Never Say Never Get Busted Again

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about Barry Cooper , a former Texas narcotics cop who has apparently not only come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, he's putting out a video called "Never Get Busted Again," which claims to offer tips to drug offenders on how to avoid the police.

Last week, the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- whom I've worked with in the past and found to be professional, reputable, and pretty hard-core -- disassociated itself from Cooper . The reason stated in the group's press release is that LEAP can't advocate a video encouraging criminal activity, even if said activity violates laws LEAP considers immoral.

But conspiracy theorists take note. The email LEAP's media department sent me about Cooper included the following addendum to the press release:

A lesser reason, not specifically cited by the LEAP Board, but nonetheless felt by many of the active members, is that until we learn more about Cooper, his project should be viewed with a very wary eye by anyone who is an illicit drug user that may buy his video for educational purposes.

Cooper is at this time only accepting credit card payments. In our (specifically me, Steve Heath) humble opinion, this raises red flags. Credit card payments remove the possibility for anonymity on the part of the buyer and also potentially expose the buyer to investigation of his bank activity on the not so off-chance that Cooper's project is in fact an undercover investigation aimed at identifying users of illicit drugs.

Make of that what you will. I don't know anything about Cooper, other than what was in the news stories about him when the video was released. Seems like an awfully elaborate setup for a sting operation. Of course, we are talking about the drug war, here. Stranger things have happened .

Comments

[andy]

Actually, none of the things to which you linked were "stranger" than Cooper's (possible) ploy. They're all straightforward, not-terribly-creative intrusions of our increasingly authoritarian government.

If Cooper really does have nefarious intentions, you've got to give him props for his ingenuity. You could say what you wanted about him, but you'd have to call him clever.

[Warren]

After checking out Cooper's website and surfing around the biosphere a bit, I have to say that he definitely raises the hairs on the back of my neck. It could be that he's just trying to market his video in a way he thinks his customers will find appealing. But for even money, I'd bet it's a scam. I'd like to see LEAP (or perhaps Reason) buy a copy and write a review.

[P Brooks]

Once upon a time, I would have said, "They would never do something that devious- it would be entrapment! And, as we all know, entrapment is not allowed."

That was then...

[Guy Montag]

Wasn't this posted earlier?

Radley, shouldn't word four be "weeks"?

Now, if I had the bit of information that only credit card orders will be taken, I would have suspected an undercover operation too. If I were the type to use these substances I would not trust USENET discussions of the techniques in the video either.

Sort of reminds me of the "federal tax stamp" for gambling back before my time. It was also mentioned in passint in a business law class I think?

The deal was, book makers could purchase a federal tax stamp and not have to worry about being busted by the feds for illegal gambling. However, the feds shared the information with State and local authorities who then busted the suspected bookies.

I know, not an exact analogy, but similar.

Also, quite frequently publishers of drug related information do share their mailing lists with the police with nothing more than a request for it from the police.

[Guy Montag]

P Brooks,

Perhaps if this was anything like entrapment you would have a point.

[matt]

Ok, so someone who's cleaner than the driven snow buys a copy, posts it in segments on youtube (repeatedly) and we evaluate the techniques one by one.

[P Brooks]

Guy Montag-

I'm not an attorney, nor do I have a "Dictionary of Legalese" handy. My definition of entrapment is apparently more expansive than yours (or the cops').

Sending a narc into a bar, or some other social setting, to ask people if they know where he can score some toot is entrapment, in my view. If this is a devious maneuver akin to asking, "Everybody who smokes dope and doesn't like the cops, raise your hand; we want to shake it," it's entrapment, in my book.

[Warren]

...you'd have to call him clever.

Actually andy, I'm not sure it's all that clever. It could be just a straightforward evolution of the "intrusions of our increasingly authoritarian government". If the NORML director is right that "Thankfully, judges across the country rejected this kind of 'fishing expedition' as an overly broad use of police power", Law Enforcement might be getting bitch slapped for being intrusive and unclever. By running their own (scam) business, they don't need a warrant to get the records. Going to a judge with "this guy bought a "how to smuggle drugs" video" is probably good enough to get a wiretap or search warrant.

