Cops Play Wii During Undercover Drug Raid

An anonymous reader writes "Guns drawn, cops busted down the door of a suspected south Florida drug dealer, then proceeded to kick some ass on Wii bowling. A security cam captured some playing video games while others searched for drugs and weapons. Clearly they just misunderstood when they were told to search the house for Weed."

Comments

Time for a raise?

[sopssa]

Maybe cops dont get paid that good after all, if they only get to play Wii when they're busting their owners.

Re:Time for a raise?

[meerling]

If they've got time to play games that aren't theirs when they are supposed to be doing their job, maybe they have too many cops...

Re:Time for a raise?

[conureman]

Legalise it already and get the cops back into the donut shops, where they belong.

Least of our problems

[Killer Orca]

I think a couple of police officers getting paid to goof off is the least of our problems with the police in general here in the U.S. Things like corruption, abuse of power, illegal searches, etc. are of more concern to me. Personally I think that when you become a police officer you agree to be monitored 24/7 and have all the video/ transcripts made publicly available.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Monitored while on duty is fine. Off-duty, no way. Officers aren't slaves and they can have a personal life.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't object to being monitored 24/7.

The bigger problem is them beating the shit out of people when they are just trying to surrender.

Re:Least of our problems

[lobiusmoop]

I kinda think that was a given, AC.
Seems like a good idea to me. People aren't as God-fearing as they used to be, but now we have the tech to make sure the ones in power _are_ constantly watched by higher-powers now.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't object to being monitored 24/7.

The bigger problem is them beating the shit out of people when they are just trying to surrender.

Same could be said of everyone. Slippery slope kind of thing. Not a good idea.

Just make sure violators are brought to justice.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

So says the person who was scared to post publicly, that or to dam lazy to logon, like me :0

Re:Least of our problems

[The Moof]

a couple of police officers getting paid to goof off

This isn't like the library staff caught playing Rock Band. These were investigators at the scene of a drug raid playing a Wii owned by the person being arrested while evidence was being collected on the premesis. This could potentially be a pretty big problem. A defense lawyer could use this to their advantage when attempting to invalidate the evidence collected.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

This presents an interesting argument: in the vast majority of communities across the US, police officers are always considered "on-duty" ... that is, they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, make arrests, etc. during "personal" hours. Since they are still exercising their powers, it seems that they should be monitored 24x7, even if "off duty".

Re:Least of our problems

[retchdog]

My imagination is failing me.

How could this be used to advantage by the defense?

Re:Least of our problems

[Idiomatick]

Not a problem on a global scale which /. would be...

Re:Least of our problems

[TheCowSaysMooNotBoo]

I hate to quote an overused quote, but who watches the watchmen?

Re:Least of our problems

[mypalmike]

My imagination is failing me. How could this be used to advantage by the defense?

Try imagining the fourth amendment. It unambiguously requires a warrant to describe specifically what is to be searched. I'm quite sure the Wii was not mentioned in the warrant.

Re:Least of our problems

[HalifaxRage]

Slippery slope is a logic fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Re:Least of our problems

[2names]

Precisely. The officers' use of the Wii could technically be considered a seizure, but, IANAL, so can someone who knows a bit more please elaborate? Thanks in advance.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but they could probably make a pretty good argument that the police were unprofessional while conducting the warrant, so they were probably unprofessional when conducting the investigation that led to getting the warrant. If they can't even search a house without stopping to play games, they probably couldn't be bothered to spend the time to correctly investigate.

All the defense needs to do is give reasonable doubt to one juror that the police screwed up, this gives them a good opportunity to do that.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Who watches the watchers, whom are watching the watched, when they watch those who need watching.

Re:Least of our problems

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Try imagining the fourth amendment. It unambiguously requires a warrant to describe specifically what is to be searched. I'm quite sure the Wii was not mentioned in the warrant.

So, how about if they sat on the couch, or used the bathroom? Does that count as them "seizing" the couch, or "seizing" the toilet paper? And does that invalidate the entire search warrant? No. Flat out, no. They didn't "seize" the Wii any more than they "seized" the front door when they opened it or "seized" the floor by using it to walk on. Turning something on does not count as searching it nor seizing it. Did they search and seize the lights when they turned them on? Not the most professional behavior to use the Wii, but it doesn't invalidate the search warrant like the defense attorney would dream...

Re:Least of our problems

[retchdog]

If the Wii doesn't have any evidence, then there is nothing to exclude.

I don't think that warrants get voided en toto, due to one (rather trivial) error. Even if it's argued that the Wii was "seized", does this mean anything at all, since there was no evidence on it (nor much expectation for there to be)?

Re:Least of our problems

[retchdog]

Well, yeah, I guess it could be used to influence the jury into making unwarranted assumptions and generalizations. I wouldn't call that a "good argument".

Re:Least of our problems

[fbjon]

The police.

Re:Least of our problems

[commodoresloat]

Just read the article (the actual article rather than the linked blog); this is already being used by the defense attorney to claim the whole search should be invalidated:

Not just inappropriate, but Tampa defense attorney Rick Escobar would argue the moment detectives turned on that video game and effectively seized it, they turned the search warrant into an illegal search.

"I've never seen anything like this," Escobar said after he viewed some of the video. Escobar does not represent Difalco and has no connection to the case.

"All the citizens are thinking, 'Wait a minute, we are paying these people to go out and protect us and here they are playing bowling on our time,' " he said.

"The real question here is have they seized property that wasn't described in the search warrant?" Escobar asked. "Clearly if they're using it, they've seized it and for totally improper purposes, because it's for entertainment. Investigations are not for entertainment."

Re:Least of our problems

[Thruen]

Your comparisons are ridiculous. A search warrant grants officers access to anything that is valid to the search. Meaning, when they search your house for a gun, they can reasonably search through your physical possessions, anything that could contain or be hiding said gun. They absolutely can not, however, search data on my hard drive for a gun, as it wouldn't be a reasonable place to find an actual gun. If the warrant states that they're searching for evidence of a gun, and they have reason to believe said evidence is in digital form and sitting on my hard drive, then they can search it.
So let me clear this up for you. Believe it or not, officers shouldn't be using the bathroom or sitting on the couch in the house they're searching, as they could potentially be contaminated or destroying evidence. Nobody wants to be the a-hole that flushes the last of the guy's coke down the can. The doors and the floor, they require access to those in order to conduct the search for the drugs. The wii... where does the wii fit in... Oh, right, the Wii had to be searched so the officers could determine if he was on drugs while playing in the past, so they had to create comparison scores by themselves, both on and off drugs, and then... Don't be an idiot. If your house is being searched the officers do not have the right to use your stuff, they have the right to conduct the search and that's all. Even if they didn't use any of his things, the simple fact that officers were playing games while conducting the search shows them to be unprofessional and arguably irresponsible, so irresponsible in fact that they can't be trusted to accurately document evidence. Or so any half-wit lawyer could argue, and likely win.
What they did was wrong in a number of ways, and the officers who were playing the game as well as their superiors should be reprimanded. Sure, they're just people too, but they're people who chose to become officers of the law, they chose a life that holds them to a higher standard, and they need to meet that standard or step down.

Re:Least of our problems

[Artifakt]

The defending attorney simply claims that this proves the police were either poorly trained, or often deliberately went against training. Then the prosecution is caught in a forking argument where trying to prove the police aren't incompetent makes them look wilfully malicious instead, and vice versa. Anything else a cop says afterwards that relates to following procedures, why should the jury believe them?
      Here, let me nudge your imagination. Under defense cross-exam, a police witness says "I took all the seized narcotics directly to the evidence room. I watched as the evidence locker custodian weighed the drugs, and logged the ticket showing that weight, and made sure he gave me a copy for the record book." The attorney simply asks "Is that standard procedure?". "Yes". The defense attorney than says "Are you sure you know standard procedure - Earlier, with the Wii, you indicated you didn't?.", and maybe makes closing remarks about how the police have flip-flopped on how well they follow procedure to where their testimony is 'deeply flawed'.
      Alternately, the attorney asks "And do you always follow procedure?" knowing that the policeman in question has already admitted he didn't with the Wii, and is going to have to say "No." or perjure himself.
      That last is one of the biggest advantages possible for the defense if they can get it. It's great to cross-examine witnesses who are constantly worried they are going to sink their careers, make their whole department look like fools when the press gets hold of it, or actually get themselves charged with perjury (although the last is very rare for cops, even if occasionally deserved.).
        Those particular cops can expect to be cross examined at least twice as long as the others, and if the defense is any good they will pounce on anything else said that can be used to make it worse for the prosecution. That's another advantage for the defense - they already know of some witnesses that are particularly likely to screw up, and to look bad to the jury.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows that they conducted themselves unprofessionally.

It also shows that they went outside of the scope of their warrant.

Re:Least of our problems

[b4dc0d3r]

I don't think this is a trolling comment - if you've ever gotten pulled over you've probably heard the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about..." justification when an officer feels like searching your car.

I got pulled over for speeding on a Superbowl Sunday, and submitted to the breathalyzer. Blew a zero, and obviously the guy was on DUI patrol because now he wanted to search the car. Just giving me a speeding ticket was apparently not an option. I heard this explanation several times, along with the accusation "What's wrong, you have a little joint in there? A bit of a roach in the ashtray? If there's nothing in there then it won't hurt to have a look, right?" He wouldn't believe me, go figure. He seemed like a good guy, so I traded a search for a warning. I would not advise people to do the same, better to ask if you are free to go and pay the speeding ticket. But I'm weak sometimes when it involves outrageous fees.

