1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Canna-Weird News

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by macbill, Sep 23, 2014.

  1. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,315
    so much of that crazy stuff happening all because cannabis is illegal... legal cannabis for everyone has none of those problems with everyone trying to be your dealer
     
    macbill likes this.
  2. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    3,658
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
    OldNewbie and psychonaut like this.
  3. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Heh, Dodie. I wonder if he was ever teased growing up.

    With a quick look, it's a her not a he and "Dodie" is just her cool politician name. Nevermind.

    Even better, at her bio at https://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/165610/dodie-horton , it lists her education as, "Attended, Woodlawn High School". That's it. No mention of college (not that that makes you a better politician/person) nor of actually graduating high school. (not that THAT makes you a better politician/person either)
     
    Helios, macbill and howie105 like this.
  4. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    3,658
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
  5. Squiby

    Squiby Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,444
  6. psychonaut

    psychonaut High as fuck

    Messages:
    1,869
    Location:
    CO
    I have a feeling the police who partner with those dogs would have something to say about that !!!!!
     
    szai, grokit, C No Ego and 4 others like this.
  7. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    The police dog issue is a real one. How do you get a dog to stop alerting to cannabis without changing behavior to other drugs/usb/bomb issues they can smell? (Well, I know how. It's just that it will take a long time and the dog is useless until trained.) Basically, all dogs that alert to cannabis in a state where it is legal cannot provide the reasonable suspicion/probable cause needed to continue an investigation or to make an arrest. (The odd case has to do with medical marijuana and still allowing a search based on an alert because it could have been illegal and another that allowed it because the amount could have been more than legal. I think those are just last grasps in the hope to put some bad guy's away during the transition.)

    It's not like police dogs are as little fluffy and can be handled by anyone; they are big weapons that require a good and knowledgeable owner to control.

    Now, I suspect this is just posturing on the part of the police. But, just look at what the government did to war dogs even though Robby's law was in effect. Such a dog, even though it is loved and respected by the humans they work with, is still just considered a piece of property. If the police decided to take such an action as mentioned, there would be no "murder" or animal cruelty issues.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2018
    szai, grokit, Copacetic and 1 other person like this.
  8. Copacetic

    Copacetic Somewhere North of The Wall

    Messages:
    936
    I don't get it.
    They don't HAVE to stop these dogs alerting to cannabis odour.
    The dog isn't the one doing the actual arresting and charging FFS.

    What's the problem with simply proceeding with a search based upon the dog alert, and if nothing illegal is found then the officer/s simply hands back the persons belongings and lets them continue with their day (here's your weed sir/madam, sorry for the inconvenience) .

    What do your police CURRENTLY do in the event of a search which uncovers nothing illegal? (please don't say "plant evidence" lol)

    It's not like the dog can communicate which odour it's detected, so if someone is searched and found to be in possession of something still illegal, it's not as if the 'offender' can claim it was an illegal search predicated upon the dog detecting cannabis, so the charges/conviction should be secure no?

    The dogs don't even need to be retrained.

    Quite apart from the 'humanitarian' concerns, retiring (or God forbid, euthanising) these highly trained animals would be a huge (and unnecessary) waste of resources.
    Not to mention the inevitable upset caused to the handlers (would officers quit?)

    I don't know the duration of the working life of police dogs, but new dogs being trained now would come into service in a few years anyway.

    Sounds like posturing to me too.
     
    Little Bill, Mulchmaker and Squiby like this.
  9. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    The Constitution's fourth amendment prevents unreasonable search and seizure. The dog provides facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person of like training and experience to believe a crime is being committed (Aka probable cause) that makes the search or seizure reasonable.

    If the dog's training alerts on something that is not illegal, then how can it provide a fact or circumstance that could change things? Dogs sometimes sit. That does not mean a person goes to jail.

    We don't assess the reasonableness of a search on the result, but on the facts and circumstances that led to it. Lots of searches result in finding nothing.

    There is no protection from illegal search and seizure if the guideline is if the government found something. The problem is in what the dog provides. It is trained to alert in the presence of illegal substances. (Some are trained for other things too, like USB's or nitrates, both legal.) If the alert no longer indicates the dog smelling illegal substances, what does the alert mean?