[andy]

Warren,

My point was that, instead of extorting information out of legitimate drug-paraphenelia-selling agencies without any deception involved, Cooper's ploy may be a scam. That in itself separates it from the other things.

The people who bought those lights or books from the other companies never did so thinking that they were being deceived by the seller.

[andy]

Correction: never did so while being deceived.

Of course, it's not necessarily the case that they are.

[Guy Montag]

P Brooks,

If you just make up your own definitions then any word can mean anything.

[Warren]

P Brooks,
That is nothing like entrapment. To be entrapment the cops would have to solicit a crime that the perpetrator would not have otherwise committed. Inducing criminals to incriminate themselves by lying or other deviousness is perfectly fine.

[Larry A]

I'd like to see LEAP (or perhaps Reason) buy a copy and write a review.

And if it's entrapment, you'll put up their bail?

[Tim]

And of course, the act of buying the book is not criminal, it simply gives law enforcement "probable cause" to conduct further surveillance.

[Guy Montag]

Tim,

And of course, the act of buying the book is not criminal, it simply gives law enforcement "probable cause" to conduct further surveillance.

Pretty sure that purchasing video is not enough for probable cause or even reasonable suspicion by itself.

Now, if there is an instance where someone is busted carting around a bunch of contraband and happened to be in posession of the video the news articles will probably ignore anything else that lead to the suspicion and lead to the rumor that the only reason the person was busted was because they bought the video.

Unfortuantly, these chemicals that are contraband should not be illegal and they slanted way they get reported does not help explain what is going on to a sceptical public.

[Guy Montag]

Larry A,

I would begin checking 2600 magazine, their web site and their radio shows for reviews on this. Sounds like something right up their alley and they might just get a copy sent to them anonymously.

[P Brooks]

"Inducing criminals to incriminate themselves by lying or other deviousness is perfectly fine."

Well, that's certainly reassuring. Makes one proud to be an American.

--------

"If you just make up your own definitions then any word can mean anything."

I shall engage in no further quibbling over the legal definition of "entrapment." I shall merely state that the sort of "innovative" law enforcement represented by a scheme to induce (by deception) people to put themselves on a list of potential suspects makes me extremely nervous.

[Of course, we still do not know if there is any nefarious component to this "Never Get Busted Again" stuff.]

[Tim]

Guy, I use "probable cause" not in the sense recognized by law, but in the broad meaning interpreted by many in law enforcement.

[Warren]

P Brooks,
Huh? So in your version of America the cops should wait for criminals to walk in off the street and confess?

Guy,
I don't know. I think just ordering this 'How to be a drug dealer' video would be enough for a search warrant. If not, they could do a stake out and add the 'suspicious activities' observed to get one. Of course, if they went to all that trouble, I'm not sure I'd have any objections. Other than to say Cooper is an asshole for falsely associating himself with LEAP

[Sam Franklin]

It would be terrible if people started to keep their spring guns behind that book. I would hate to see some LEO get harpooned in the face just for executing a valid warrant.

[whit]

few things deviate further from reality than a layperson's view of what is and isn't "entrapment".

entrapment, the legal term - the one we are clearly talking about

entrapment is - simply put - enticing somebody to do something that they are not otherwise disposed to do

i spent many many years working in undercover capacity and have testified in tons of trials, etc. this is an area of law i had to use firsthand

walking up to a guy and asking for some "blow" is not entrapment.

walking up to a guy, claiming you are sick as hell, and if you don't get a fix you are going to die, and you really need some heroin really badly and could he help you out, and you'll even pay 5 times the standard price for it - THAT's entrapment

leaving a brand new lexus, running, with keys in the ignition, in a parking lot is not entrapment

etc.

people who make claims about "entrapment" in this blog seem to have the impression that cops have to sit by and wait for crimes to happen, and then react. false.

also, following a guy on a crime spree as he steals car after car, etc. etc. is not entrapment. i heard that argument once. that the cops were REQUIRED after he stole his first car, to arrest him. thus, the rest were inadmissible due to entrapment.