I would mod this "+1 funny, in a sad frustrated sort of way"

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Being discussed by a defense attorney, not used by the defense attorney.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I refer to a slippery slope as a path that CAN lead to undesired results, but not necessarily.

If you stay off the slippery slope you will NOT slide to the bottom.
If you start the slippery slope you MAY end up at the bottom.

If you start, you'd better be very careful.

Re:Least of our problems

[Quothz]

Even if they didn't use any of his things, the simple fact that officers were playing games while conducting the search shows them to be unprofessional and arguably irresponsible, so irresponsible in fact that they can't be trusted to accurately document evidence. Or so any half-wit lawyer could argue, and likely win.

Oh, I doubt it. A judge would likely find the behavior a harmless error. The guy whose house it was may try to press trespass charges, tho', as a separate matter.

I, personally, can't get outraged over this specific incident. A little slack on the job isn't such a bad thing, and playing a WII isn't so invasive. The cops involved should get yelled at a little, since allowing it would be a poor general rule, but let's not pillory them.

Re:Least of our problems

[Michael O-P]

This statement is so utterly sensible, it would never hold up in a court of law. Yeah, they shouldn't have been screwing around, but does this really merit anything other than some departmental discipline? The fact this is a national news story (and a Slashdot story, only because it involves a videogame) is absurd.

Re:Least of our problems

[commodoresloat]

Well according to that interpretation of the term "used", we need to wait until the actual trial before it is possible for it to be "used" by the defense attorney. But I think talking to the press about why this search was illegal is certainly a "use" of this information.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

When searching typically you want to search anything that could contain the item you are seeking. With a little imagination, damn near anything can be used to store drugs.

Also, I don't think the Fourth Amendment would come up since owning a Wii is not illegal. Now, if they decided to do a forfeiture on it, which is common, that might be an issue.

Re:Least of our problems

[natehoy]

I imagine the warrant covered the premises, of which the Wii was most certainly a part. It would have no material effect on the submitted evidence, but it might be embarrassing enough to the police that the DA might want to take a pretty lenient plea bargain to keep the tape from being shown in the courtroom, because that lack of professionalism would speak volumes about character to a jury.

Plus, the cops can always say that they didn't understand this technical mumbo-jumbo and thought the drugs might be hidden INSIDE THE GAME, and that since the game was inside the house, so was the virtual environment within the game. :)

Re:Least of our problems

[slimshady945]

(nor much expectation for there to be)?

You would probably be utterly amazed at where people will keep their stash. It most likely wasn't the case here, as the Wii still worked.

Re:Least of our problems

[lorenlal]

Actually, I commend you on solid negotiation, and getting away with it. He could've agreed to the trade, and given you the speeding ticket anyway.

Re:Least of our problems

[FiloEleven]

No, they are not always considered on duty, otherwise they would always be in uniform.

They are not "still exercising their powers;" it's just that they retain the ability to exercise them in the case where they see something illegal in the same way that an EMT retains his ability to help out in medical emergencies. If I'm not mistaken, they (police) don't have the same legal protections when doing police work while off-duty, nor are they acting as a representative of the police while doing off-duty things like going to the bar, making love to their wives or, yes, playing Wii Sports. I know several officers, and one of them has told me that he's discouraged from doing police work while not on the clock unless it's something serious like spotting an assault or burglary in progress. YMMV.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. they contaminated the other evidence. if they played the wii how do you know they didnt "play" with the other evidence ? any defense attorney could raise a good case of evidence tampering.

Re:Least of our problems

[johnlcallaway]

So I guess you aren't against any company installing security cameras and keyboard loggers to make sure their employees don't goof on on company time. I may pay a cops salary through taxes, but I also pay a developer's salary when I buy software. I should have the RIGHT to make sure the developers aren't posting on /. on company time.

Re:Least of our problems

[insertwackynamehere]

Haha you are all idiots, seriously next time the cops raid your place and start using your things like over-entitled house guests, you share that sentiment. When cops get permission to perform a search of a property, they are already at a point where not only are they being held to a very high legal standard to make sure they absolutely don't ruin evidence or violate rights in the process but they SHOULD be on edge the entire time not knowing who are what is going to be there. Playing the Wii is unprofessional and illegal. They were letting their guard down which is dangerous to them and making a mockery of one of their most hard to obtain rights; the right to search and seizure which only can be obtained with a lot of work or explicit permission. If you are in someone's home, right on the cusp of legality as it is, and start using their items, you are doing something wrong. On the hopefully rare occurrence a police officer has to be in someone's home on a search warrant, their mind should be focused on looking for evidence and not acting like they were invited there to party it up.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

If the drug bust is for weed who cares? Maybe these cops could care less about throwing people in jail for something like weed and who could blame them?

Re:Least of our problems

[Golddess]

So, how about if they sat on the couch, or used the bathroom?

I don't know about "seizing", but surely it could count as contaminating a crime scene?

No, seriously. Personally I'm not really sure why GP brought up the 4th amendment, as a defense lawyer would probably have a better chance at arguing that by "goofing off", the chain of evidence was broken, so any evidence gathered is suspect.

Hell, even the 3rd amendment would probably be easier to argue for than the 4th. But IANAL.

Re:Least of our problems

[Ironica]

No, they are not always considered on duty, otherwise they would always be in uniform.

They are not "still exercising their powers;" it's just that they retain the ability to exercise them in the case where they see something illegal in the same way that an EMT retains his ability to help out in medical emergencies. If I'm not mistaken, they (police) don't have the same legal protections when doing police work while off-duty, nor are they acting as a representative of the police while doing off-duty things like going to the bar, making love to their wives or, yes, playing Wii Sports.

You *do* know that in TFA, the officers playing Wii Sports were on duty in the middle of conducting a raid?

Re:Least of our problems

[Ironica]

I think PP's point is that the quoted defense attorney is not actually representing the defendant; he's just this guy who is a defense attorney that the reporter knew well enough to ask a few questions.

Re:Least of our problems

[Ironica]

My imagination is failing me.

How could this be used to advantage by the defense?

Ok, I'm not a lawyer, I just hang out with lawyers sometimes... but...

How about tainting the warrant by arguing that the *real* reason the cops wanted in the guy's house when he wasn't there was to play with his toys? Especially if the probable cause is at all weak or disputable, the attorney *might* be able to get the warrant thrown out, thus invalidating all evidence gathered.

Re:Least of our problems

[DriedClexler]

Well, that is how it works. I've dodged two traffic tickets in the same county in less than a year with one simple strategy: act submissive. The last time, I acted all afraid of the officer and when he asked me what I was worried about, I said something about my mom being upset with me when she finds out I got pulled over (was 27 at the time). Then the officer gave me a blank stare and let me off with a written warning.

Re:Least of our problems

[FatAlb3rt]

They probably also used the floors to stand on.

Re:Least of our problems

[nomadic]

Precisely. The officers' use of the Wii could technically be considered a seizure, but, IANAL, so can someone who knows a bit more please elaborate? Thanks in advance.

I think it probably could be considered a seizure, but since nothing evidentiary was gained from it I don't think a defense attorney can use it too much. Maybe, if the judge allowed it in, he could use it to sort-of attack the credibility of the officers involved, but that's kind of doubtful. Then again, IAAL, but not a criminal defense one.

On the civil side, there might be a section 1983 civil rights lawsuit there, but there aren't really any damages so I don't think it would go anywhere.

Re:Least of our problems

[commodoresloat]

D'oh! Got it. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension skills...

Re:Least of our problems

[Quothz]

Haha you are all idiots, seriously next time the cops raid your place and start using your things like over-entitled house guests, you share that sentiment.

I, of course, disagree - as I said before, the specifics here aren't too worrisome but it'd make a poor general rule.

However, I find myself compelled to reply out of curiosity: You'd really be annoyed if legitimate houseguests played your console? If I went out for a bit or slept in and found my guests playing video games, I don't think my first thought would be "Hey, those over-entitled bastards are using my stuff!" Or are you just exaggerating to make your argument appear stronger?

Re:Least of our problems

[FiloEleven]

Yes, and I'm still bemused by the whole thing.

Using the AC's logic, those officers shouldn't be allowed to play Wii Sports even when they're off duty, because even when they're off duty, they're on duty. o_O

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite... They would be able to play or do anything want, they'd just be fully monitored by an open system as to what they are doing and where.

If I'm forced to pay for your salary through theft (or taxation as it's known by the Stockholm conditioned...), then being my bitch is par for the course.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

They did seize or misappropriate the electricity to run the Wii, however.

Additional problems presented:

Defense: "Captain Bob, are your officers trained in proper search procedures?"

CPT Bob: "Yes, they were certified on Nov. 11, 2008 by blah blah blah."

Defense: "Captain Bob, I have here a copy of the procedures for proper searches. Do you recognize it?"

CPT Bob: "Yes."

Defense: "And this is the standard they were certified against?"

CPT Bob: "Yes."

Defense: "And were the actions of Officer Susan and Officer Pete on the day in question in line with these procedures?"

CPT Bob: "Well, they--"

Defense: "Yes or no, Captain Bob."

CPT Bob: "Er, no, but--"

Defense: "Thank you, Captain. So, once again, you agree that they were not following procedure during the search?"

CPT Bob: "Uh, yeah."

Re:Least of our problems

[Z34107]

I hate to quote an overused quote, but who watches the watchmen?

Lots of people - it was a box office hit.

