Again, my agency doesn’t have a drug dog, but I have worked with a few from other agencies. The dog definitely alerts on a very specific spot, and I’ve seen them find drugs that we had no idea where there. I trust a dog with a good track record completely.
Actually, I wasn’t referring to dash camera systems - I just meant that most cops carry a microrecorder in their pocket to record any contacts that they have. These aren’t for evidence, just as a backup when someone files a complaint against us. I’ve known cops who were accused of making death threats or demanding bribes, and they had proof that no such thing occurred.
And I’ve never heard of a police union opposing dash cams. Most cops would love to have these systems. I know my agency has been trying for years to find a grant to outfit our cars with them.
Oh, I’m not saying drug dogs can’t find drugs.
I’d just like to see some controlled testing about the incidence of false positives in double blind and compromised double blind searches. or with and without their usual handler(s).
Problem here is you elect when A) it’s activated and B) when anything it records sees the light of day. I am sure would be just as good at substantiating complaints as they are disproving them.
Ur doin’ it rong.
There’s an old country bon mot:
“I’m so happy I could piss all over myself”. Anybody who’s had puppies knows where that came from.
I think the “red ball” thing (usually) stops just short of that.
Yes, I know why puppies piss all over themselves.
Sadly, dustinsquarepants is not the only example of police officers in Texas who try to make the law work for them. 
See this CNN report about a small town and its seizures.
I just hate this sort of crap. People should be able to trust peace officers, not be taught to think they are crooks. :mad:
alright ds, i’ll bite, your troll-fu is strong and since I didn’t unsubscribe from this thread the emails keep coming.
I understand that you’re a lawyer, and though you could probably be a property lawyer or something like that instead of a criminal lawyer, you don’t have to extend your douchery to all facets of your life (which, apparently a large part of is posting on message boards). the cnn article you cite is indeed unfortunate, and sets a bad example of course, but it isn’t typical. likewise, as you incorrectly assume, inventory as a pretext for a search isn’t typical either. in the area that I patrol, there are known drug areas/houses and the da’s here routinely accept being there as almost enough pc for whatever charge the “pretext” search revealed.
society asks us to do our jobs, but at the same time restricts how we do it. you bet your ass we’re going to try to make the law work for US, just as the criminals try to make it work for them. seizing money without reason is a horrible example of “making the law work for is” and has no merit in your continual judging of “all texas police officers”.
and just as a snide remark to part with, you’re paying for us to “violate your rights”, seems like you’d try to fix it rather than just b*tch about it on an internet board. but I guess we all fight the safe fights within our sometimes diminished capacity.
If you engage in even ONE search that would be unconsitutional absent your pretext arrest, that is one too many. I don’t care if it’s typical or not. Don’t do it. Don’t EVER do it. You are an officer of the law; FOLLOW the DAMN LAW, both it’s letter and its intent.
Society does expect you to do your job. Sadly, many officers (and you may be included in this, though I don’t have enough evidence to judge surely) feel that their job is to arrest criminals, and stop crime. As I pointed out, this is not the job of an officer. Or, to be more accurate, it’s a portion of what their job is: keep the peace. Yes, sometimes that requres some actions that are going to be ugly or dangerous. That’s why we honor officers as we do, because we know what risks they take to do their jobs. But when you forget that you are a peace officer, and take it on your shoulders to keep your community free of crime, find all criminals, etc., you set yourself up for a dangerous fall down the slippery slope of ends justifying your means. You have to avoid doing that. You accomplish that by remembering that it’s the means that are important; a good end gotten to by bad means can be far worse than a bad end resuting from proper actions.
So much for the portions of your post that are directed towards the content of the thread. As for you, I actually thought you had finally gotten the message and had gone back to hiding instead of piling on more reasons for people to suspect you are not a good officer. I would have thought that the fact that the two or three (I’ve lost count) officers who also posted in this thread have repeatedly distanced themselves from your statements, to the point of saying that what you have asserted is blatantly bad procedure, would have been enough indication for you to cease attempting to defend a losing hand. But, apparently, whatever it is that Houston expects out of its officers, they aren’t looking for people who are quick on the uptake when it comes to seeing and admitting error. As for me, since you have no idea what I do, how I do it, or whether or not I’m in any way involved in efforts to rectify the sort of rights violations you were advocating, I’ll simply pass on any further comment on your ad hominem attack in the last paragraph. I’d report it for violation of the Board’s rules, but it’s so harmless and silly that it’s more likely to foster giggling than outrage by a Moderator.
Troll calling and personal attacks are not permitted in General Questions. Please refrain from this sort of comment. No warning issued.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator