Certainly; but the wishes of anybody who wishes to affix a price tag to the music they've created shouldn't be ignored, either. If you don't like the price they're asking, you're welcome to haggle with them, or you're welcome to pay what they've asked. What you are not welcome to do is just take a copy and offer them no compensation. What this comes down to is simply a question of whether or not you respect your fellow human being enough to not take something they haven't consented to giving you, simply because they lack the means to stop you from doing it. Trade is (or should be) mutually beneficial, and by mutual consent - either you get a great song to listen to whenever and wherever you want AND the artist gets to pay his or her bills and continue honing their craft, hopefully producing even MORE music you think is great, or no deal happens and the artist realizes his audience just isn't big enough to allow him to support himself with music, and he relegates music to a fun hobby.
And that's the flip side of this argument. Nobody is "owed" an income, just because they "kinda think they wanna be like Lady Gaga." But if that person tries to sell their music, no member of the listening public is "owed" a free copy, either: mutual consent + mutual benefit, or no deal at all.
Microsoft's abuse of the standards process with OOXML
Certainly obnoxious, but not a crime.
Apple's abuse of it's vertical integration, monopoly on music
Really? I wasn't aware my only options to buy music were from Apple. I guess Best Buy, Amazon, Wal Mart, Target, eMusic, and dozens of other online and real-world music sellers didn't get the memo.
to lock people into it's platform,
Um. What? Every single song I've ever bought from the iTunes store can be loaded and played on any computer, portable player, or device that supports AAC. How am I locked into iTunes? Every single song I've ever bought from Amazon, Google Music, eMusic, or ripped from CD, I can load on my iPod.
and it's strong market share in digital content to distort for example, the ebooks market
Yes, god forbid anybody should challenge Amazon's monopoly of the ebooks market, where dumping ebooks as a loss leader to sell more Kindles is the strategy du jour. Apple has dick for market share in the ebooks market. If you want to talk about distortion of the market, you should probably be pointing at Amazon.
Facebook's constant illegal breaches of various data protection acts across the globe.
Such as? If they're constant, surely you can give us, say, 5 examples of Facebook "illegally breaching various data protection acts across the globe"? But while we're on privacy, we should also mention Google's standing as a persistent abuser of Safari & IE users - disregarding their chosen privacy settings because Big Daddy Google knows what's *best* for those users, and they must have just been confused in their preferences, and so developed a method to circumvent those settings. Since, you know, you hate double standards, I'd like to make sure Google gets mentioned in "privacy abuses" like that.
Oracle's pretending it's a good little company to take over Sun, only to completely fuck previous commitments to openness etc.
I'm sorry... wait. Did anybody ever for a moment believe that Ellison and company were somehow "good?" just because they shined their shoes before they picked you up?
yet only Google is the one being properly investigated.
Uh. Yeah, Microsoft has never been investigated for Antitrust allegations. And Apple is the subject of an active investigation for exactly the ebooks issue you mentioned (though how Apple gets targeted, and Amazon at least ALSO doesn't get some scrutiny, I'll never understand). Various EU regulatory agencies have also done some saber-rattling in Facebook's direction about their privacy policies and user data. And HP is currently (or was, at least end of last year) petitioning the EU antitrust regulators to investigate Oracle for the same. All of these companies have been involved and targeted at one point or another. Google is certainly just as deserving as any of these.
Well let's see - you're trolling, and attempting to shout down somebody who holds a different opinion from you... I think you just succeeded in doing what you're trying to paint me as having done. That's rich.
However, the result of this policy is lots of innocent people having their lives ruined merely for being suspected of a crime.
Okay, specific to this scenario - if this standard results in "lots" of innocent people having their lives disrupted, then surely we can come up with at least a handful of other people who have had their lives disrupted in this same fashion, right? Can you name even one person affected this way aside from this man, who went out of his way (by his own admission) to draw suspicion down on himself? People who have been dragged through a two year long legal ordeal as a result of being victimized by this policy after making perfectly legitimate, completely legal purchases of chemicals?
The simple fact of the matter here is this: it's an exceptionally unusual case, and it only happened after Mr. Sonne tried to arouse suspicion. His own comments during the trial indicated that he was *surprised* by the severity of the response, because he didn't expect anything more than a visit from the CISC where he could clear up the misunderstanding by telling them he had no illegal intent.
U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person's statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.
Undoubtedly I thought he was just as stupid when I first read them two years ago, but I promptly forgot them for the troll garbage they are.
And yet you reposted that "troll garbage" and called me out by name? Somebody having an opinion you disagree with doesn't make them a troll. I'd say your obnoxious ad hominems are a lot closer to trolling than anything I've said, 2 years ago, or today. You've demonstrated no understanding of the legal system or due process, and you've demonstrated that you're much happier slinging insults at the people you disagree with than engaging in any rational discussion.
So remind me again which one of us is supposedly trolling?
Your "he must be guilty because the police say so" comments caught my attention
Now I understand your confusion - that's not what I said at all, and you don't understand due process. Here's something I also wrote at the time, which you conveniently omitted in an attempt to score rhetorical points:
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, and the guy bought a bunch of weapons and bomb-making materials "just to see if anybody would notice." Well, guess what? They noticed, and now the justice system is responding in exactly the way it should to somebody who legitimately appears to be a threat to public safety.