Re:Least of our problems

[Hybrid-brain]

really now mate. That works? I should try that. then again, in the town where I currently am, the cops really can't ticket us, since we're a college town. though it's ironic when they pull us over, an find we're a student. they get annoyed. found out that the town up above us, that if you say that I'm from "such and such college," they'll let you go. I was driving a friends car which had a headlight out and, I think he was going to ticket me, but didn't, when I said where I was from. also, driving at night is spooky for me as well, which wasn't helping. thankfully I was let go with the nice man saying, "Tell your friend he needs to fix his car."

Re:Least of our problems

[Hybrid-brain]

The Others?

Re:Least of our problems

[Hybrid-brain]

I could say something about Microsoft, but......won't.

Re:Least of our problems

[Hybrid-brain]

had it been a 360 and Grand theft auto......

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, the same people who quote the overused quotes! C'mon, apply some circular logic already! ;)

Re:Least of our problems

[Hybrid-brain]

I'm not a lawyer or a DA, or anything on that line....but. Here's the thing. and this may sound weak....but the officers playing the machine may be valid. Think about it. If the perp decided to rewire or something so that the could stash their drugs or whatever, then maybe, them playing wasn't so off. yes, it may seem weird and out of place, but hey, if I was an officer, I'd be looking at one thing if the video game system was up front and out there. I'd be looking at it as the prime place. I hang out with a lot of Enginneers and whatnot at college, and they've rewired a lot of stuff, so that one wire can control a video game system. so theoretically, though these officers were caught, they might have been on to something.

Re:Least of our problems

[3vi1]

It's reasonable to expect that the floors are required to reach the object of their warrant. Is the Wii?

Re:Least of our problems

[OakDragon]

...if you say that I'm from "such and such college," they'll let you go.

really now mate. That works?

Re:Least of our problems

[putaro]

Trading the search for the warning at least got you something. I do hate the whole "if you've got nothing to hide why don't you let me search" garbage. The right answer to that is - "There's nothing to find so you don't need to search the car" Your time is valuable and your privacy is valuable. That's why we require the police to justify searches.

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that's not going to work. This article made me chuckle as my home was recently raided for the same thing but my friend's (no seriously, cough, cough) porn was strewn about the home and my food was eaten. They threw glass pictures around and shattered standard T5 bulbs throughout the house to ensure mercury contamination. They billy clubbed my walls and stainless steel appliances.

What did they find? Three grams of pot they weighed in a mason jar they found in my kitchen so they could charge me with a felony.

They can do whatever they want with a warrant and thanks to the supreme court evidence is hard to throw out even if the warrant is invalidated later on. The justice system is corrupt. Police forces are corrupt. People need to wakeup and stop fantasizing about the criminal justice system through the prism of television law dramas. The justice system is a cruel nightmare.

Try being punched in the chest repeatedly being asked where "the real stash is" and then forced to sleep on a lice infected mattress in a one man cell with three other "friends" all in E-Block for assault and battery. My biggest crime was having a few rifles in the house. Your 2nd amendment will get the book thrown at you if you dare keep a small stash in the home.

I doubt this will even get the officers a slap on the wrist. Signing false statements to obtain a warrant claiming they knew I was growing weed even though they had no clue and any infrared fly-over would have proven that I wasn't doesn't get anyone in trouble but me. Your rights are an illusion and the police do whatever they want in this country. Wake up.

Re:Least of our problems

[bronney]

dude if I my stash's in a dildo, will you use it??

Re:Least of our problems

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't end up at the bottom without the slippery slope?
Y iff X?

Re:Least of our problems

[Mr. Slippery]

How could this be used to advantage by the defense?

If I were writing a courtroom drama, I might have the defense make an argument like this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, these officers showed gross negligence, unprofessionalism, and dereliction of duty. And yet we are expected to accept their testimony and the purported results of their search? I ask you, is it beyond a reasonable doubt that these Keystone Cops mixed up the evidence, that the cannabis they claim they found in my client's home actually resulted from another search? Credible evidence requires credible collectors of evidence, my friends, and the prosecution has failed to provide those. Without reliable evidence, you must -- must -- vote to acquit my client. Thank you."

Re:Least of our problems

[ModernGeek]

State Police - or the police of the police. They watch themselves and local police departments. They thrive on 'narking' on cops and each other.

Re:Least of our problems

[ModernGeek]

That only works for women.

Re:Least of our problems

[Mr. Slippery]

Monitored while on duty is fine. Off-duty, no way. Officers aren't slaves and they can have a personal life.

As soon as cops put their badge, and state-issued gun, in the locker at the end of their shift, and lose their special powers of arrest and other special legal consideration when they are off-duty, then they can complain about being monitored when off-duty.

Re:Least of our problems

[DriedClexler]

*checks genitals*

No, it worked for me too.

Re:Least of our problems

[insertwackynamehere]

No I wouldn't care if houseguests played my video games without permission. But the cops were acting like overentitled houseguests by taking advantage of their situation. Badly worded on my part.

Re:Least of our problems

[moparlady916]

Wow that's crazy! Some police officers seem to be pretty harsh at times. My friend and I got pulled over twice on Halloween up at school. Once was stupid because she didnt have lights on and the officer assumed she had been drinking, which we weren't. Turns out the automatic lights didn't turn on when we started the car. The second time was from a different police officer because he said we turned a corner too fast. What the heck? But we were lucky not to get a ticket in both cases. Every where we went, police were pulling kids over left and right.

Sorry,

[TheBilgeRat]

But that is AWESOME!

Would have been funnier if they had sat down at a computer and fired up a game of DopeWars...

Apologies to Training Day

[Digital Vomit]

Hey, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Re:Apologies to Training Day

[meerling]

No, hate the idiot player that doesn't follow the rules of the game, especially when he's too lame to take responsibility for his own cheating when caught and called on it...

Re:Apologies to Training Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, don't hate the player, hate the game.

the game.

Thanks for making me lose!

Should have played Wii Boxing

[Monkeedude1212]

Might have been able to pass it off as Physical training on the job.

Completely unacceptable

[vehicle tracking]

Having been a police officer for five years, I can comment on this one. I support the job they do when it's done right, but this is completely unacceptable. These officers should be suspended for this. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff, and worse, happens every day. There are a few bad apples in every department. We need more whistle blowers out there.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[sopssa]

On an interesting question, how many police officers play Grand Theft Auto?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[geekoid]

Why? why should they be suspended?

After entering a premises and doing their highly stressful job, they played some Wii. Big Whoop.

The real story is that attorney are trying to say this counts a seizing property. That's the abuse here.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[fridaynightsmoke]

On an interesting question, how many police officers play Grand Theft Auto?

Hey, they could always be playing the 'police missions'!

Re:Completely unacceptable

[EvilBudMan]

--We need more whistle blowers out there.--

What good would that do without oversight? But anyhow, I don't think he will get out of it just for videoing that. He'll just get 15 minutes of fame. The real question that I have to ask that I didn't se an answer for: Did he give them permission to play or not?

Can the defense now get the search thrown out because of it? If so, then no they didn't do their job right. I'm really hoping that there is less "bad apples" among the police than there is among the general population. I would think that to be true, yet I also hear of guards getting caught smuggling dope into prisons for money. I have some family members that tell me this happens even more than reported as they are guards. The retirement is good but man I don't think I would want either job. You will probably be criticized pretty often no matter what.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[juan2074]

The real story is that "law enforcement" can seize property at all.

It's your government. Do you really condone property seizures?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[gnick]

So their jobs are stressful. So what? Mine is too. But I don't come in and check out a GOV for joy-riding. Nor do I go to the lab and fire up the lasers to burn smiley faces on things. And those are government assets - Abusing personal assets is far worse.

You wanna play Wii? Fine - Buy one or befriend somebody who has one. Breaking into somebody's house (warrant or no) is NOT grounds for just playing around with their stuff.

Should this invalidate evidence found on the premises? Hell no. Should those officers be suspended for taking control of and playing with property that was completely aside from the investigation? Hell yes. They're probably short of theft, but if they're just playing in the guy's house - Charge 'em with trespassing.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Achromatic1978]

Because their search warrant was for search of premises and an arrest warrant for suspect, not to "chill out after a hard day and play suspect's video game system"?

Are you dense?

Here's an analogy, I'm an EMT. If I come to your premises, after /you/ call 911, and you decide you don't want treatment, but I think "No, this guy's messed up, I'll just have a look at this", I'm committing criminal assault and battery. If I stick around in your house, after, you can call 911 again, and have me arrested for trespass. Let alone pull up a pew and decide I'm going to have a few games of Wii Bowling, especially against your consent.

I am staggered that you think the real issue here is that the suspect thinks that this is inappropriate or unacceptable behavior. Don't even start me on "after doing their highly stressful job". So what? You go back to the station, to your home, you don't de-stress there. How could you ever think that was acceptable? Maybe they should have pulled a few brews out of the fridge too? Hell, maybe rolled themselves a joint from the evidence!

