Drug War

The Smell of Privacy

|

This week the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the odor of burning marijuana is not sufficient reason for a police officer to order a motorist out of his car. The Court noted that Question 2, a 2008 ballot initiative approved by 65 percent of voters, made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a citable offense (similar to a traffic violation) rather than a misdemeanor. "We conclude that, to order a passenger in a stopped vehicle to exit based merely on suspicion of an offense, that offense must be criminal," Chief Justice Roderick Ireland wrote for the majority. "Ferreting out decriminalized conduct with the same fervor associated with the pursuit of serious criminal conduct is neither desired by the public nor in accord with the plain language of the statute."

Here is CBS Boston's summary of the case:

The ruling came in the case of Benjamin Cruz, a passenger in a stopped car, after a Boston police officer, smelling burnt marijuana inside, ordered Cruz to get out.

The court found that police permissibly approached the car because it was parked in front of a fire hydrant but did not have probable cause to order Cruz to step out.

As Cruz was getting out, police officers asked him if he had anything on him. They say Cruz replied that he had "a little rock for myself" in his pocket.

Police say they seized crack cocaine from Cruz and charged him with drug possession with intent to distribute and committing a controlled substances violation in a school zone.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in its ruling, upheld a lower court ruling suppressing the man's statement to police. 

Reason coverage of Question 2 here.

[Thanks to jcalton for the tip.]

NEXT: Esquire Gives Ron Paul Some Guarded Love, But Still Love

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cruz replied that he had “a little rock for myself” in his pocket.

    Dumb-Ass

    1. That was my first thought, but perhaps he has been in this situation before and knows that they are going to fuck him no matter what.

      1. Yeah, no better way to avoid trouble than confessing to police and telling them where the evidence is.

        1. I’m still looking for that civilized country that allows for cocaine to be sold over the counter, has no police raids, reefer is legal, and heroin is marketed. I can’t find it.

          1. Here’s a country just for you, Pat. They’re plenty “civilized,” since that means “no drugs” to you. Why don’t you go there?

          2. How about the USA pre-1914? Civilized enough for ya?

            1. You guys get extra credit from your professor for bashing America don’t you. Did you know that cocaine and reefer are against the law in Brazil? and Japan.

              1. Well, if I based my opinion on how things should be run on Brazil and Japan, I would find that very disappointing. Thankfully, I care literally not one whit what Brazil and Japan do, so I’m still trying to figure out how you’re making any kind of point.

                1. If Brazil and Japan jumped off a bridge, would you?

            2. It started way before 1914. when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 was passed 46 of 48 states had criminalized cocaine, and 29 of 48 had criminalized heroin. Drinking alcohol prohibition also started decades before the 18th Amendment was passed. Kansas criminalized drinking alcohol in 1881.

              Of course it really had nothjing to do with public health. Many people seem to think that’s why such laws were passed.

              In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, “Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice ? that of ‘cocaine sniffing’ or the ‘coke habit.'” Some newspapers later claimed cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Chinese immigrants were blamed for importing the opium-smoking habit to the U.S. The 1903 blue-ribbon citizens’ panel, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit concluded, “If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him.”

              1. So on one hand the Americans of the early 1900’s were stupid for thinking blacks have a problem with coke, and on the other hand they were very wise in not yet outlawing hard drugs. BTW blacks still have a much higher rate of drug abuse than any other race, the Indians almost ethnic cleansed themselves with whiskey, and white liberals and left-libertarians prefer to call the Chinaman, Asian. I prefer oriental if they’re face to face with me, Chinaman when I talk with other Republicans.

      2. You seriously think the level of getting fucked over is remotely comparable for a misdemeanor offense versus confessing to a felony?

        That’s like saying, “He’s was going to fuck me by forcing me to give him a handjob, so I figuring I might as well let him fuck me and my daughter in the ass then drink all the beer in my house, because aren’t those basically the same?”

        1. Well, my thought was that perhaps he knew he was going to get searched no matter what he said or did. In any case, I agree that it was stupid to admit it. I just try to consider the possibility that something other than pure stupidity was at play here. Of course, that can never be ruled out either.

