Backround check bill fails to pass in Senate - Page 5

Bee,
the more you type the dumber you sound, even with all the big words.
You have no idea now, and never did know what the hell this was and is all about.
Lets tax stupid people, to pay for all the stupid things they do and say.

Moons.

As for what I or any other citizen does in private, that excedes your authority and sounds like tyrany to me.

Your next project is to go through everyones records and then seize guns?
You might want to consult your departments lawyers first.

You almost sound like a SUPER COP !!!

Everyone has something to worry about when their rights are violated.

A convicted felon should not have a firearm period.  A person charged with Domestic violence is required to turn in their guns, that is the law!   A person convicted of domestic violence no longer has the right to own firearms.  A person charged with certain drug offense also can not own firearms.  I do not need to contact any lawyers to know how to enforce the law. Sometimes you just need to think outside the box to catch a criminal.  Sometimes technology can help and assist in our law enforcement efforts.  No super cop here, just willing to put in some hard work and a little effort to get firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  Are you against taking guns from convicted felons and people who are charged with domestic violence?  Certainly, no rights will be violated..........Just a lot of guns will be taken off the streets and out of homes where felons and violent abusive people live.  Seems like a win / win.  I just need to work out the logistics and an easy way to cross reference convictions.  It really should not be that hard.  I am going to meet with the Clerk of our Circuit Court next week to figure out the easiest implementation.    I am highly motivated to get this going and Moons you have given me even more desire to see it succeed.  

Micaho,
How do I get guns off traffic stops?  I simply ask if they have any firearms, some people will tell you.  Consent searches and I also work a Patrol, Narcotics K-9.  I often run cars on traffic stops and when the dog alerts to the odor of narcotics, we quite often find guns.  
 

For someone so dedicated to their job and yeah a little super cop going on, you sure spend a lot of time on an Internet website chatting up the forums.

I have no problem with you doing your job, as long as it is truly legal and not a violation of someones rights.

And no one is needlessly harmed in the process.

Bee- The govt is neither "good", nor "evil". I view the human creature is completely fallible, and inherently violent, even though the "violence" of the day isn't executed with stones and clubs. Power corrupts; anyone. Bureaucracy, though necessary, feeds itself, and is never satiated.

"I never refer to the American governmental experiment as a democracy; rather, it is a republic. A pure democracy is when whatever 51% want becomes the law, regardless of its wisdom or the rights of the other 49%. A republic, on the other hand, maintains respect for the rule of law and guarantees that certain rights are protected no matter what the majority may want.

The view that the people, as a collective, are always right is fallacious. The voters make huge mistakes all the time. Yet so do kings and totalitarian rulers. What, then, is the solution? Our Founders came up with an arrangement that sought to minimize the sinfulness and foolishness of man. The federal republic they created, while not perfect, since there is no perfect system in this world, nevertheless has the potential to diminish the bad effects of man’s selfish tendencies. At any rate, it seeks to divide the powers of government in such a way that no one man or select group can control everything at once. The goal was to avoid tyranny." - Dr. Alan Snyder.

Moons, 
I worked today and spent most of my day in court.  I'm off now and relaxing at home.  Do I have your permission to watch a movie, drink a beer and browse the net?  I am about to finish watching "Django unchained," awesome movie.  I'd recommend it.  I think you are in a close race with me for most time spent chatting up the forums.  I'm sure we can get an exact count of the pages we view and hours we spend on here, I know I'm in the "thousands."
 
Thanks!

Just saw that movie, Slam. I loved it; about collapsed from laughing at the "KKK scene". However, I would not allow a kid under 18 to see it. Too violent. I didn't notice the rating - R? Jackson was the star IMO, but all were great. Enjoy....even cops are entitled to have some fun every now and then  just don't make it a habit!

Gotta run, time for Idol!!!

Jim,
yeah I spend some time here too, and if you count posts I guess I got ya beat.
Surely you don't need my permission, I'd have one with ya but I just had a couple of teeth cut out and still bleeding, gross huh.