Re:Completely unacceptable

[vehicle tracking]

It's Wii this time. Next time it will be something more serious.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[mypalmike]

After entering a premises and doing their highly stressful job, they played some Wii. Big Whoop. The real story is that attorney are trying to say this counts a seizing property. That's the abuse here.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's the word on the street anyhow. Also known as the fourth amendment of the US Constitution. Entering someone's private residence with a warrant is serious business. There's a time to blow off steam, but it's not during the execution of a search warrant.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[vehicle tracking]

Doubtful they could through out the search because of it; assuming they had a warrant. It's usually what happens before the search that gets the case tossed. It's just bad police conduct.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[jellomizer]

I think there are more then a few or at least the bad apples cluster together, before you can get more whistle bowers you need an environment where it is ok to blow whistles. Although this is bad behavior and coming from the private sector myself I would say they should get fired not suspend for such actions, but for someone to risk the quality of their life, harassment from other cops, Possible retribution, etc... It would need to be more serious then cops playing video games when they should be working.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[EvilBudMan]

That was exactly my thinking as well, but I wasn't sure, but still it just seems a little bit unprofessional. Maybe there is no more to it than that and the problem will be fixed in the future at least with that department. What the head said about the supervisor, not supervising might be more of an issue.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know there was limit to what cops could do for the bounds of executing a warrant.

I had a search warrant executed against my when I was living in San Gabriel for a minor hacking charge. SGPD officers not only broke several of my decorations, but ate food out of my kitchen and made it clear they were enjoying the abuse they were delivering. When I left the room to talk to my lawyer over the phone, several of them harassed my fiance to the point where she called off our engagement, but still won't tell me what they said to her.

Not a day goes by I don't think about killing myself in the station lobby.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to troll... I know cops get it tough from a lot of people. Despite that, I think you're being pretty generous.

Given current limitations--can you tell me why they shouldn't just be suspended, but charged with conversion/theft, and possibly also under the computer fraud and abuse act? If I did the same thing to them, I'd surely be charged with as much (in addition to home invasion/kidnapping since I *can't* get a warrant for a cop's house...)

They obtained property which they had no right to obtain (even temporarily--if they did have a right to it through the warrant, they tampered with evidence). If it was an xbox associated with a gamer account, they would clearly be gaining unauthorized access to a computer system involved in interstate commerce...

Re:Completely unacceptable

[i]

I would be more worried of the carte blanche US cops in general have to shoot and kill anyone everywhere anytime without any consequences for them (other than been fired at worst).
 

Re:Completely unacceptable

[dkleinsc]

Thanks for doing your good job and taking it seriously. There are some really good cops like you in every city and town in the country, and that's important to remember whenever a story like this comes up.

As a serious question, do internal affairs squads help prevent this sort of thing? Are there other official measures besides whistleblowers that can help? And what do you recommend the general public do to stop the bad cops that doesn't put good cops at risk?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Ogive17]

Are you reading and posting on /. during work? Is it really that much different from the cops playing Wii while on duty?

Now I'm not saying it's exactly the same. Clearly they should not have been playing someone else's Wii during a drug bust and I hope they are suspended without pay for a week.. but everyone goofs off a bit at work, it helps up regain focus.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy works just fine if one of the officers had brought a Wii into the station to play during a break period.

Breaking into somebody's home and playing with their entertainment center is a totally different situation. I hope that you can see that... The point isn't that they were goofing off - It's that they were abusing their warrant and their positions to fuck around with somebody else's stuff which had nothing to do with why they were in the house.

Goof off all you want, but don't kick in my door so that you can goof off in my living room.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

The real story is that "law enforcement" can seize property at all.

It's your government. Do you really condone property seizures?

I would think that at least a limited form of seizure is necessary in order for evidence to be presented at trial. Do you really think most people are going to voluntarily loan the police or prosecutors something with evidenturary value if they know it can be used against them? Now the issue of seizure of "criminal proceeds" is another matter, which IMHO is really only justified to cover fines or repayment of fraud victims. However, that doesn't render all police seizures innately unjust or wrong.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[insertwackynamehere]

Going on slashdot at work isn't the same as getting a temporary, barely legal, hard to obtain right to enter a premise in a way that would generally be deemed illegal and then abusing this temporary power and right to do things outside the scope of your job with other people's property that you have no right or reason to be playing with. If a cop takes a cigarette break or something it would be like going on slashdot at work.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[insertwackynamehere]

Defense brings this up in court, jurors like you and me don't like the way the officer's behavior sits and boom they don't trust their testimony.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[russotto]

Are you reading and posting on /. during work? Is it really that much different from the cops playing Wii while on duty?

If they were playing the department's Wii, no. They weren't. They were playing a suspect's Wii.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Ironica]

The real question that I have to ask that I didn't se an answer for: Did he give them permission to play or not?

As he was being detained elsewhere at the time, I doubt it. But maybe so. Maybe the cops on the scene called in to wherever he was being detained and asked him "Mind if we bowl a few rounds while we're here?"

Re:Completely unacceptable

[vehicle tracking]

Good questions. I don't know that I can give the right answer, but I will give it a shot. From what I see, IA does help prevent some things, but there is a lot of looking the other way so a lot of it doesn't even get to IA. From a public standpoint, I think we are all doing the right thing by bringing this to light in a public forum. Officer misconduct can always be reported directly to the department as well. There shouldn't be any real risk to officers that are doing their job. Good officers know how to stick together too, but for the right reasons.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[geekoid]

Your job probably isn't as stressful as going into a place where you may die.

They took a break, and played some Wii* They had some down time and the played some Wii. Or cards, or whatever. As long as it doesn't damage anything. If they sat on the couch would that be wrong?

*Note, I missed the fact it was 9 hours of Wii, I was thinking 30 minutes.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[geekoid]

Bad analogy.
These police officers need to be there waiting for the next step of the job. They played some video gamers.
Big deal.

Of course this was before I reread it and saw the 9 hours. Any 9 hour break on the clock isn't right.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Achromatic1978]

Bad analogy? What part of the concept of personal and private property do you not understand? You have a specific warrant, and are permitted on the premises for that purpose ONLY. It is not a carte blanche to play video games, to raid the fridge.

You can bet your ass if my chief found that I had done similar, I would be looking for a new job.

What relevance does his Wii have to their ability to execute the warrant? None. Ergo you have no right to do as you wish beyond the scope of the warrant. You are on private premises without consent, a right only granted you by virtue of the court allowing a warrant. Like my mention of me being an EMT - even if you call 911, it doesn't necessarily grant me access to your property. Why do you think a warrant is needed in the first place? Because one of the tenets of our society is that property is sacrosanct unless something makes it worthy of forfeit.

That means you don't goof off and do whatever the hell you feel like. For 9 minutes or 9 hours.

What if it was someone else's property? A housemate? What if it was broken?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[blackraven14250]

Ever heard of suing the cops for violating constitutional rights?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

"Having been a police officer for five years, I can comment on this one."

Maybe you didn't mean to say it this way, but just because someone isn't a police officer it doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be able to comment on this.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

I DO NOT support the "job" they do. It cannot be "done right". Drug laws, and the whole anti-drug industry, are a violation of personal liberty.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Megane]

We need more whistle blowers out there.

Did anyone else parse this first as "whistle bowlers"?

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspension is basically meaningless...they need to be permanently barred from public service. That should be the standard punishment for all public servant infractions.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[EvilBudMan]

It's plausible don't you think? I would let em if they asked me. I would just say "my home is your home".

Re:Completely unacceptable

[EvilBudMan]

I think crucifixion happened to those guys back in the day? Bowling was optional.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points...

Which leads me to ask, why aren't these officers under citation for trespass after doing something like this? They have no right to be there _to play video games_.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Should this invalidate evidence found on the premises? Hell no.

I think it should invalidate the evidence, if only to provide some motivation to the supervisors to prevent this kind of behavior, and not just punish the offenders if they get caught.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[geekoid]

It's a bad analogy becasue they are in no way the same. An EMT doesn't ahve a court order, and EMT cn wait around until the person is unconscious or in coherent. In fact, if they played some Wii while they where waiting, I wouldn't have a problem. So what?

"That means you don't goof off and do whatever the hell you feel like. For 9 minutes or 9 hours." So no one ever gets a break?

"What if it was broken?"
then they are liable.

I see your point, and after thinking about it, I agree witht he point, but I still don't see it as a big deal. Wrong, but in the scope of things, a minor issue sine it didn't interfere with the collection of evidence.

9 hours tho'? Who can play Wii bowling for 9 hours?

I'm posting AC, becasue even though I am having a rational discussion my point of my 'side' of the discussion is getting modded down as a matter of course.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[geekoid]

Nice Fallacy.
That Fallacy is only good for 1 thing...getting modded up on/.

Re:Completely unacceptable

[Ironica]

Sure, it's plausible. But the least plausible part of it is that the cops called the perp in the first place.

Dear Police,

[Icegryphon]

Wii would like to play.
Now if they were playing Muscle March and going after the Stolen Muscle Milk everything would be fine.
warning, if you are not familiar with the strange world of Nippon, don't click.

slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot users
Get their knowledge
From many years
In junior college.

Re:slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma Shave!

Re:slashdot users

[NeverVotedBush]

Please mod the above funny!

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former resident of South Florida, and a lawyer who used to be involved in police civil rights cases, believe me, it's a good thing they're doing this and not all the other stuff they frequently get caught at.

cops

[BigHungryJoe]

I think most people realize that cops are just bullies fulfilling their dream of getting paid to be a bully.

Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.

Re:cops

[Icegryphon]

Sound a bit bitter here.
Talking from experience?

Re:cops

[BigHungryJoe]

No, I've never been arrested. Actually, I've heard cops say similar things - "oh you must have been on the end of charge"...

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

but anyone willing to ruin their life over a little pot (like this suspect) has a serious lack of intelligence.

There fixed that for you.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of smoking pot is the part that makes it worth criminalizing?