    Heck, we don't even need the dogs! If not reasonably believing a person is breaking the law is no longer important, the police can just search when they want.

    It takes years to train a good police dog and then it only has a few years of good service. Retraining will take some time and might not be worth it for all but the youngest dogs because of the service life.

    Also, we have the uncertainty. The reason for the current legal framework is based on hundreds, thousands of court decisions. Court decisions where the dog alerting was based on his training in recognizing illegal substances alone. If it is now just alerting when EITHER legal or illegal things are perceived, all the factual scenarios will have to be re-litigated.
     
  10. Adobewan

    Adobewan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Location:
    So Cal
    I imagine/hope the wave of upset from the public, and the officers paired up with these dogs, would be enough to keep this from happening, but wish it were enough to keep the heartless propagandists from even suggesting it.
    This is a real issue everywhere legalization is happening, but Canada didn't jump right to “kill the dogs”.

    “Regarding drug sniffing dogs in Canada, Toronto-based criminal lawyer Paul Lewin, who specializes in laws and regulations surrounding marijuana said, “Put the dogs out to pasture, do something humane, let them run in someone’s backyard,” said Lewin. “They can be someone’s pet going forward, but we certainly shouldn’t be paying for cannabis-sniffing dogs going forward.””

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3863886/...g-dogs-when-marijuana-is-legalized-in-canada/
     
  11. Copacetic

    Copacetic Somewhere North of The Wall

    Messages:
    936
    Realistically, there is never any certainty re' what the dog is alerting to (unless the dog is trained SOLELY on canna, surely not the case), so I can't imagine there would be many felons SUCCESSFULLY claiming 'unfair search' after being caught with something illegal after a search predicated upon an alert by a dog which happens to have obsolete training in addition to it's training for other substances which are still currently illegal.

    You guys are changing your laws, if you can't do that without being flexible enough to avoid destroying innocent dogs or incarcerating innocent people I despair.

    And please don't put words in my mouth.
    I did not say, or suggest that probable cause should be abandoned or police allowed to search without it, or even that dogs should not be used, those are YOUR words @OldNewbie not mine, please don't twist my meaning.
     
    Little Bill likes this.
  12. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    It's hard to get too specific as there is a lot to deal with, but, the dog is doing as it is trained. When it smells the item(s) it is trained to, it does the thing it is trained to do. Say a dog's alert is to sit when it smells pot. It sniffs the car and sits. We now have probable cause to believe pot is in the vehicle and can search it. Now, say it is trained to alert on pot or cocaine. The dog is taken around a car and sits. What can we say? We can say we have probable cause to believe pot or cocaine is in the vehicle and can search it as both pot and cocaine are illegal. We don't have to know what it is, we just have to be reasonably sure it is illegal. (Even then we won't KNOW until the chemical testing months away. Those snap ampules with reagents don't prove it is the drug, but that it could be.) Now, say the dog is trained for cocaine and pot in a pot-legal state. When the dog sits, do we still have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed?

    Lots of evidence gets tossed through the years so someone must be successfully claiming an illegal, unconstitutional, unreasonable searches that are also unfair. (Although "fairness" has nothing to do with it.)

    I'm not advocating destroying the dogs. However, until they are retrained, they are not useful for getting probable cause to search for illegal drugs.


    Words explain the concept. YOUR words don't reflect probable cause jurisprudence. If we were to act as you suggest, the concept of probable cause is no longer as it is understood. So, you kinda did say probable cause (at least as it is understood today) should be abandoned.

    Edit:
    (Assuming the U.S. Since you're from Canada, case law, while probably much the same, is certainly not exactly the same and the concepts may be more like England that has a very different set of search and seizure rules.)
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2018
  13. I will take these dogs in. I will desensitize them to 420 on a daily basis merely by having them in my home when the fog starts up each evening.
     
    grokit, C No Ego, Copacetic and 3 others like this.
  14. Adobewan

    Adobewan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Location:
    So Cal
    Multi-like!
     
    Copacetic and Squiby like this.
  15. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    3,658
    Location:
    The Evergreen State

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors