Slashdot Mirror
The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap
dwrugh writes "The drummer for the seminal punk band The Germs, Don Bolles, was arrested in Orange County because a field-test kit indicated his bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap contained GHB, the date-rape drug. (Here is an interview with Bolles.) Using the same test kit, available on the web for $20 for a pack of 10, according to Bolles' attorney on NBC this morning, other soaps tested positive for GHB. But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive, and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."
Basically, Dr. Bronner's is the Time Cube of soaps.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I recall reading about that study and did a search. A BBC News article can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6152646.stm
Yes, it is true. America is a police state. Freedom and equal protection are just ideas here. We have them on paper, but no one really believes in it.
Here in Georgia we have a guy sitting in prison because when he was 17 he received consensual oral sex from a 15 year old classmate.
His sentence? Ten years. No parole.
It was the minimum sentence allowed for "aggravated child molestation." Aggravated, because oral sex is "sodomy."
Ok, you're right that all of that is possible, but I really don't think it is the norm. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but iI really don't think that every other (50%) person who refuses to allow for a search of a car then has the car searched anyway by some abuse of power. What tends to happen (at least from people I know in the situation) is that the officers ask if they can search the vehicle, and then the normally rights-minded individual in the car allows it for some reason. I had a friend whose whole family did some drugs and loved to drink. His dad was also a lawyer and told him that he should never allow the police to search his car under any circumstances. He then told all of us the same thing, and we told everyone that we knew to be careful as well. Then one day the kid gets pulled over, and for some stupid reason lets the cops search his car, at which point they find some seeds on the floor.
Another thing people tend to do is get scared when the cops say that you will be delayed as they need more time to process the information if you fail to allow a search or that now a dog will be called in. The problem here is that most people don't know that in many cases, you don't need to wait around. If the officer does not allow you to leave, then it's an unwarrented detention. You are not obligated to wait around for a drug dog to show up to sniff your car. Ask the officer, "Am I free to leave?" The answer is usually yes, whehter or not the cop lies to you, but I really think most will be honest with you if you ask the right questions. The problem is that they aren't obligated to be honest with you if you don't know which questions to ask. My lawyer friends have always told me that if I'm pulled over, be polite, but only crack your window enough to slip out your license and registration and don't say anything. You aren't obligated to speak to the officer at all. If he continues to ask questions, just repeat the phrase, "Am I free to leave?". Of course, repeating that phrase over and over might conflict with the "be polite" idea, so you have to use some judgement there.
Inexplicably, SCOTUS does not consider a drug dog to be an unreasonable search.
As for SCOTUS's opinion on this, I think they're closer to saying that a drug dog is not a search at all, so it can't be labelled as reasonable or unreasonable and they don't need probable cause. Of course, I didn't read that much about it so I could be misunderstanding the decision.
The real fun part of that story is that if he'd just had intercourse with her, he'd have been committing a misdemeanor and received a small fine. (Parental notification, really, being the point of that 'punishment'. Hey, parents, your 15 year old is having sex with this 17 year old. You might want to deal with that.) The age of consent here is 16, but if you're within 3 years of the same age and everyone's over, I think, 13, it's just a misdemeanor, subject to at most a year in jail, and that almost never happens. (And he's already served more than that.) And it's deliberately from being a 'sex offender' offense.
Except, and apparently no one realized this, they made the age 16 for sex, but forgot to do the same thing to the 'sodomy' laws, because everyone had been operating as if those laws were dead letter. The courts have held that you cannot legislate the private behavior of adults, but, quite obviously, you can of kids, and those parts weren't dead letter. The sodomy section doesn't include any exception for three years age difference. And because apparently someone doesn't know what 'sodomy' is, oral sex is included in there. (Although it wouldn't be much better if it was just actual sodomy.)
The Georgia Congress just fixed the law this, after this kid was found guilty, but didn't bother getting around to passing a 'And people arrested under the old law get should an adjustment of their sentence' statement. From what I understand, it wouldn't even have to be a law, just a statement that, on appeal, the courts should consider the new law. (Obviously, it can only do this if it's shortening the sentence.)
There have been some damn stupid op-ed in the newspapers about it, too, people yammering about child molesters and stuff, because approximately 40% of the people in this state are meth- or religion-addled morons. Oh, don't get me wrong, the stupids aren't opposed to the new law, which has already passed, just opposed to retroactively shorting people's unjust sentences for some reason. Sometimes people in this state are complete fucking imbeciles. And with this paragraph, I ruin all chances of running for local office.
And it is, literally, this one 17-year old guy, where some 15 year-old apparently got drunk at a party and decided to give him a blowjob. While the crime has obviously happened a lot, no one even realized the law could applied this way until it was, and the outcry fixed the law..
If the legislature doesn't get off their ass and get Genarlow Wilson out of jail, people are doing to start trying to get the governor to pardon him.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Sorry,
Speaking as an ex-cop, never, EVER, *EVER* consent to a search.
Doesn't matter if you might get hassled while the cop tries to find a reason to search, you also have the right to keep your mouth shut. Unlike a warrant-based search, which must state *specifically* what they are looking for, and thus limits them to the places where such items can be found, consent searches allow *anything*. And, once you consent, you can't take it back, since a smart cop will isolate you while they perform the search.
Frankly, you may not know what is in your car/home, etc. All you need is for one of your idiot friends to have left something behind you didn't know about.
A cop who asks for consent is fishing. If a cop has probable cause, he won't ask, he'll get the warrant, or search immediately if allowed (exigent circumstances, probationers, etc). The more they try to convince you, the more sure you can be that they don't have anywhere near enough evidence for a warrant.
Folks think that if they consent to a search, the cop will feel better about them. Of all the folks I searched with consent, the *best* I felt toward them was mild contempt for voluntarily surrendering their constitutional rights. The rest? Well, frankly, I still get a real belly-laugh over the folks I arrested for drugs, illegal weapons, stolen merchandise, etc because they were dumb enough to give me consent to search.