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Know that whole 'protect and serve' thing? You don't think that maybe the majority of cops are in it for that? Obviously a field of work like law enforcement is a draw to power hungry bastards, but you may as well say that all soldiers serving in the military signed up solely to carry a gun and shoot people. There are, of course, a small percentage of soldiers that might apply to - but the majority of soldiers are there because they believe they are helping to keep our country safe. (except for blackwater or whatever its new name is - mercenaries are mercenaries and can only be in it for money and power. I mean soldiers - those people who volunteer to serve our country whatever the circumstance)

Re:cops

[Golias]

Which part of smoking pot is the part that makes it worth criminalizing?

The part where we are a democratic country full of stuffy neo-puritans.

Statistically, a majority of Americans have tried pot.
Also, a majority of Americans are opposed to legalization.

Which means there are a significant number of assholes in this country who think it's perfectly fine if they use pot and get away with it, but YOU should go to jail if you get caught doing the same thing.

Most libertarian crackpots like me are painfully aware that "live and let live" is not actually a majority philosophy, and we've got an uphill battle to sell our political views to the rest of society.

Re:cops

[gad_zuki!]

>Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.

The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law. Considering you are in a democracy you are just as guilty as anyone else for these laws being in existance. Perhaps having a scapegoat makes you feel better about yourself, but youre 100% wrong to target the police on these matters.

If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.

What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cops are just people, like everybody else.

Except "People" fuck up, a lot. If the Taco Bell guy happens to be a dick about his job and decides not to offer me service because he doesn't like my face, the worst that has happened is I don't get my taco bell.

If a cop happens to be a dick about his job because he doesn't like my face, he can come to my house 'under cover', murder me, and lie about it.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/brooklyn-man-shot-to-deat_n_230487.html

I'm new to slashdot, and have no idea how to put that into the handy 'citation' thing that I've seen people do. If someone would let me know, that would be awesome.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?

The same reason the North didn't up and leave instead of fighting the civil war. Running away is not the right way to fight unjust laws.

Re:cops

[FatAlb3rt]

And you realize that no matter what you say, you're a pimply fat dude who lives in his parents' basement and has only been laid by his right hand.

Turn about is fair play.

Re:cops

[sponga]

Actually, the guy was running a chop shop and had a house of stolen goods that will easily be traceable.

These are the scumbags who collect all the stuff from your car that had its window smashed in to grab that thing that is worth $5, still doesn't justify this though. Although this happens all the time where officers go through these drug deals houses and they have all the latest expensive gadgets and toys.

Although to be truthful, I have seen silly stuff like this even on the show COPS. I remember they did some Miama drug raid and found all these silly toys this guy had, everytime they would pull something out they would play with it and set it down.

9 hours of searching though the house, something like a year of previous surveillance leading up to get the warrant for the raid and the operation they listed cost about $4,000. I was surprised they listed the actual cost of the operation, but the previous surveillance had to involve lots of paid man hours of just sitting watching in the car.
Which basically makes the warrant voided and illegal as soon as the cops turned on that Wii.

Shitty ass article on Slashdot cannot even link to a Youtube link or comment by the police, here all of 10 seconds it took me.

Link to video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8bc_1253652224&c=1#comments

Link to article and comment by the Department
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/21/undercover-drug-investigators-embarrass-polk-sheri/
_____

With guns drawn and flashlights cutting through darkened rooms, Polk County undercover drug investigators stormed the home of convicted drug dealer Michael Difalco near Lakeland in March.

As investigators searched the home for drugs, some drug task force members found other ways to occupy their time. Within 20 minutes of entering Difalco's house, some of the investigators found a Wii video bowling game and began bowling frame after frame.

While some detectives hauled out evidence such as flat screen televisions and shotguns, others threw strikes, gutter balls and worked on picking up spares.

A Polk County sheriff's detective cataloging evidence repeatedly put down her work and picked up a Wii remote to bowl. When she hit two strikes in a row, she raised her arms above her head, jumping and kicking.

While a female detective lifted a nearby couch looking for evidence, another sheriff's detective focused on pin action.

But detectives with the Polk County Sheriff's Office, the Auburndale, Lakeland and Winter Haven police departments did not know that a wireless security camera connected to a computer inside Difalco's home was recording their activity.

The recording obtained by News Channel 8 showed several members of the county's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task force entering the house shortly after 8 a.m. According to the search warrant, their mission was to search for drugs, stolen property and the fruits of any illegal drug activity.

Now there are questions on how the impromptu bowling tournament might affect the case against Difalco.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd denies it will have any effect.

"That absolutely is not true; that doesn't invalidate the search at all," Judd said. "Now the defendant would like for it to invalidate the search, but unfortunately for him, it won't."

Judd, who watched the video during an interview last week, called the situation an embarrassment.

"I'm not pleased that they played that Wii bowling game," Judd said. The sheriff's office oversees the drug task force. Judd said he initiated an internal administrative investigation of the incident.

"That is not appropriate conduct at a search warrant," he said. "But I am less pleased with the supervision that didn't walk in and say, turn that off. That's what supervision should have done."

T

Re:cops

[DerekLyons]

I think most people realize that cops are just bullies fulfilling their dream of getting paid to be a bully.

That falls into the same category as believing the earth is flat or only 6,000 years old. It's horseshit.
 
 

Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.

Ah. Now I understand - you think it's unethical to enforce the law, and thus those who enforce the law must be bullies.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

"anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics."

100% correct. i'm terrified of anyone who is anti-pot because there's a person willing to ruin peoples lives over a plant

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people realize that cops are just bullies fulfilling their dream of getting paid to be a bully.

Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.

Sounds like someone did something illegal and then cried like a baby when caught. If you did somethign wrong then you pay the price when caught. Thats called being an adult, you make a decision and accept the results of your actions.

Re:cops

[paulzeye]

Are you saying its okay because they are just following orders? I somewhat agree with you but giving enforcers of unjust laws a free pass because they didn't write the laws is not really a good position imho.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pretty fucking ignorant, I'm sure some of them are but I know people who are cops and claiming they all is bullshit.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded Informative? Really?

Re:cops

[netruner]

I don't know what country you are from, and /. does have readers from many countries, but in my country there are 3 sections of government that presumably operate in a "checks and balances" configuration. The cops are not the lowest on the ladder - they are the Executive branch, whose check on the Legislative branch is to say: "No, I won't enforce that ridiculous law". The remaining branch is the Judicial, whose check on the Executive is to say: "there was no law broken here - leave that man alone".

When people refer to "activist judges", they may be referring to the Judicial branch covering for the Executive's (forgive the pun) cop-out at using their check against the legislature.

Re:cops

[FiloEleven]

Ah. Now I understand - you think it's unethical to enforce the law, and thus those who enforce the law must be bullies.

Is it ethical to enforce an unethical law?

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law. Considering you are in a democracy you are just as guilty as anyone else for these laws being in existance. Perhaps having a scapegoat makes you feel better about yourself, but youre 100% wrong to target the police on these matters.

You're missing a key point. Legalise marijuana and at least 25-35% of all North American police officers will be redundant. They are fighting for their jobs.

In Canada there is only one association of legal professionals who oppose decriminalisation. Guess who? Yup, the police associations.

So yes, they are to blame.

Ask any dealer how many times they have purchased confiscated material. They have us coming and going. I also happens to provide a convenient excuse for discrediting people whose political views upset the status-quo. Enforcement is totally at the option of the police. Don't you see anything wrong with that?

Marijuana use is so common that they have the option to cherry pick their victims. The intention is not to eliminate marijuana use. It is to exploit it.

This kind of short-sightedness depresses me and tells me that this device of oppression will not be defeated without violent revolution.

CARNIVORE that you fuckers. They know we're not going to take this forever, but the only language they understand is blood. So let it be theirs.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_defense

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?

The same reason the North didn't up and leave instead of fighting the civil war. Running away is not the right way to fight unjust laws.

You wouldn't think that slashdot as a primarily open source community would be dominated by right wing red-necks who like to bash in the heads of those damn subversive peace loving hippies.

Look at the moderation of the comments on this story. It is shameful. The slashdot community should be ashamed of itself. Especially considering the insane levels of hypocrisy when it comes to censorship. What is happening here? Censorship.

I have found that right wing assholes dominate almost all open forums on the web.

It just always surprises me when I see it here too.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.

You are right on that one.

So so many times I've wished I could tazer a 16 year old child with a broken back for not getting on his feet when I demand it

Please stop agreeing with people like that, and trying to excuse 'the non bad ones' who didn't lift a finger to punish the 'bad' ones. They are all brothers or something after all.

Re:cops

[Chris Burke]

The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law.... If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.

That's true. And as an example of how it can work, the Travis County Sheriff's Department lobbied for a Texas law that would allow them to simply write tickets for misdemeanor possession rather than having to arrest the offender -- though arrest is still an option at officer's discretion. The dept. thought that mandatory marijuana arrests were wasting too much of the department's time and resources -- not exactly a pro-legalization stance, but it does mirror the common complaint that arresting tokers is excessive and wasteful when there are more serious crimes the police could be focusing on.

Considering you are in a democracy you are just as guilty as anyone else for these laws being in existance.

Because they decided not to go into politics, run for state senate and win, and write a new law that is approved by congress? What if they were in one of several states that had a decriminalization proposition on the ballot, they voted for it, but it still lost. That's their fault how? Insufficient lobbying?

I think it's pretty obvious that even in a democracy not everyone is equally responsible for the state of the law. :P

why dont these people move

And that's not even worthy of a response. :P

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

And you realize that no matter what you say, you're a pimply fat dude who lives in his parents' basement and has only been laid by his right hand.