I also watched Django, I think Tarantino was messing with us, I can't give it an  A  but it wasn't a stinker either,  C  I think.
SHIT FIRE !!!
I showed a clip to the wife some time back and that's all she says anymore, shit fire...lol
Actually she liked Don Johnson's character.

You know this place will drive you nuts don't you?

Anyway enjoy the suds, I can't even smoke right now.

Moons.

Slamdunc,

Thanks for the explanation. Hurray for our K9 units!  I imagine it's more upsetting when you show up with your dog and someone's holding drugs than if a regular patrol officer stops them.  Are any dogs trained to detect weapons directly and not just explosives? 

With all due respect and just asking out of curiosity, a while back I heard some K9 detection busts had been thrown out because the dog "searched" without consent, probable cause, or a warrant   In one example a K9 officer was serving a bench warrant and the dog smelled drugs inside the house.  I was wondering if any rules have changed, for example with the Patriot Act, so that the dogs can do what they're trained to do?  Maybe just the dog alerting is probable cause?

Moons,
I wasn't referring to the number of posts one has.  

Micaho,

With all due respect and just asking out of curiosity, a while back I heard some K9 detection busts had been thrown out because the dog "searched" without consent, probable cause, or a warrant   In one example a K9 officer was serving a bench warrant and the dog smelled drugs inside the house.


There were a couple of big K-9 cases that were heard by the Supreme Court and ruled on this year.  One was Fla vs Harris and the ruling was very good for K-9 handlers, that had to do with certification and training records.  The other was Fla vs Jardines and I think that may be the case you are thinking of.  Fl vs Jardines dealt with the use of a dog on private property and whether utilizing a trained narcotics dog to "sniff" a door of a residence was considered a search under the fourth amendment.  The SCOTUS ruled that it was a search and requires a search warrant.  I am in complete agreement with both cases and Jardines will have little or no impact on how I conduct business.  Meaning I wouldn't have used my dog in the way that it was used in the Jardines case.  
    
The dog alert is probable cause, there are vehicle exceptions in the law such as the "Carroll Doctrine."  A dog's alert to a vehicle is considered the same as having a search warrant to search the vehicle.  There is a much higher level of expectation to privacy of a person's residence, hence the reason for the Jardines ruling by the SCOTUS.  If I bring my dog into a residence to search for a wanted suspect or for Officer safety and the dog hits the odor of Narcotics while inside the house, I will lock the residence down and secure a search warrant for the home.  No different than if I walked in to serve a warrant and observed Narcotics in plain view or detected the odor of Marijuana myself.  If I detect the odor of Narcotics in a vehicle or see narcotics in a vehicle I would not need a search warrant to search the vehicle.  Same as the dog detecting the odor.  Once again, a residence is different and there is a higher expectation of privacy.  What is seen in "Plain View" while having a legitimate reason to be in some one's home, ie call for service, disturbance, arrest warrant for the resident, can be confiscated.  To search beyond what is in plain view requires a search warrant, unless consent is freely given.  Even with consent, a search warrant is the best route to go.  
 
Our explosives dog will detect weapons as well.  

I love nothing more than to discuss K-9's and K-9 case Law.  If you have any other questions about case law I'd prefer you PM or email me.  I don't want to get into it too much on here, this is not the proper forum for this.   

 

Jim,
I know what you meant, just didn't care to go there.

Why is this not a proper place to discuss K-9 case law?

I think many still question how dogs are to be used in law enforcement, and though not the same topic, we all have questions concerning the new drone technology and how it is to be used as well.

What if marijuana is taken off the federal list and becomes legal, will dog's need to be retrained?

I think the high court will be reviewing both for years and of course over time the make-up of the court will change too as presidents come and go and old judges die or retire.

Hey this is better than the gossip guessing games about who shot who, Russians, and whats is the best way into hell.

Moons.