clearly, buying this guy's DVD is nowhere NEAR probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion for ANY crime

no more than subscribing to high times is. high times has published articles on how to get better marijuana yields, etc. and price comparisons of marijuan (so you won't get ripped off).

i am against the drug war. but i am also against "reactive policing". i don't want the cops to arrest anybody for mj, for instance, but i am not going to agree that things that are clearly NOT entrapment *are* entrapment merely because i do not like the result (drug users getting arrested)

that's the same problem as judicial activism. legality is a process analysis (specifically constitutionality) not a results based analysis.

also note that sending a really sexy female cop into a bar, dressed scantily is not "entrapment" of rape

putting a robbery decoy in the subway system, acting drunk and helpless in his business suit, with an expensive watch and fat wallet is also not entrapment

i assume you are not a robber. would seeing a defenseless, drunk businessman passed out on the curb, with a 10k watch, and a wallet on his lap "entrap" you into stealing from him?

[Steve in Clearwater]

Hi guys.

A friend has checked out Cooper's website and tells me that he has removed all references to being affiliated with LEAP and that he has taken down the YouTube promotional video for his DVD which included mentions of LEAP.

Thanks Radley for sharing the update.

For the record, I hope Cooper's intent is sincere and if so, that he makes a mint of money. And I personally have no objection to him in the future being affiliated with LEAP if he can devise a way to help deliver LEAP's message without overlapping the marketing of his personal for-profit products.

Steve Heath

[Sam Franklin]

clearly, buying this guy's DVD is nowhere NEAR probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion for ANY crime

How do you know this, whit? Did you, or somebody you know, request a search warrant on grounds like this and then get refused (even that would only go to probable cause and not reasonable suspicion).

Thank you for relating your experiences. Your coments generally seem correct and sensible. However, I can't really believe you on the probable cause issue without a link or statute. By watching LEOs converse on another board I have come to the solid conclusion that much of what they think they know about probable cause and its limits is wrong.

I would luv to think that buying the video without more is ,i>not probable cause, but this is one of those things you can't really take an ex-narc's word on (ex-prosecutor maybe).

[whit]

sam...

i know this because i have written dozens of search warrants, and i have testified as an expert witness in various drug related matters, etc etc

could there be some REALLY stupid judge who agrees it is probable cause? well, yes. a judge could sign a warrant for ANYTHING. but i am saying that based on my investigation of several hundred felony drug cases, dozens of warrants, expert testimony, etc. etc. - it is NOT probable cause. not even CLOSE

it is no more probable cause, than purchasing the anarchists cookbook is

no cop i know (or agent) would write a search warrant for such a RIDICULOUS reason, and i have seen search warrants with FAR FAR more factors be rejected as lacking PC.

there is a reasonable amount of case law on similar issues, but to make a long story short - buying "how to" texts on how to break the law is NOT probable cause

i'd like to see ONE case where it has been upheld that such an act is probable cause

it *is* true that in a conspiracy type case, for instance, the fact that you bought such a book COULD be used as evidence towards your case. that is feasible

in the same way that other perfectly lawful activities when done in concert with unlawful acts can constitute part of a totality.

if i buy a bayonet, that is not probable cause that i am a murderer

if i buy a bayonet, and then meet with somebody and tell them how i have planned to kill john smith with a bayonet and do it tomorrow night, THEN my purchase of the bayonet will corroborate the criminal case

do you understand the distinction?

[Eric the .5b]

A question I haven't seen yet - has anyone with any legal, police, etc. expertise evaluated whether the advice in the video is any good?

[Guy Montag]

whit,

A lot of what you mention were what made similar gripes about the Kevin Mitnick and Ed Cummings (bernieS) cases.

I don't remember enough details of either, but many of the arguments of 'unfairness' were of things introduced into evidence that would normally be just fine if they were not in the same pile.

In the bernieS case, he was selling "red boxes" (devices used to trick pay phones into registering more money has been deposited than has actually been deposited) to some guys in a van and a passing police officer mistook it to be a drug deal. No drugs were found but tone dialers and crystals (I forgot if they were assembled or seperate) were found, an investigation was begun and bernieS got a long time in jail.