I'm a lefty you insensitive clod!

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?

Why move to another country? Come to Massachusetts. Caught smoking pot = $100 fine + confiscation. It's the same as a parking ticket. Pay up and be on your way.

We got sick of seeing university students lose eligibility for federal financial aid for a felony pot conviction, so we changed our laws and dropped the felony aspect. 300K out-of-state college kids @ $50K/year = $15B/year ... if they lose federal aid, they go back home and attend in-state. Besides the obvious financial reasons, we also thought it was just plain sensible. We allow gay couples to marry here for the same reasons: it's sensible. We're like that here.

For the most part, personal pot use is completely ignored by the police departments of most towns in the state, as long as you aren't driving. If you are smoking in public and an officer spots you, it is likely to be overlooked if you relatively discreet and not being a nuisance.

Re:cops

[DerekLyons]

First you must demonstrate the law to be unethical.

Re:cops

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML is your friend. www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/brooklyn-man-shot-to-deat_n_230487.html

At least, I think this is what you meant by that handy "citation" thing.
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/brooklyn-man-shot-to-deat_n_230487.html">www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/brooklyn-man-shot-to-deat_n_230487.html</a> is what it would look like if you wanted to do a proper link. The http:// is quite important.

Or maybe you just meant [citation needed]? Pretty simple to do. Just hit the bracket key and put in the words, and then close out the bracket.

Re:cops

[Brooklynoid]

You said: Statistically, a majority of Americans have tried pot. Also, a majority of Americans are opposed to legalization. Which means there are a significant number of assholes in this country who think it's perfectly fine if they use pot and get away with it, but YOU should go to jail if you get caught doing the same thing.

Have you considered the possibility the majority of Americans who've tried pot and are now opposed to legalization are opposed because they've come to the conclusion that it should be illegal as a result of their experiences with it and not because they're assholes?

Just a thought.

Re:cops

[LethargicParasite]

What kind of experience can you have with pot that makes you want it illegal? Did things taste too good?

I mean, IANA marijuana user, and I'm also pro-legalization of all drugs, but the effects of casual THC ingestion are minimal. I know this because Wikipedia never lies... And neither does a pro-marijuana website.

You're really asking us to consider two choices here: 1) People are thinking, non-hypocritical beings who have tried the drug, thought about its effects and the effects of legalization, and decided it was not a good idea to legalize it. 2) People are nonthinking, hypocritical creatures who think all "bad" things, whether they've attempted them or not, should be illegal, regardless of the consequences of illegalization.

I know I really poisoned the well here, but... that's how I see it.

Re:cops

[geekoid]

It's not a cops issue, it's a public issue. When push comes to shove poeple don't vote for getting it removed from the list.

The police enforcing there own view on what should be illegal would be far worse. They are upholding the law.

Re:cops

[Qrlx]

Are you so dense as to think people can just up and move to other countries -- and take jobs that would otherwise be filled by citizens of those countries -- because they want to smoke pot, or for any other god damned reason under the sun?

Re:cops

[Qrlx]

they've come to the conclusion that it should be illegal as a result of their experiences with it and not because they're assholes?

Depends. Did they try it more than once? Did they smoke it throughout college and law school, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

But let's say they tried it and personally didn't like it. So now it should be illegal for everyone?

The grandparent poster has a valid point.

Re:cops

[Uberbah]

We did that over 70 years ago. Where have you been?

Re:cops

[DerekLyons]

Ah yes, the 'handwaving smokescreen' from of 'proof'.

Re:cops

[Uberbah]

I suppose you could see it that way, if your head was planted deep in your ass.

Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Stenchwarrior]

This will be a good test of our juctice system (cough) to see if the drug dealers get a lesser sentence because of some completely un-related shenannigans. I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Stenchwarrior]

Sorry grammar nazis, *PUNISH the criminals*.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[MickyTheIdiot]

If they are criminals. Remember in the U.S. that is determined by a court of law, not bozos like us reading summaries of news reports.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[zero0ne]

Look, the cops have a job to do, and that is uphold the law. they are NOT supposed to interpret it how they see fit, but uphold the currently written law.

If they can't execute a drug raid to the tee of their procedures (IE NOT using the suspects property), then they should get reprimanded and the suspect should have the charges dropped.

If the cop can't follow one simple procedure (playing Wii in a suspects premise during a raid is NOT part of their job duties at all), who is to say they are doing the rest of their job correctly?

How do we know they didn't plant the drugs there? how do we know they didn't steal some of his money or his weed?

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Misdewiinor? If the cops open fire, I sure hope they do.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Spazztastic]

Sorry grammar nazis, *PUNISH the criminals*.

I don't know, I think a public bitch slap from a judge would be pretty cool.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[VeNoM0619]

I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.

This is akin to arresting you and taking your car out for a joyride spin. Sure you can argue they waste gas for the car, but they wasted electricity for their entertainment.

Besides, this is unlawful search. I would like to think that unless they had a warrant for this specific task, they could NOT search digital devices. Seeing how it was a drug deal, they could only search physical items (like maybe take apart the wii at the very worst case, but they could NOT digitally open it, or go through all their movies/home movies and watch them all)

Oh.. IANAL, but I use morality to make my decisions.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[SeeSp0tRun]

Having the charges dropped is ludicrous. Because they played his gaming system does NOT invalidate the paraphernalia they were searching for and seized. This is an after-the-fact issue, that should be dealt with by internal affairs.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Stenchwarrior]

We know because there is a camera there. Also, picking up a Wii controller and bowling a couple frames does not suggest that the same officer planted drugs or stole money from the alleged (you're welcome Mickey) criminals. The burden of proof is not on the officer to say he DIDN'T do those things. The burden is on the alleged (you're welcome Mickey) criminal to prove that he wasn't dealing the drugs they found (or didn't find - you're welcome Mickey) in the home.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Idiomatick]

Unless it gets a jury in which case it goes to people seriously worse than the /. average.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[ImprovOmega]

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[zero0ne]

No it's not ludicrous.

The Officers were NOT doing their jobs correctly, not following procedures, etc.

If the police officers did NOT include their usage of the Wii on their raid report or whatever it would be called, that is example #1 of the police officers not reporting exactly what they did.

If they lied about that, who is to say they haven't lied before in other cases or other parts of the report for this one?

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that they are not criminals until found guilty.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Princeofcups]

If they are criminals. Remember in the U.S. that is determined by a court of law, not bozos like us reading summaries of news reports.

Replace "court of law" with "corporate lobbyists and corrupt judges," and you'll be correct. Every law should be criticized and scrutinized. Every arrest should be investigated. Remember innocent before proven guilty?

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[jayme0227]

You were modded as funny, but honestly, I think public humiliation could do a hell of a lot more to stop people from being stupid than a suspension with or without pay. Sometimes it really is too bad that we have that whole "cruel and unusual punishment" thing in our Constitution.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Artifakt]

What if one of the cops who violated procedure was also in custody of the evidence at some point. Maybe he didn't follow procedure there either? If you were on the jury for this case, would you still take that particular cop's word over the supposed perp's? Would you, knowing the cop either wilfully ignores proper procedure, or is so poorly trained he ignores it randomly?
      It's not a case of a lesser sentence, it's a case of complete acquittal if conviction rests on these particular cops testimonies.
      It's also not about "completely un-related shenannigans" These shenanigans are closely related when it comes to the reliability of these particular cops. Do you somehow know for a fact that these particular cops don't have any testimony that would affect the case?
      Slashdot, where you can get a +5 insightful for saying something that would get you thrown out of a jury pool.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[commodoresloat]

I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.

The fourth amendment requires otherwise.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[nomadic]

The fourth amendment requires otherwise.

Only if the only evidence they got was from the wii, and it was not listed on the search warrant.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, quit dodging jury duty, you fucking slacker.

PROBLEM SOLVED

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[commodoresloat]

I don't think so, and I don't think a court would think so. This sort of behavior raises a lot of questions about the search, as many have already pointed out in this discussion. I fully expect the search to be invalidated as a result.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[nomadic]

Depends on the judge, but most aren't especially eager to throw out evidence, and if the wii playing was the only thing wrong with the raid (which might be partially proven by the video tape), I can see a judge reprimanding the officers but allowing the search. Fourth amendment Constitutional law has gotten steadily weaker as the Supreme Court started shifting towards the right.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether they're criminals or not is determined by whether they actually committed a crime. A court will only have an opinion on the matter; as will we. (The court's opinion will carry more weight, though.)

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[ffflala]

This will be a good test of our juctice system (cough) to see if the drug dealers get a lesser sentence because of some completely un-related shenannigans. I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.

Are you kidding me? This is a windfall for a defense attorney. Criminal trials require evidence to support every element of an alleged crime, and every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't need a class in evidence class to understand that this kind of behavior can call into question the evidence found at the scene. That presumption of innocence is a high bar.

After seeing this footage, do you think a reasonable jury could conclude that these cops did not carefully processed the scene?

This kind of unprofessional bullshit will and should piss off good cops, because it undermines their work. Those idiots should be fired, not just reprimanded. It is unprofessional, and absolutely unacceptable behavior for someone vested with the power to kill under certain circumstances. How do you think those two fatasses would handle a $2k bribe, or an offer of a bj?