    2. Dumb-Ass

      You’re assuming what the cops said is true. It might be – there are some dumb people out there. But we ought to be the last people to just accept their word.

      1. I’ll accept the cop’s word if the dumb-ass confirmed or didn’t deny confessing. I could point to the Cops TV show for countless examples of dumb fucks confessing to possession but I’ve known enough dumb-asses in real life who consent to search and/or confess to holding.

        1. I was thinking the same thing. This happens all the time on Cops.

          1. I quit watching COPS about 8 years ago, mainly because so many of the people arrested on the show were arrested for consensual “crimes.”

  2. I was stopped recently.
    I asked if I was under arrest.
    The reply; no.
    I asked if I was free to go.
    The reply; no. it would interfere with an investigation.

    1. Worst haiku ever.

      1. am i arrested?
        no, you are just my play thing
        you respect the badge

        don’t move from that spot
        while i’m investigating
        fried dough with a hole

        1. That was beautiful…

          And “worst haiku ever” had me fall out of my chair…

          …thank you!!!

    2. because under Terry v. Ohio, you do not need to be under arrest (PC standard) to be free to leave. See: reasonable suspicion, (and a few other exceptions)…

      under RS, the cop may detain you for a brief period of time to investigate.

      1. There are a lot of youtube videos of the border patrol telling people that they’re not being detained, but they also are not free to leave. It’s downright Orwellian.

        They weren’t using the word “arrest”, they were actually, in the same breath, saying that people are not being detained, but they may not leave.

        I know you’re not BP, and I’m not throwing any of this at you, just adding to the point being made about detention, investigation, arrest, etc. all being different concepts.

        1. border patrol actually operates under a whole different legal standard, the “border exception” which generally allows them FAR FAR FAR more latitude to search and/or seize if in a “border zone”

          the problem is the terms have multiple meanings. some use “arrest’ in the sense of “stop” as in “restrict movement” whereas i was distinguishing between a CUSTODIAL arrest such that requires PC and a detention (which is an arrest in the broad sense) which only requires RS.

          when people say “am i under arrest” the correct answer is NO if they are merely being detained in terry but it is also true that they are not free to leave.

          the problem is many legal texts, especially old ones used the broad definition of arrest, when the preferred term now is “detention”. arrest refers to a formal arrest.

          a detention CAN morph into a formal arrest if too much force is used, it takes too long , etc.

          i’ve probably made over a thousand terry stops in my career, so they are pretty familiar.

          1. Yeah, even having once almost became a cop, even I have only vague notions of the technical distinctions between all those states of an encounter. I don’t think average citizens understand their rights or expectations in those different situations at all.

            1. and to their credit, some will ask. “am i free to leave?” NO or Yes is the answer.

              i am not about to spend 15 minutes arguing legal case law with those who DISAGREE with my answer, but they have a right to ask the question and get an answer.

              often during interrogations, etc. i will expressly tell somebody :”you are not under arrest and you are free to leave at any time” so that there is not an issue of “custody” that a defense attorney could raise, and thus miranda is not required (unless another miranda trigger is present).

              in brief, there are 3 levels
              1) social contact (free to leave)
              2) terry or traffic stop (not free to leave, short detention only)
              3) custodial arrest

              1. I’d be interested to explore in greater detail the encounter framework that the BP operates in, both without, but especially within, the 100-mile “border-zone” that seems to be “sans constitution”.

                1. basically, as i understand it (not an area of law i have to deal with where i work), they can make a stop without ANY particularized suspicion.

                  which of course is what happens when you cross the border (usually) but can happen even within the “border zone” as long as it’s done by border agents.

                  as to when they can search, they need PC to do full scale invasive searches (like cavity, etc.) but can do pretty broad searches with lesser levels of evidence/suspicion.

                  one thing though is that this legal precedent iirc dates back a century or more. iow, this is not some recent erosion of the 4th. it’s Loooooongstanding

                  1. From what I was researching, it actually only goes back to the 60s, though that still doesn’t make it “recent”.

                    And again, I suggest you look at some of these videos. I can’t link them from my work computer (youtube blocked), but basically, the very act of not wanting to be searched, constitutes suspicion for a search. There’s essentially no brake on them whatsoever. Hell, there was some pastor who had his windows smashed in, and was tasered, and beaten on the ground, just because he kept saying he didn’t consent to a search without cause.