Part of why he could not get bail was a combination of explosives books and a quantity of dental putty, that the detectives briefly mistook for explosives.

How it all got connected together is still a little fuzzy for me because almost all of the information about the case came from 2600 Magazine, whos editor/publisher is a good friend of bernieS. For the casual observer, the whole thing was written about as if it were completly illegal for the police to even ask the guys what they were doing with a bog bag and a bunch of money, then the police made up something to arrest them on.

Granted, I relly don't think bernieS should have gone to jail at all, but I am not convinced that he was an angel either. The devices he was selling are a technical curiosity and I believe their use to defraud communications companies should be illegal, but there are plenty of other devices that could do the same thing then too.

BTW, red boxing supposedly does not work any more and it is supposed to be very easy to detect now.

[whit]

none of this contradicts my point

read what i wrote.

GIVEN a fact pattern, could the purchase of the book ADD to a case?

of course

i never denied that.

similarly, purchase of a how to book on explosives is not PC, but could add to another investigation

here's a hint: LOTS of legal behavior, when done in concert with other behavior, becomes part of probable cause

i used to read 2600. i'd hardly rely on it as a cogent analysis of a legal case. that's what PC certs and other SOURCE documents are for, and that's how i analyze cases.

so, i repeat my point. buying the DVD is neither PC nor Reas. Susp.

however...

GIVEN a fact pattern, purchase of the book (similar to my bayonet example) could be part of the picture, as can ANY otherwise lawful behavior if part of a scheme to commit illegal behavior

this is a pretty fundamental aspect fo criminal law, and extends far beyond how to books/dvd's of this sort

[Larry A]

clearly, buying this guy's DVD is nowhere NEAR probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion for ANY crime

So they'll have to claim a confidential informant made a buy at your address before they loose the SWAT team.

[whit]

"claim?"

so, iow you are saying they would lie?

why not just HAVE a CI make a buy at your address?

[Guy Montag]

whit,

I was not trying to contradict you and I was pointing out that the press tosses about tons of inaccurate information that misinforms the public.

Also, I was supporting your addition of information that other things, generally thought to be perfecctly legal, can be used in the overall pattern of what wrongdoing is being prosecuted.

[Sam Franklin]

So they'll have to claim a confidential informant made a buy at your address before they loose the SWAT team.

Or they can just say they found seeds in your trash. then they don't have to worry about big mouth informants.

Whit is correct in the narrow sense that there will probably not be any search warrants that use only the purchase of the book to support probable cause.

There will, possibly, be a great number of search warrants in the future that would clearly not meet probable cause if the illegal book were taken out of the mix.

Really, that doesn't bother me personally because I am unlikely to purchase a drug related book. However, I think it is only a matter of time before pr0n purchases over the Internet start being used to help support probable cause in cases where pc would otherwise be perceived as lacking. sure, the porn may ultimately be legal, but the po po's really can't be sure until they have really studied what is on the harddrive. Also, they can't knock because it takes mere seconds to delete files that would otherwise violate community standards.

[whit]

"There will, possibly, be a great number of search warrants in the future that would clearly not meet probable cause if the illegal book were taken out of the mix."

for an extremely ridiculous and speculative example of "possibly"

there are already TONS of books and stuff that are HOW-TO's on criminal behavior

this is hardly something new, so the doom and gloomers can spare me the rhetoric

the same people that would be all over neocons et al for making "speculations" seem to have no problems making equally absurd speculations when it suits their petty causes and prejudices

[andy]

"the same people that would be all over neocons et al for making "speculations" seem to have no problems making equally absurd speculations when it suits their petty causes and prejudices"

That may be true but I would refrain from calling concern over frivolous no-knock raids a "petty" cause.

I might also learn how to use the Shift key.

[Sam Franklin]

there are already TONS of books and stuff that are HOW-TO's on criminal behavior

this is hardly something new, so the doom and gloomers can spare me the rhetoric

and many of those books give rise to legit search warrants, which you would know if you were more of a lawyer and less of a cop.