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[dangitman]

I wouldn't bet on that. The average slashdotter seems extremely opinionated, and able to twist almost anything to suit their own interpretation or political bent. I'm not so sure that the "average" jury would be less open-minded, fair-handed, or less attentive to the details than the "average" slashdotter.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[geekoid]

Whose to say they have?

No one becasue we don't know. That kind of speculation is bad.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[fouleaf]

I agree that the Officers were obviously behaving inappropriately. They agree, the department agrees, and most people commenting agree. The question is whether or not, playing a Wii is worth questioning the entire seizure, their whole career, or even the entire department's credibility. Now, I am inclined to believe that since the incident recorded, that the seizure may not be lost. However, I would have to scrutinize the tape to come to a conclusion on that subject. Since they didn't know that they were being recorded it could reveal some other information about the validity of their actions on this particular seizure. It could reveal that they planned to lie about a part of the raid, or even that this was a moment of weakness after a period of great strain, a stupid moment. They are human. I know that that's not an acceptable excuse; there isn't one. However, I don't think that it's necessary to begin questioning whether they planted evidence or stole evidence. I disagree that playing a Wii on duty is on the same level of dishonesty / inappropriate behavior as stealing or planting evidence.

Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the reminder, OJ.

READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would have read TFA, you would know this guy had an EXTENSIVE criminal record (Big time meth dealer, possession of over $60,000 stolen goods, grand theft auto)

Im sure if someone watched your job 24/7 like people do the police they might catch you slacking off every once and a while.

Its 11:34, not time for lunch break yet...

These police deserve our thanks for their service.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Jason Levine]

Slacking off every once and a while is one thing. The police chief even admitted that most house searches have "downtime." Still, playing Wii Bowling for 9 hours is a bit excessive.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[BigHungryJoe]

No, police do NOT deserve our thanks. They are immoral bullies enforcing ridiculous laws, and they usually enforce them with an excess amount of force. Any person with an ounce of integrity would refuse to do the job that police do.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Wyatt Earp]

Which of the laws are ridiculous? I kind of like the laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[jihiggs]

I feel sorry for you, based on this post and others by you I can CONCLUDE that you harbor a great deal of pain and anger, and are the type of person that attributes the worst possible example to anything else that looks similar. I will give you that there are a great number of police officers out there that get their jollys by being a bully, but I can promise you it is not the majority. it is a difficult job emotionaly, some of them are unable to deal with it properly and become hardened. it is unfortunate, but 90% of the police I have met are very nice people and do the job cause they like to help people.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[stdarg]

If cops put the same effort into those laws as they do into useless laws, it would be a better world. Why do they bust "johns" who hire prostitutes, and not go after the pimps who coerce and abuse the prostitutes? Why do they spend thousands of man hours setting up undercover drug operations, and not thousands of hours infiltrating gangs that go around raping and murdering?

When it comes to the good laws against rape, murder, theft, etc, the police are almost 100% REactive. With bullshit like drugs and prostitution the cops become PROactive.

I know street cops don't get to set policy at that level. I think it's understood that when people complain about cops and laws, they're including the whole system, of which cops are the face.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[CopaceticOpus]

Based on your post, I can CONCLUDE that you jump to CONCLUSIONS and emphasize your assumptions using ALL CAPS.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I think most cops just see it as a job. They don't care about helpign people any more than anyone else. They are often in a position to do so and therefore may be more prone to helping others.

I've worked with lots of cops, and most just want to do what they ahve to do, keep their job, and go home.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Artifakt]

I don't think you can associate Wii use with excessive force unless they didn't use the wrist straps properly. But, yes, these particular cops do not deserve our thanks. They've acted in such a way that they make the whole team look unprofessional. The cost of prosecuting this particular case will be much higher, and there looks to be a fair chance it will result in an acquittal.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Why do they spend thousands of man hours setting up undercover drug operations, and not
>> thousands of hours infiltrating gangs that go around raping and murdering?

1. Because they are afraid they might get shot while chasing dangerous gang members. In other words, they are too cowardly to do the job they are paid to do.

2. Because according our current ridiculous search-and-seizure laws, the local police force gets to keep a percentage of the proceeds from selling whatever they seized in a drug raid. So, the cops have a personal financial incentive to continue abusing and persecuting non-dangerous people whose only "crime" is possession of marijuana.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[The Moof]

Yea.. but this wasn't downtime. This was happening simultaneously while cataloging the evidence. FTFA (linked in the blog):

A Polk County sheriff's detective cataloging evidence repeatedly put down her work and picked up a Wii remote to bowl.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[jihiggs]

Does this mean we are friends?

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[emandres]

When it comes to the good laws against rape, murder, theft, etc, the police are almost 100% REactive.

That's because the minute you start trying to be proactive against those, you generally starting infringing upon the bill of rights. I, for one, rather like my privacy and would rather not have government run security cameras on every corner, as the do in London.

Re:READ TFA!!!!!!!

[Jason Levine]

Which makes it that much worse. It's one thing if an officer was taking a break and playing the guy's Wii Bowling. That would be wrong, but maybe not bad enough to seriously jeopardize the evidence (though there would still be questions about it in court). But to stop mid-evidence collection to bowl a round or two? Any half-way decent defense attorney is going to make this video Exhibit A.

Grand Theft Auto isn't available on the Wii

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would have read TFA, you would know this guy had an EXTENSIVE criminal record (Big time meth dealer, possession of over $60,000 stolen goods, grand theft auto)

idiot.

So...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This must be more of that "New Professionalism" that Scalia was fantasizing about.

9 Hours?

[RealErmine]

According to the Engadget story the Wii bowling session lasted 9 hours. That's pretty excessive. I bet someone woke up with a sore arm the next day.

Re:9 Hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet they stole some of the weed they were there to confiscate and had to play for 9 hours to sober up before returning to their head quarters. Seriously, there are far worse shit out there (drug wise), which is a growing problem (from the reports I read--too lazy to link you).
 
Please take care of the life-changing (and life-debilitating) drugs in trade before we go after something almost legal. Hell, marijuana is legal by prescription in California and completely legal in personal quantities in Mexico. Let's stop wasting our tax money on non-problems and stop cocain and heroin and anything else out there ruining lives, please.

Re:9 Hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly they *did* find some pot - I wonder how much made it back to the evidence locker...

Something is missing...

[plastick]

If only they had virtual donuts.

New CSI Miami Episode?

[NYMeatball]

Looks like the dealer... .... [series of long dramatic pauses] .... ...had more than weed up his sleeve. (Yeeeeeahhhhhh!!)

Re:New CSI Miami Episode?

[blakedev]

You forgot to put on the second pair of sunglasses.

Re:New CSI Miami Episode?

[whitefox]

More appropriate as a Law & Order episode :)

not suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the county where that happened and its really not a surprise to me, how childish the officers act. I mean these are the same guys that unloaded 180+ rounds into a guy that shot and kill a police k9( DioGi) and one other officer (Matt Williams). http://www.uspca1.com/html/____matt___diogi.html

Wii while high

[Anonymous Coward]

That or they found the weed, smoked some and then proceeded to play some Wii

To be fair...

[malevolentjelly]

Wii Sports is a lot of fun... and a lot of good cops have fallen to its dangerous and seductive powers. What can society do when Wii is in the hands of the very people sent out to protect us from it?

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

So time to update the Serpico quote?

Ten percent of the police in this city are totally corrupt, ten percent are totally clean, and the rest wish they were playing Wii Bowling.

Tag this story 'Wiid"

[Anonymous Coward]

someone tag this story with "wiid" please :-)

Captcha: interest

Lesson: get a camera in your house, just in case

[alohatiger]

But make sure to conduct yourself properly in front of the lens (keep your fetishes private!)

Maybe . . .

[jointm1k]

Maybe they were on strike.

Re:Maybe . . .

[natehoy]

Yeah, they should be spared.

Re:Maybe . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they were on strike.

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Re:Maybe . . .

[Ambiguous Coward]

No way. These turkeys got caught, I say throw them to the gutter!

Wii

[xednieht]

the new Crack

WOW

[OrangeMonkey11]

This goes to show that the drug laws in our country are a joke and pigs only does it for funding so they can go around harassing people and f*ck off on tax payer money

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

uh oh...

[commodoresloat]

It's Wii this time. Next time it will be something more serious.

Guitar Hero?

Re:uh oh...

[Satanboy]

Counter Strike, it's serious business

Erm... if this is a security camera ?

[thrill12]

..and the guy controlling the camera was arrested, then why is the camera seeming to move whilst the Wii game is played ? Scroll to 2:10 in the raw video here and then back to the start ; I don't remember seeing the ceiling in the first frames, and it doesn't seem particularly zoomed in in those first frames, so why is the ceiling there at 2:10, unless the camera was moved ?

Seems fishy to me.

weed or wii'd

[gsmraxe]

Maybe the police misunderstood the warrant,

Instead of looking for weed, they got wii'd. or they were looking for weed in the wii.

"We thought we saw weed in the wii!" but it was just "Bowling for Weed"

Re:weed or wii'd

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're late to the party.

The wii/weed pun was made in the last line if you were paying attention.

Hypocritical?

[orangedan]

Though it's a small stretch, a lot of slashdotters sit at work, on company time, using company property to post and read slashdot. It's not your property, and I'm assuming MOST people aren't paid to read slashdot, so we're guilty too.

Does that make it right? No. Does this mean our role-models of justice should play a suspect under warrant's consoles? No. But should you be here reading this?

I understand that they are breaking a LAW, while viewing /. at work may only be breaking a POLICY, but both still have potentially serious ramifications.