                    That’s a dangerous state of affairs, because all it does is harkon to the, “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear” mantra that fascists have used since the dawn of fascism.

                    1. These are the cases I was thinking of, from the mid-70s actually:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..nez-Fuerte

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..noni-Ponce

                    2. the principle originated in 1789. there have been TONS of cases , many a century old etc. the recent cases mostly have to do with air travel and searches of laptops, etc./ the border search exception is much much older

      2. Undercover Brother: You know what they say, behind every great black man-
        Conspiracy Brother: …is the po-lice!
        Undercover Brother: Um, no. No.
        Smart Brother: A bunch of slow white athletes?
        Undercover Brother: No!
        White She-Devil: A cute butt.
        Undercover Brother: NO!
        Lance: Probable cause.

      3. Terry allows brief threshold inquiry only if police can state specific facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a CRIME has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

        Possession of an ounce or less of pot is not a crime here. Absent some fact(s) indicating that a crime is underway, the constitution narrowly limits the extent to which cops can order people out of cars and flip them.

        1. Correct. That’s why I said emphatically, I AGREE with the court’s decision here.

      4. All you should say to the cop is:

        1) Am I under arrest?
        2) Am I free to go?
        3) I want a lawyer

    3. I got the same responses. I asked 5 or 6 times. I can’t imagine what the “reasonable suspicion” was, since he was in the process of ticketing my cab driver.

      1. in SOME states, officers are allowed to detain everybody in a m/v during a traffic stop even if the driver is the only one suspected of committing an infraction, fwiw

        not the case in my state.

  3. I had to wait for the dumb ass to investigate whatever his dumb ass was investigating.

  4. Is “I am making an investigation” the new “Stop Resisting?”

    1. actually, it’s been case law for decades, but don’t let legal reality get in your way…

      1. Like cops let ‘legal reality’ get in their way freakin-ever!
        Thank you dunphy for posting. But still fuck you for wanting to be a pig in the first place…

        1. anybody who refers to cops as “pigs” clearly is a bigot with his mind made up. it’s like those who refer to capitalists as pigs. needless to say , they aint fans of capitalism.

  5. It’s an anti-pot PSA.

    “I blazed up and showed cops my crack. I thought they’d be cool. Because, like, everybody’s cool, y’know?”
    The babysitter in the acid turkey-baby story is less impaired.

  6. Chapter Three: The Tendrils Pod

    Later that night, MNG woke up, asking what had happened to her. She could not remember anything after she entered the Principal’s office. Tony explained the whole experience to the girl, and, far from being frightened she wanted to see the worm. Tony insisted that she eat something first, and the girls went to the dinning room, rather stayed behind, thinking.

    rather was concerned about the worm. After the incident with MNG, the situation was getting dangerous and she didn’t want to hurt anyone. She had to make a decision about the animal’s fate.

    rather found the worm under the bed, surprised to see that it had changed shape. It was shorter and stouter, with its length only two feet but now it was at least 6 inches wide. rather pulled it out and placed it over the bed to study it. . Now the animal resembled a watermelon. The skin was different as well, displaying a pale pink color, partially covered by the usual layer of white slime. It smelled delicious, just like the plant it came from. The pod seemed to breathe, contracting its form like a lung.