The other piece of the puzzle is that some people are willing to risk a regular, daylight hours search warrant by uniformed policemen, but not willing to risk a middle of the night raid by undercover SWAT personnel. Back when search warrants were like the former, even if you got searched then no big deal. Now the warrant is an ordeal to be avoided in and of itself.

whit clearly cut his teeth in the good old days and cannot relate to modern problems.

[whit]

sam, then please give me an example of how the purchase of one of these books gave rise to PC for a search warrant

as for the "good old days" i still work in law enforcement, as i have for 20 years

so again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. where is yours?

[Sam Franklin]

Scheiff and Swan (tax protestors) to name two.

As far as people who have gotten searched for eco-terrorism books (but not acts of eco-terrorism), I am sadly not at liberty to say, any more than you can give us the names of the people you searched.

[Guy Montag]

Really, that doesn't bother me personally because I am unlikely to purchase a drug related book. However, I think it is only a matter of time before pr0n purchases over the Internet start being used to help support probable cause in cases where pc would otherwise be perceived as lacking.

Anybody who must purchase pr0n should not be allowed to have a computer or an internet connection.

BTW, does anybody have the new password to TNR? plastic stopped working for me.

[Sam Franklin]

Oh yeah, and the warrants aren't based solely on the books. There is usually also association with other potential eco-terrorists, attendance at environmentalist meetings.

that way the po po in whit's position can always say: "see! it wasn't just the book!"

[P Brooks]

"absurd speculations when it suits their petty causes and prejudices"

"Absurd speculations" about what is, and is not, proper conduct on the part of government and its officers of the law?

[Sam Franklin]

Oh, and those are just the cases where the target gets to see the warrant. It is hard to say what those warrants are based upon in cases where the subject of the search never sees the warrant, which seems to be another new tactic that they do now that cops are no longer the good guys.

[Windypundit]

Well, I just ordered Never Get Busted so I could review it on my blog, so if I get searched, I'll let you know.

At best, what I'm expecting from Cooper's video is examples of stupid things people have said and done during traffic stops to give cops additional cause to search them, rather like Busted from a cop's point of view.

For various reasons (e.g. nobody in the drug law reform movement seems to have heard of Barry Cooper before this, he didn't send review copies to Pete Guither or NORML or Reason or Flex Your Rights or the D'Alliance, and he reminds me a lot of infomercial pitchman Don LePre) I'm expecting crap, but I could be wrong.

Safety note to police reading this: Dynamic entry into my home will be extremely dangerous because of all the crap I have lying around---you'll probably trip over a pile of books and impale yourself on some power tools if you're not careful. Take it slow.

I'm not expecting to ever hear from the police about this. They have better ways to catch people.

[whit]

typical response i expected. no case cite, no PC cert, etc. iow, no evidence

fwiw, most criminals, and definitely most drug criminals, who get caught - get caught because they are colossally stupid. you are probably right that the DVD advice could probably be summed up thusly

when i was undercover, i had a drug dealer tell me (just before selling me several ounces of cocaine) that he KNEW i was not an undercover cop since i was a really good surfer, and cops can't surf

file under: stupid

i also recall pulling over a guy for street racing (doing about 100 in a 35), who also happened to have several bindles of cocaine, two loaded guns (he was a convicted felon, so this was VUFA) and a bunch of warrants

here's a hint, and you don't have to buy the DVD.

if you have an eightball, two illegal guns, and a bunch of warrants - don't do 100mph in a 35

duh

[Bobster]

It is my belief that if a cop wants a judge to sign a drug search warrant the warrant will be signed. Period.

I would like to see the numbers on how many drug search warrants are rejected by judges. If there are tons of warrants being rejected because the judge doesn't believe there is enough evidence then I will change my view of the matter.

[Guy Montag]

Windypundit,

If your story is submitted to and picked up by 2600 and Phrack imagine what sorts of lists you could be on then 😉

Toss in some one-way tickets from Municipal Airport and you might have enough government encounters to fill your 'blog for years!