Re:Hypocritical?

[insertwackynamehere]

I'm not quite sure its the idea they were doing something when they were working but they were abusing their search and seizure warrant to do so. See as how S&S is handled by the Bill of Rights and all, it's a bit bigger than browsing /. at work.

I can attest to this.

[NRAdude]

I've seen countless "investment/gatewhores" play with things TAKEN by them from someone they suspected of alleged "drugs," and they play with those TAKEN things in such a way to antagonize their millitant tresspass graced by a dishonourable and at-large Political corporation that counterfeits the local authority momentarily by a minor change from style of pen-stroke to a class of artificial entity that resembles the former position and post held.

I've never tried pot. I hung-out with junkies as kinda like a church service, seeing how wasted they got and the potential for fights; I kept the peace when they weren't able. They were some kinds and some grandparents that had a real hard life, and the last thing they needed was a raid against their recreation. It is wicked to see people of the same character separated from one another. Pot smoking among closely related family members is no difference than a custom of a native American or clansmen. Needless to say, they were bounced many times out of the houses they rented, and they kept jobs and payed rent just fine like everyone else. It was only a problem when angry people kept their anger when smoking, rather than smoke to dissipate that anger into some video games. The grandchildren were thrown into Child Protected Services, Juvinile Hall (realy a prison), and even momentarily Foster families for just being a statistic without violence and ill-intention but smoke Pot like their grandmother did for her older-health stresses.

Worse things happened to them when separated from their family than what would've ever happened by a home-invasion robber looking for money, but not the Home-Invasion Robbers looking to steal children for the Social Services (SS) that the poor soles are pushed through. Those children attended a horrible school, grew up fast and I considered them well matured at 13-years old, but it was the State religion that said otherwise. Who is the State? Is the State a man, an association, a commission, or is it the "soil" as originaly used in the term Several States back in America over 300 Years before the United States and the united States of America reared it's pederast head? The reason children grow up wrong is, so-far, because someone else's religion not-so-much as intervenes but interrupts the council of their original blood-line parentage and God-parents from teaching them a lesson proper.

Look for a book called "Adventures In Legal Land", and Mark Stevens, where it was discovered that seizing assets and all property that came in contact with mere Pot-smokers is among the U$17 trillion industry that doesn't seize but outright TAKES without any courtship but as a paramilitary prize of administrative enforcement of commercial regulations that have nothing to do with the subject but a slay of hand in the Statutory laws.

Long-story short, I've been able to get people off their unnecessary use of drugs through Jesus Christ more than any threat of violence at the barrel of a gun or deprivation of property and liberty ever accomplished. All police and related attorners, in my brave opinion of their unqualified and licentious councel, are: spineless, soulless, suckers of shatan's cock; each and every one of them.

Sincerily, Gregory-Thomas(R)

Re:I can attest to this.

[Hybrid-brain]

Greg. where do you live? out of curiosity, as I live in Oregon, we have a program called CASA, I wonder if you've heard of that and if where you live has implemented something along those lines, because this is why Oregon's issues are actually a lot less with the children issue, as we make sure that there is always a CASA officer there when the above, like you mentioned, takes place.

Doughnuts anyone?

[PalmKiller]

It this gets the case thrown out, then all a drug dealer needs to do is put a couple of fresh boxes of doughnuts on the table in his place and put a hidden camera on it.

Other games cops play

[turing_m]

An ex-cop I know once told me that during a search they would compete with each other to see who could find the vibrator first. Apparently there was always, without fail, a vibrator somewhere in every home.

Troll?

[geekoid]

Are you fucking kidding me? it's a serious question and I am interested in other opinions. It's NOT A TROLL you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stain.

Now THAT was a troll. Learn the fucking difference.

In other news...

[denmarkw00t]

The sales rep that just sold a whole entertainment system with turbo chargers and auto-gutter-cleaning system just took a smoke break...

idleispants

and they needed to play it for 9 hours?

[apparently]

Here's the thing. and this may sound weak....but the officers playing the machine may be valid. Think about it. If the perp decided to rewire or something so that the could stash their drugs or whatever, then maybe, them playing wasn't so off. yes, it may seem weird and out of place, but hey, if I was an officer, I'd be looking at one thing if the video game system was up front and out there. I'd be looking at it as the prime place. I hang out with a lot of Enginneers and whatnot at college, and they've rewired a lot of stuff, so that one wire can control a video game system. so theoretically, though these officers were caught, they might have been on to something.

So let me understand this correctly: they needed to see if there was a stash in the Wii, turned it on, didn't find any stash, and needed to keep playing it for 9 fucking hours just to be sure? "Well your honor, maybe the stash compartment only opens upon completing a perfect game in Wii Bowling -- we had to be sure." Really?

Chances are...

[darkcmd]

Chances are they smoked some of the pot they confiscated... I've seen cops first hand treat citizens like shit, and/or alienate them. A lot of police officers are arrogant and think their shit doesn't stink.

too damn lazy...

[Anonymous Coward]

to spell-check.

Dang-da-da-dang-dang Da-dang-da-da-dang-dang

[dangitman]

Most libertarian crackpots like me are painfully aware that "live and let live" is not actually a majority philosophy, and we've got an uphill battle to sell our political views to the rest of society.

I thought the Libertarian philosophy was "live and let die."

Re:Dang-da-da-dang-dang Da-dang-da-da-dang-dang

[Golias]

You thought wrong, but don't feel bad. A lot of people come out of their undergraduate years with a lot of stupid misunderstandings about the principles of libertarianism.

Re:Dang-da-da-dang-dang Da-dang-da-da-dang-dang

[dangitman]

Ha, undergraduate years! That's funny considering how long ago that was. So, enlighten me. How is Libertarian philosophy not like I described it? It's exactly the consequence of every libertarian argument I've ever heard. Yet, even if you listen to their own arguments and interpret them logically, it's never "what libertarianism really is." If you guys want your philosophy to succeed, then why do you keep it secret? Is there some secret handshake, or do you have to belong to the Stonecutter's Society to hear about the "true libertarianism"?

Re:Slippery Slope is Not Necessarily Fallacious

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody please translate this?

Re:Slippery Slope is Not Necessarily Fallacious

[Some Bitch]

Can somebody please translate this?

Certainly. Slashdotters have a nasty habit of hearing a word or concept, half understanding it, then misusing it constantly. It is perfectly possible to say something is a slippery slope and be completely correct, X leads to Y leads to Z is perfectly valid. The fallacy lies in making the assumption that X leads to Z without demonstrating X->Y->Z.

Likewise inductive reasoning (X is true therefore Y is true) is not always invalid.

The War on Drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

A hundred years from now, drug prohibition will be looked on as one of the great failures in social policy.

Close, but not quite

[geekoid]

"You're missing a key point. Legalize marijuana and at least 25-35% of all North American police officers will be redundant. They are fighting for their jobs."

It's actual the prison guard union that fights to keep it illegal, as well as lobbies for tougher crime bills, and more crime bills. They are the reason are prison are over crowded, they are the reason we have dumb ass three strikes laws, and they continually lie to the public.

Credibility of the Officers

[Slashdot Parent]

The officers violated procedure by playing a suspect's video game console during a narcotics raid. If they violated procedure there, how can we believe that they conducted the raid in accordance with departmental procedure?

Maybe they planted the drugs? Maybe they violated the judge's warrant in other ways aside from the video game incident?

Free Business Online

[Anonymous Coward]

For Twenty Years Of My Life Just Got Stuck On The Way Earn $$$$ Online I have spend most of my time when i know that i can earn money online without spending anything but what i have is computer connected with internet. That's what i got when i went through many blog like http://aec-online.blogspot.com/ and i give many ideas on how to blog. Thz to this blog author and after that i got such idea from many other blog by chance and of course i dont wish to earn in this kind of way at all. I am so shocked when came across one site and the said that they can earn $2013.9.98 in just 24hrs. It's unbelivable to know it but it is really true. Go this blog to see the proof http://www.adsense-earning-cash.blogspot.com/ I dont have any profit to announce you those links but i just want to share all people here about what i know and it is just a little bit i can know. Hope other people on this social online would recommend me any good best earn program to earn from adsense. :) I would like to introduce you some Good Blogs here for you. http://pcwallpaperdownload.blogspot.com/ http://www.movie-share-zone.blogspot.com/ http://www.pcwallpaperdownload.blogspot.com/ http://downloadsexyclip.blogspot.com/ http://www.ddwwebpatienteducation.blogspot.com/ http://www.ddwwebdownload.blogspot.com/ http://www.adsense-earning-cash.blogspot.com/ http://www.aec-online.blogspot.com/ http://www.malasian-tour.blogspot.com/ http://www.movie-share-zone.blogspot.com/ best regard all my friends here

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yup...no drugs on Wii, but what about the house?!?

[Justin Nielsen]

Their purpose was to find and locate drugs. Drugs on gaming systems is irrelevant. Drugs on games are found everywhere, yet they seemed to think it is necessary to ensure that the wii game does not have illicit substances... Sure, the police officers made a mistake by playing the game, but let their commanding officer deal with them. It takes a certain kind of person to perform a drug raid -- no matter what the substance they assume was present, the risk of death is always present around any illicit drug dealings. But luckily this time no harm was cause accept to the representation of the many honorable men and women on the job. Let's hope they found what they needed and it holds up in the court of law. We've had enough botched court cases due to police error over the past fifteen years, I wonder if we will find these pot heads on the golf course looking for someone; not for a murder this time but their next dealer.