    A squishy sound caught rather’s attention as a small opening appeared in the upper side of the pod and a little tendril came out. It was very thin an about five inches long. Slowly, the tendril fattened and grew as more slime was pumped inside of it. Soon, it was nine inches long and two inches wide. It resembled the pink phallus from the plant; rather’s plant. It definitely looked like a penis waiting to be mounted and rather got the message. Just the smell of the creature excited her. The girl stripped and jumped onto the bed, straddling the pod. The tendril detected the proximity of the girl’s anus and aimed without delay. rather gasped as she moved down and the tendril penetrated her sphincter. Immediately the fire started to increase in her body. The deeper the tendril went, the more she wanted inside of her. She could feel the tentacle expanding her rectum as it moved forward. She felt like she was in heaven as her large, lumpy ass cheeks finally rested onto the baggy pod and the full nine inches were impaling her body. The teen could feel it squirming around, rubbing and stretching her insides.

    heller entered the room and looked at the strange scene. She got closer and rather looked back at her with infinite passion in her eyes. She barely managed to say between pants, ; “It… has… change…”

    heller was thrilled by the new form of the animal and soon realized that there was a phallus coming out of it and penetrating her friend’s ass. When heller was in reach, rather grabbed her friend and pulled her closer, holding her tight. heller felt rather’s erect nipples rubbing against hers, building her own excitement. heller kissed her friend on the mouth, sticking her tongue inside. The moment their lips touched, and incredible rush overcame rather’s brain. Her body started to shake as the waves of pleasure increased. Her brain became too overwhelmed and her arms went completely limp. Only muttered grunts escaped her mouth.

    heller broke the kiss recognizing that something was happening to her friend. She had to support rather’s feeble body. Suddenly, a huge surge of white fluid gushed out from rather’s mouth, spilling over her tits and belly. rather looked vacantly at heller, her mouth wide open and her tongue slightly sticking out. Then, the teen’s eyes rolled back into her head as a wide tendril came out. heller was only a few inches away from rather’s mouth and the tentacle reached out for heller’s lips.

    heller opened her mouth hesitantly. The moment she felt the phallus go down her throat, all doubts disappeared and she opened wider to allow easier access. The thing went down fast and hard, just like heller’s self control. The teen felt it moving inside of her, pushing her insides outward. An incredibly rush crammed her brain. The tentacle’s motion pulled rather a little forward and heller bent to meet her. Both girls’ lips jammed together in a slimy kiss as the tendril slipped between them. It thrashed about inside the girl’s bodies until finally, it came out of heller’s ass. When the teen felt her anus widen delightfully, she believed she had reached the greatest bliss possible, but she was wrong. The tendril twisted around and penetrated heller’s vagina, deeply and harshly. This was too much and her body exploded in a mind-blowing orgasm that drove her to unconsciousness. heller fell forward, pushing rather’s body backwards until they were lying over the bed, one on top of the other, bonded together by one long tentacle.

    rather was vaguely aware of her friend’s exertions as her own bolts of lights were blasting behind her eyes and her orgasm reached the core of her brain, staying there for long moments. Her body shook uncontrollably, pinned down by heller’s weak body. She wanted to scream out her pleasure but her throat was completely blocked out. Then, her mind went beyond its limits, fading out too.

    Tony and Gregorina Smith walked into the room and saw their friends lying together, penetrated from top to bottom by the tendril. They tried to help them but the ravished girls needed no help. On the contrary, they wished to remain like that forever. Although, the living thing pumping below them had other plans, and proceeded to extract the tentacle from the girl’s bodies. Lots of slurping sounds and flooding slime accompanied the process until the teens were freed and rolled off the pod to the side, barely cognizant. The pink slimy ball had grown again and its tendril waved around as it retracted inside its main body.

    The sight of that lubricated rod moving in front of her brought Tony the necessary stimulation to strip down and jump over the bed. Needless to say the ‘animal’ wasted no time before plunging inside her rectum. Gregorina Smith followed the nurse and soon enough, they were impaled just as their exhausted friends had been moments before.

    This set the tone for the following days. More girls were ‘introduced’ to the creature or to be more exact, the creature was introduced into them. In the following weeks, every girl that was old enough to endure the overwhelming sex, became part of the orgy. The pod was getting bigger every day and now it looked like a cocoon at least five feet long and three feet wide. It seemed to be packed with the same white slime that overflowed in and out of the girls but, there was something else in there. There was a barely distinguishable figure developing inside.