[Guy Montag]

Well, whit, I finally have an issue with your activity.

i also recall pulling over a guy for street racing (doing about 100 in a 35), . . . two loaded guns (he was a convicted felon, so this was VUFA) and a bunch of warrants

This is an outrage! Convicted felons should have the same carry rights as everybody else, especially if they have a race car!

What kind of car was it? What motor and tranny? Any good mods? Anything I might want to add to my hybrid?

[Windypundit]

"if you have an eightball, two illegal guns, and a bunch of warrants - don't do 100mph in a 35"

That's pretty much the sort of thing I'm expecting on the video, stuff that would be obvious to any cop. At best, I expect it to be about what might be callled "police encounter management," like James Eagan's book on speeding tickets, explaining how to behave yourself in a routine traffic stop so the officer doesn't take additional interest in you: how to pull over safely, what might alarm a cop approaching your car at night, what might make a cop think you're hiding something, etc.

"Toss in some one-way tickets from Municipal Airport and you might have enough government encounters to fill your 'blog for years!"

Haven't done that, but I do walk around taking a lot of pictures of stuff. Think that will help in these paranoid times?

[whit]

"It is my belief that if a cop wants a judge to sign a drug search warrant the warrant will be signed. Period."

it is your belief, ABSENT evidence

iow, a prejudice

why does this not surprise me?

it's the same crap over and over.

i've written dozens of search warrants.

i have also had search warrants rejected, as have my coworkers

most drug warrants aren't rejected by judges BECAUSE THEY NEVER GET THAT FAR to be submitted if they suck

here's why.

for example

in every jurisdiction i've worked, every search warrant must be reviewed by a prosecuting attorney who specializes in that area of law BEFORE even being brought before a judge.

these prosecutors will not stick their neck out for borderline warrants.

i've seen this in 4/4 non-federal jurisdictions, and it is also the policy of both the FBI and the DEA that their warrants get prosecutorial review.

[bill]

Just wait till it's uploaded to bittorrent.

[Bobster]

Whit

it is your belief, ABSENT evidence

I know I have no evidence. That is why I called it a belief and not a fact. I want to see the number of warrants that are turned down by prosecutors or judges or whoever. A cop telling me that he and his comrades have had some turned down means little. Show me the official numbers and I will change my belief to meet the facts. Just like I said in my earlier post. Is data like this kept by anyone?

[Bobster]

Whit

iow, a prejudice

Maybe so but I have read several articles telling stories of police executing search warrants only to find, after attacking the people in the house, that they have the wrong place or that their reason for the warrant sucked. These types of articles tend to cause prejudice.

[whit]

and forming BELIEFS absent evidence is prejudice.

the way REASONing people operate (see: the name of this magazine) is that they form beliefs AFTER looking at evidence

you, otoh, admit to your ignorance and your tendency towards prejudice - forming beliefs ABSENT evidence

that puts you in some GREAT company :l

i believe you are a redbellied cockatoo

i have NO EVIDENCE of that, but "it's a belief, not a fact"

sometimes people out themselves as unreasoning bigots in the most obvious ways.

[Bobster]

Whit,

Damn you nailed me. I am a redbellied cockatoo. Good police work.

[Sam Franklin]

Cites, whit. Okay:

Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717, 730 -31 (1961) (po po's seek and judge issues warrant for obscene books)

Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485 (1965) (po po's seek and judge issues warrant for commie books)

True these cases did not involve drug trafficking books, but rather books on sex and communisism. Still, don't try to tell me that a po po would never try to pull anything, or that a warrant judge wouldn't sign off.

We will know how SCOTUS will treat drug how to books when a case gets to SCOTUS and not a day earlier. In the meantime, there will be police who get warrants "partially" because of book purchases. And there will be other police who continue to deny that such a thing could ever happen.

[Bobster]

Whit,

Is the evidence that I am wrong available? Does anyone keep track of how many warrants were denied and how many were approved?

[whit]

of course police can seek a search warrant for OBSCENE books. obscene books are IPSO FACTO illegal

criminal self-help books are not

there is a hyooge legal distinction. again, not on point. and im not surprised.

i'm going to refresh here.

