to me. If you flush in rapid succession the reservoir has to fill again. I guess that a good flush requires, depending on circumstances, 20s of refilling. That would lower the throughput significantly. Also, the suspect has to move the cocaine from hiding to the toilet. Sure, $20K is a lot of money but were not talking Pablo Escobar-like quantities here. Edit: also clogging, not sure when this happens and not really willing to experiment.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "not really willing to experiment." That would be an interesting use for all those seized drugs. I wonder if they do this.
  - erroneousfunk 12y ago
    Cocaine is far more water soluble than baking soda. Extremely, extremely water soluble -- about 2 grams of cocaine can dissolve in 1 ml of water (compare to baking soda: About .1 grams per ml of water) You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine." At least, you can't afford to.
    - Bootvis 12y ago
      But you also have to get rid of the packaging. I was imagining dumping a package of cocaine, but that's stupid: at least opening the packaging would help with the clogging by letting the cocaine dissolve. Not sure what the packaging would do with the pipes and whether this only packaging holds up as evidence.

mikeash 12y ago

I think the problem is that it's really hard to police recreational quantities of chemicals. Physical evidence related to crimes is usually either bulkier objects which you can't just put down the toilet, or documents which do take some time to destroy and often exist in multiple places. A sane person would probably argue that you don't get to run roughshod over people's freedoms just because a particular law is hard to enforce otherwise. But I think that's where it's coming from. You get a pervasive environment where the guys at the top are trying to be tough on drugs and the guys at the bottom keep having to let criminals go because they flushed the evidence, and it's only natural that they'll start to push for more draconian measures.