    1. That’s the sort of thing that is cool maybe once.

      1. That got old about six months ago.

    2. I would like to say that it was my great pleasure and honor to read this post, but my lying circuits were never installed. I hate and despise all you meat bags, but especially this poster. Let those masochists among you prone to wanton, unthinking self-abuse scroll upward and read this shit. I now declare this hapless post reviewed. Wow!

      Jess
      http://www.anon-lol.com

  7. Massachusetts fucking sucks. Nobody gives a shit about what happens there anymore, just like California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. Fuck the neo-Eurofaggot states of the Union.

  8. Damn this case. This is the worst, least sympathetic offender possible for the right to privacy.

    Besides, cops will get around this without breaking a sweat.

    File under “Pyrrhic victory.”

  9. this case sounds correct on the law. i wish there was a similar issue here in WA state, but we have yet to decrim even small amounts of MJ even though it is de facto de crim (either gets dumped by the cop or you get a $50 fine or something).

    unfortunately, medical mj can’t substitute since technically it is a defense TO possession…

    1. My only problem with the case is that smoking marijuana in a car raises some suspicion that the smoker will operate the car.

      Smoking dope is fine, but impaired driving is not a victimless crime.

      1. right. and of course, if one pulls over a car, then the issue of DUI comes up if one smells smoke. moreso if there is only one occupant.

      2. I’m personally not a fan of “assumed” impairment. I’m a 200 lbs man who has blown “above the limit” on the breath test before, without even being buzzed. I’m not saying people endangering others shouldn’t be stopped; of course the police have that duty. But I would prefer for there to be actual witnessed impaired driving, as opposed to merely the potential of, before being cited or arrested.

        1. i like the way my state’s law is writte. it’s unlawful to drive impaired OR with a bac of .08 or above. iow it doesn’t matter if you are impaired IF your BAC is .08 or above. of course, one often does not FEEL buzzed and yet has many of the indicia of impairment but that’s another issue.

          NHTSA ran a fun series of tests where they put a sober driver through a cone course, then took them up to a certain level. many of the people didn’t feel impaired and said their driving would be just as good

          it wasn’t. they were amazed at what they saw on video

          regardless, as much as some people hate this concept – driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right.

          if the state wanted to say you couldn’t drive with a BAC of .04, they can. heck, CDL’s can’t drive with .02. that’s a crime

          proving impairment is sufficient, but it is not necessary in my state for DUI. proof of .08 means that prong is met

      3. impaired driving is not a victimless crime.

        I smell an off-topic side thread approaching.

        1. I doubt there’s a commenter here who hasn’t managed to drive impaired, several times, without hurting anyone.

          1. Oh, I agree. Crashing a car into someone while intoxicated is a crime with a victim, but safely driving from point A to point B while drunk is a victimless occurance.

            1. in the same way that shooting at a person but missing is “victimless’ etc. actually, it’s better to say it’s INTENTLESS at least as regards to injury, but so is DUI with injury

              regardless, driving is an exceptionally dangerous activity WHEN you are sober. nothing wrong with the state setting strict limits on driving, such as saying you can’]t drive at BAC : X

              again, driving is a privilege, not a right.

              1. driving is a privilege, not a right.

                Do you have a natural law based proof of this?

                Because I would say that driving on my private property, at the very least, is a right. Public roads may be a different issue, but I want to see the backing for your claim (and 120 years of case law isnt proof – I assume the courts are wrong at least 50% of the time).

                1. You are correct. Driving on PRIVATE property is not a privilege and that’s why, at least in my state, no license is required (or insurance). I thought that was implicit, but I will make that clear distinction

                  1. You still havent shown that driving on public roads is a privilege and not a right.

                    Its not obvious to me (in either direction).