1) dood comes out with a criminal how to DVD.
2) this is hardly something new. they have existed for decades.
3) histrionic kneejerkers here say that this could result in warrants based on purchase of the DVD
4) i say that's a ridiculous speculation, and ask for evidence
5) evidence not forthcoming

yes, i know "po po's" will "try something"

whatever.

this is my favorite part . "warrant judge". where can i find one of those?

the issue is DOES PURCHASE OF A BOOK THAT EXPLAINS HOW TO COMMIT CRIMES AND DIMINISH PROBABILITIES OF GETTING CAUGHT **CONSTITUTE** probable cause?

clearly, as i said, the answer is no, and i have yet to see ANY evidence to the contrary

[whit]

bobster, to the best of my knowledge, nobody keeps track of that stat. and as i said, judges are the LAST line of defense for bad warrants, but not the first.

guy writes a warrant. usually, a supervisor has to review it. THEN (in all agencies i have worked for or been familiar with) a prosecutor reviews it. if NEITHER of these deny the warrant, THEN it goes to a judge.

personally, i am not going to waste my time with writing a warrant if i don't have PC, nor will most cops.

but again, i am not aware of any agency that keeps stats on how many warrant affidavits are denied by judges

[Bobster]

Whit,

Too bad there is no statistical evidence on rejected/approved drug warrants. With no evidence available to sway me I guess I am stuck with prejudice that few are denied.

Prejudice is not such a bad thing anyway. People make hundreds of choices that are not evidence based. If I see someone who I "believe" has the look of a bad guy I avoid him without any evidence that he is a bad guy. Sometimes being prejudice can be down right smart.

[Sam Franklin]

personally, i am not going to waste my time with writing a warrant if i don't have PC, nor will most cops.

personally, i am not going to waste my time with committing a crime, nor will most people. Does that mean we don't need a police department anymore?

ps: if you want to find out how people use the term "warrant judges" in conversation, then try GOOGLE.

[whit]

forming beliefs absent evidence is a bit different than prophylactic measures like the above described. you said you believe X

unlike you, i tend to be more thoughtful. i believe in assessing evidence before forming BELIEFs

[whit]

we have this weird system of justice here. only a judge can determine probable cause for a warrant. that's kind of nifty. cops don't determine it (they do for SUMMARY probable cause, and only ex parte, and then that is subject to alter judicial review) if you got beefs with judges signing warrants without probable cause, then take it up with them.

like i said, i've been involved in hundreds of cases. i can recall only one case where i thought a judge signed a warrant without clear probable cause

i also recall the police agency was subsequently sued for that warrant and lost a big settlement. as they should have.

i

[Sam Franklin]

unlike you, i tend to be more thoughtful. i believe in assessing evidence before forming BELIEFs

What you say happens when you are at work is hearsay evidence.

Post a copy of a couple of the warrants that you have drafted so that we can examine your documentary evidence, whit.

Cause, frankly, your hearsay is crap.

[Sam Franklin]

if you got beefs with judges signing warrants without probable cause, then take it up with them.

strong agree.

[Sam Franklin]

Post a copy of a couple of the warrants that you have drafted so that we can examine your documentary evidence, whit.

Let me be more specific. we want to see copies of your warrants that were rejected, so that we can get a feel for what a rejected warrant application really looks like. Just put all your rejected warrants up and we will be much more inclined to believe your "evidence."

[barneca]

now that a once promising discussion between two interesting points of view has degenerated into silliness, i'd like to back up a few hours.

andy said (2:22pm):

I might also learn how to use the Shift key.

dear god how tiresome it is to see people bring up spelling and grammar and punctuation and capitalization. especially when the implication is that this somehow proves your point. you do know this is a comment section in a blog, right?

i propose a new code of conduct, to be voted on the next time we achieve a quorum: as long as your opponent's intent is clear, mentioning their minor grammatical idiosyncrasies or blunders, even "humorously", automatically cedes the argument to them. kind of like invoking hitler.