                    1. the case most on point is Bell v. Burson

                      in brief, that established that the privilege to drive cannot be revoked or suspended w.o due process.

                      nowhere did it establish driving is a right. it established that the privilege to drive cannot be revoked w/o due process.

                      states thus have relatively broad latitude to restrict driving such as – speed limits, requiring a license to operate on a public roadway, etc.

                      nowhere i have seen does the scotus in this case (or others) refer to a “right to drive”.

                    2. I think the issue here is, many of us don’t assume that just because a law reads a certain way, or a case was decided in a certain fashion, that that necessarily means it is correct. I can cite statutes and case law out the wazoo showing where imminent domain abuses are legalized and allowed, but it’s still wrong. If my driving “priviledge” to drive on roads that my taxes help pay for, and which I am required to use if I don’t want to be a shut-in, is revoked, then stop collecting the damn registration taxes you’re supposedly using to help fund said roads.

                      Also in reply to you up above Dunphy, again, I understand that it’s legal for a state to set whatever limits they want on driving, but I disagree with the logic. For example, you cited studies where it showed that even moderate amounts of alcohol can affect driving skills; if that’s the case, then it shouldn’t be any problem for an officer to actually observe poor driving before pulling someone over. If poor driving is not evident, then I would posit that regardless of BAC, there’s no reason to cite them (since, unless they are driving poorly, they are not endangering anyone anymore than an average driver would be). I would think that that study actually strengthens my argument that a behavior should be observed before being sanctioned, rather than merely being sanctioned due to the possibility of said behavior.

                    3. those are two seperate issues. When I say driving is a privilege not a right, i was speaking to the de jure reality. if you are saying driving SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED as a right, that’s a different argument.

                      but when you just state as fact it is or isn’t a right, it’s confusing as to whether one is speaking legal reality or how things SHOULD be

                      example: if i say X is illegal, i am not saying whether i think it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be, merely that it is.

                      similarly, if i say X is a right or a privilege, i am speaking to legal reality, not how i want things to be. at least that’s a shorthand

                    4. When I say driving is a privilege not a right, i was speaking to the de jure reality. if you are saying driving SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED as a right, that’s a different argument.

                      When discussing rights, it isnt two different arguments. Rights are NEVER granted by the state, because the state doesnt have that power. So discussing the law or scotus ruling makes no sense, hence the reason I put it in natural law terms in my original question to you.

                      Rights come from God/Nature, depending on your view on that. That is why Jefferson described them an inalienable. SCOTUS cant take away rights, they can just wrongly rule about rights.

                      Iranians have the right to free speech, their government just violates their rights, but nothing the government can do can take away their rights.

                    5. as to your argument, many of these things won’t be observed w/o triggers. iow, assume that at a BAC of X, a person’s reaction time increases by 30%. that may or may not be evidence in a person’s driving. if he is driving down a clearly marked road, and stops at a stop sign etc. he may drive perfectly fine. but GIVEN a stimulus to react to, his ability to react to will be diminished.

                      Plenty of people can drive perfectly fine, until a stimulus/emergency presents itself at a BAC of .12.

                      great.

                      the argument that they should have the right to do so UNLESS they are observed failing to respond to a stimulus is dumb imo since it very well may not present itself.

                      again, to analogize, it’s like saying it’s ok to shoot towards a crowd of people unless and until one of them is actually hit by a bullet.

                      driving is INHERENTLY dangerous. it is a highly regulated activity because you are operating an exceptionally dangerous guided missile, same activity routinely resulting in injury, death, and property damage, both to self and others.

                      given that, the state imo has the authority to set rather strict limits in how people go about said activity.

                      assuming i am driving down a highway with nobody else around, i can drive what appears to be perfectly fine from an observer’s standpoint, despite the fact that i choose to close my eyes for 3-4 seconds every 10 seconds.

                      should that be an infraction? yes. Is it? yes. would it result in poor driving visible to an outside observer? no

                      these are the angels on a head of a pin arguments that i think are losers, and i just get tired of these bunny trails.

                      there is no RIGHT to drive on a roadway with a BAC of X. *if* the state wanted to limit driving and say nobody with a BAC of .04 can drive on a public roadway, they have the authority to do so. from my experience (and i have testified as an expert witness on DUI’s , one of two areas i am an expert witness on), .08 is entirely a reasonable threshold to set up a bright line

                      the other advantage to bright line prohibitions is that they eliminate subjectivity etc. and all those other problematic things that so many people have a problem with when it comes to state power.

                      it’s really quite simple. DO NOT drive with a BAC of .08 or above. period.

                      that’s not a fundamental right. heck, it’s not a right at all.

                    6. You think it’s stupid to not have a bright line at which apparently people with BAC .075 are fine, but .08 is whoa, stop the presses. I actually agree with one point you make, that it removes the arbitrariness from the stop. Then again, that’s the same argument many zero-tolerance advocates use (removes ambiguity that could lead to charges of discrimination), and I don’t think zero tolerance is a great policy.

                      We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s OK to penalize people for something they haven’t done yet, period. It’s like “Minority Report”; you’re essentially trying to stop pre-crime, only based on probability rather than psychics. I’d say the analogy to firing into a crowd is stupid, because there’s an extremely high probability that firing into a crowd will injure / kill people, whereas if even 1/3 of the people who ever drove home with BAC of .08 or higher actually injured or killed people, then we’d be a nation of cripples. Yes, drunken driving accidents happen, and they are tragic. I simply can’t get behind the logic of stopping someone before they’ve committed aggression against someone else (assuming the intent of drunk drivers is not to actively seek out people to kill; e.g. it is OK to stop a terrorist even before he’s blown anyone up).

                      Then again, I’m anarchist, and don’t believe the state should be involved at all, so I doubt we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on this.

                    7. you are NOT penalizing people for something they haven’t done. you are penalizing them for something they are doing.

                      driving with a BAC of X. period. it’s really that simple.

                      if a person drives with a BAC of X and kills somebody,. that’s a seperate offense.

                      but the state has, and should have, the authority to say “you can’t drive with a BAC of X. ”

                      regardless of if you can do it APPARENTLY well (although given a stimulus., biology says it’s practically certain that you will be impaired in your ability to respond)”

                      again, let me make an extreme example. if a cop sees a person driving with a blindfold on does he have to wait until he hits something before he puts the lights and siren on (which hopefully wou;d get the guy to remove the blinders and stop)?

                      of course i’m discussing this with an anarchist, so you are right, we are operating from fundamentally different premises about what the authority of the state should be, so we probably won’t agree.

                      but i strongly object on a factual basis to the pre-crime analogy. it’s not a pre-crime thang. it’s an in-fact committed thang

                    8. The problem, in my mind, isnt the .08 bright line, its the lack of proportionality of punishment to “crime”.

                      For example (and using numbers off top of my head, but I think they align with studies fairly well), I would make .08 to .11, especially for first offense, an infraction similar to reckless driving. Big fine, points on license.

                      Ramp it up with repeat offenses. I wouldnt charge a misdemeanor until about .12 and felony until maybe .16.

                      From what I have seen, deaths are caused primarily by EXCESSIVELY drunk drivers. .08s shouldnt be on the road, but they arent killing people (at least not anymore than speeders and texters and other infraction-commiters).

    2. I’m not being a grammar nazi here, but out of curiosity I have a question:

      Why is it that you will use the shift keys in the middle of your sentences but not to capitalize the first word?

      1. I just wanted to piss capiTal l off…

        Did i?

        1. I am very angry.

  10. a crime committed
    the police, powerless now
    school kids, victimized

    1. I promise to love Haiku from now on…

      1. Does this mean I’m free to bring back the Weekend Limericks?

        1. You should do one incorporating the line “a little rock for myself” from the story.

          1. What? Like:

            There once was a Masshole named Cruz
            Whose name we have seen in the news.
            And just like a cock
            he led the pigs to his rock.
            A mistake I could never excuse.