-cab

[Troy]

To Whit: Re your 12:49 post where you said, "people who make claims about "entrapment" in this blog seem to have the impression that cops have to sit by and wait for crimes to happen, and then react. false"

....well...WRONG!! Yes, there was a time when cops sat around and waited for things to happen. They used to be called "peace officers." There job was a reactive, passive one. But the paradigm has changed, Now cops are "law enforcement" which connotes taking initiative, and active pursuit.
When you read say about old peace officers like say Wyatt Earp, he didn't fucking knock down somebody's front door like a fucking brownshirt after getting a rubber stamp warrant obtained from some lying piece of shit because grandma might be doing some reefer. He went after killers and such.
So yeah, cops DID just to sit around and do nothing until something happened. There job was to keep the peace, not keep me safe from some fucking fattening french fries. But it ain't the way it is anymore. It is a lot like Vietnam "destroying the village in order to save it" mentality.

[barneca]

however, just to be clear, psychotic rambling can still be made fun of.

-cab

[Bobster]

Whit

unlike you, i tend to be more thoughtful. i believe in assessing evidence before forming BELIEFs

But you told me that the stats on drug warrants being approved vs. denied are not kept. What evidence are you assessing? Your personal experience is not evidence of how often drug warrants are refused. In my personal experience there are more trees around my house than there used to be. I don't take that as evidence that the tree population around the world is increasing.

[Bobster]

Not to mention the fact that you, like everyone else, undoubtedly have dozens of beliefs that are not based on any sort of thoughtful evidence assessing.

[Troy]

To Whit: Regarding your 2:56pm post where you say, "most criminals.... get caught because they are colossally stupid. "

To which I say, "Amen Brother!"

There be these idiots driving through the county going 100 m.p.h which itself is criminal speeding. On top of that, they'd have a big bong right in the middle of the console." US prosecutors liked to call this "felony stupid." I had no regrets, pangs of guilt, or cognitive dissonance in nailing these morons. In fact it gave me great pleasure to nail this morons because I thought they were putting people's lives a jeporady.

[Guy Montag]

This is pathetic. Whit is the first person claiming to be associated with LEOs who I have read who sounds like he is bright and factual.

What happens? All of te freaks have to come out with their big assed keyboards and try to beat him up online.

The only knowledgable person on this thread making sense is whit. The rest of you dopes should shut up and read.

[Bobster]

Guy Montag.

If us freaks with big assed keyboards (mine is standard size but I'll look into getting a big assed one) didn't ask Whit questions he/she would not be able to answer them and impress you with his bright and factual responses.

[harrigan]

I f we have nothing to fear about reading or viewing questionable material,why was a ruckus raised when Homeland Security wanted to see what books were being checked out at libraries?Probable cause will vary from officer to officer,judge to judge,jurisdiction to jurisdiction.What may not raise an eyebrow in one area,may bring out the SWAT team in the next.

[Cartman]

"The only knowledgable person on this thread making sense is whit. The rest of you dopes should shut up and read."

Yep. Thanks, whit.

[Annie T.]

This video has basically been done in book form, Busted! Drug War Survival Skills (paid cash at B & N) and it was by a defense atty.

[Unbelievable]

My God, I hope you people are not representative of the average American citizen because your attitudes are truly scary. The only people that need fear the police are criminals. People like Cooper are like bad journalists that twist reality to make themselves famous. They set up the freak and unusual to appear common, all for the sake of self-aggrandizement. I hope they can find some criminal charge Cooper violated by absolutely wasting the limited resources of the police and thereby preventing them from arresting legitimate drug dealers and suppliers.

I am certain not a single contributor here knows exactly what information was given to the police and what the basis of probable cause was for the warrant to be issued. I am also certain very few of you here have the first idea what legalities the issuance of a search warrant involves, and what checks there are on that ability. The bottom line is there is far more than meets the eye here, and until you know "The rest of the story" in Paul Harvey fashion, your conclusions about police overreaching or corruption are speculative at best, uninformed for a certainty, and entirely unfair.

[kathy]

Well, I know Barry. He's trying to "right" the wrong of corrupt police officers. Barry is a kind, generous man,with a heart of gold, and any one who speaks ill of him, is ignorant of the kindness of human spirit. Break it down brother Barry.