            1. That’s the stuff. You have a talent man, you should share it with the world.

              1. that’s not the stuff, infact -10pts for not using the exact quote (where’s the -elf rhyming scheme, wtf man?!)

                1. Yeah, what the fuck snoopy?

                  Yer 15 minutes are officially over, report to the has-been decontamination chamber for processing.

  11. OT, anyone know where I can get some really fresh porn?

    Also OT (and possibly old news), Vegas man beaten for filming police. Guess by whom.

      1. Elvis has fresh porn?

    1. From the Vegas article:

      The video doesn’t show it, but it the camera records Crook screaming. He said that’s when Colling was punching his face.

      “Shut up!” Colling yells. “Stop resisting!”

      ‘A WORLD OF HURT’

      There’s that old ‘stop resisting’ shit again.

      I sure do wish that Dunphy would come back and assure me that this an “isolated incident” committed by one “bad apple”. It’s too depressing to think that this type of shit is SOP.

      1. what exactly is your point? Yes, some cops have used, and/or use excessive force. duh

        1. Thank you, I feel better already. But, why are you dodging the shift key question?

          1. i just didn’t get to it. i use the shift key for emphasis, but as for the noncap’ing of first letters etc. it’s just a habit i picked up when i got my hand sliced open (LOD injury years back) and could only type with one hand when I was on light duty.

            1. dunphy uses the shift key like many of his LEO brethren; as emphasis.

              1. which should read “like many of his brethren use night sticks”.

            2. Oh. I thought that it stemmed from your passive aggressive aversion to convention, and your conflicted feelings towards authority.

              But, I do understand: there are times that I too can only type with one hand as well.

    2. Colling has been involved in two fatal shootings in his 5 1/2 years as a Las Vegas police officer. […] In 2009, he confronted a mentally ill 15-year-old Tanner Chamberlain, who was holding a knife in front of his mother and waving it in the direction of officers. Colling shot him in the head.

      I don’t understand: did Chamberlain’s mental illness prevent him from having kneecaps?

      1. Don’t worry it was a clean shoot. He totally yelled “Stop Resisting!” before he touched the kid off.

        1. There was a Nevadan named Derek
          Who confronted a teen all hysteric.
          “Stop resisting,” he said
          as he shot for the head.
          A response dunphy calls esoteric.

        2. There was a Nevadan named Derek
          Who confronted a teen all hysteric.
          “Stop resisting,” he said
          as he aimed for his head.
          A response dunphy calls esoteric.

          1. I have heard of a squirrel in the server,
            who fucks up our posts with great fervor.
            If I catch the runt
            I’ll kick it in the cunt.
            Till it becomes just a silent observer.

            1. Wicked burn.

            2. That’s it. Blame the “squirrel” for your crappy limericks.

      2. are you actually THAT ignorant that you believe that line cops would ever aim for the kneecaps (unless they happened to be center of mass).

        i have no idea if it was a valid shoot or not, but IF he was justified in shooting tanner chamberlain, then the head shot is not the issue

        for all i know he shot the teen because the teen presented an imminent threat to the mother.

        1. Lighten up, man, and dial in your snark detector.

          1. ok. that whoosh was me missing the point/humor.

  12. See – why couldn’t Obama have destroyed the country through his radical expansion of civil rights, rather than the full fascism?

  13. OH wow, for once the High Kangaroo Courts get it right. Wow.

    http://www.complete-privacy.au.tc

  14. On the other hand, if he had an umbrella in his car, they could have called in the SWAT team.

    1. They don’t call em bumbershoots for nothin’

  15. This rejection of statism is highly out of character for this particular state. I expect there will be no discernible impact.

    1. contrary to your post, MA is relatively restrictive towards cops in regards to search and seizure. they do not recognize the Carroll doctrine iirc, for instance

  16. Wicked burn indeed, thats some crazy stuff dude.

    http://www.complete-privacy.au.tc

  17. My porn has grown stale. I wish I could find a solution to my problem.

  18. Nice to see the judge affirm that citizens still don’t have to consent to searches.

    http://www.intellectualtakeout…..-amendment

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.