The arrest was entirely legitimate - he was trying to create suspicion, and he did. Police then conducted an investigation, and felt that his activity created probable cause, so they arrested & charged him. And what do you know, the "police state" tried him, decided there wasn't proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he intended to do something illegal, and so he was declared not guilty and acquitted of all charges. This is how due process works - they aren't required to prove you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they arrest & charge you.
yes, there is. And it's a much lower standard of evidence than is required for a guilty verdict. This is why numerous cases have "not guilty" verdicts rendered. Unless you're advocating that police & the public prosecutor display evidence guaranteeing a conviction before an arrest can even be made?
Requiring that police have "actual evidence of imminent harm" before making an arrest pretty much means they need to catch someone in the act in order to make ANY arrest. That's not the standard of any legal system I'm familiar with, so your comment that "this should never happen," is just wishful thinking.
You might want to go look at my response to Karl Cocknozzle's (his name, not a derogatory nickname I've given him) sibling post. You know, the one where I wrote: "Denying bail and detaining him for 11 months while his trial was pending - I believe that's unreasonable. Pressing charges after the full investigation suggested he was mostly a harmless crackpot? Probably unreasonable, but apparently the prosecution felt they had a stronger case than they did."
A new criminal trial should start, one targeted at the officers in question, they who purposefully abused the trust placed in them in order to pursue personal agendas that had nothing to do with law and justice.
"The officers in question"? Really? So a couple random cops who were sent out to arrest him are the ones who masterminded and directed the entire politically motivated persecution you're alleging happened? If there was political motivation friend, his target should be much higher than "officers Smith and Jones, who arrested me." If it was politically motivated, you're looking at city, provincial, and perhaps even national elected officials. Not a couple patrol cops who got sent out to arrest him.
How did the police officers "abuse the trust placed in them?" What "personal agenda" did they pursue? They arrested a man they had cause to believe was planning to build and use bombs during the G-20 summit. A man who went out of his way - by his own admission - to behave suspiciously in an experiment to "test security." A man who was TRYING to bring security scrutiny down on his activities. And then when they focused on him, he thought he could just go "HA HA! Just kidding guys! I'm really harmless," and they'd smile and say "Oh okay then, have a nice day, eh?"
The civil suit he has stated his intention to file will no doubt examine his treatment by the police, and whether the 11 months in jail warrant some compensation by the state. But there is no requirement that you be "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" before the police arrest you. All they need is probable cause, and, again, he went out of his way to give them that.
I encourage you to read that Toronto Star article I just linked. It details his attempts to get the police to take notice of him - and they did. It also, interestingly, it closes like this:
He understands if people think he got what he deserved; that if you poke the bear, the bear might poke back. But he wishes the public, in general, made more of a fuss when their liberties are restricted, even in extreme circumstances like the G20.
“I’m not trying to dress myself up as some kind of civil rights superhero. . . . But I’d like to see this as something that feeds into some kind of future dialogue about the way things are going.”
If you replied to a thousand comments that were in no way trolling comments, that doesn't mean your one-thousand and first comment couldn't possibly have been a troll.
Indeed! I'll be happy for you to point out a single instance of me trolling. Just one. Being "a trolling jerk" sort of requires that I have "been a troll," and strongly implies that I make a habit of it.
Each comment should be evaluated on its merits. Now, please, show me just one you evaluate as "trolling," where trolling isn't simply your shorthand for, "I disagree with you, or dislike your position."
You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right?
You do realize that an arrest generally occurs before the full investigation, which precedes the decision of whether or not to file criminal charges... right?
My comments 2 years ago were specific to the *arrest* of Mr. Sonne, in response to somebody claiming that the arrest was bogus, and there was absolutely no cause to suspect he was doing anything illegal.
Denying bail and detaining him for 11 months while his trial was pending - I believe that's unreasonable. Pressing charges after the full investigation suggested he was mostly a harmless crackpot? Probably unreasonable, but apparently the prosecution felt they had a stronger case than they did.
But the arrest of a man who had gone on a purchasing spree of materials used in the manufacture of explosives, and who had been talking up his intent to "test" security? Absolutely reasonable - absolutely what the police should have done. Police aren't the people who are required to prove his guilt - that happens at trial. The police conduct the investigation, and when you have a man deliberately provoking the suspicion of authorities, neglecting to investigate this would have been an abdication of their responsibilities.
Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not.
Yes, and it appears that his INTENT was not to commit a crime, and so he was declared NOT GUILTY. You are allowed to bring charges against someone if you have probably cause to believe they are committing - or INTEND to commit - a crime. When somebody talks about their intent to "test security" and goes on a chemical purchase spree, it's reasonable to question somebody's intent. You evaluate that intent in something known as a trial.
What I posted 2 years ago was in response to somebody claiming that the arrest was nothing but trumped up nonsense - the arrest was valid, because he went out of his way to give off the appearance of somebody looking to bomb something. It was his *express intent* to look that way. So they arrested him; They tried him - and during the trial, it was determined that he never "INTENDED" to harm anyone. This wasn't about "oh my god, you bought a bag of fertilizer." It was about, "oh my god, you bought a number of chemicals that could be used to make bombs, and then told people you were doing so specifically to provoke a security response from the G-20 security." And he did. What sort of response would you have the police make?
For what, exactly? Having an opinion that somebody disagreed with on slashdot?
I'm a trolling jerk
My posting history here will put that misconception to rest pretty quickly. You may not agree with me, you may not LIKE my opinions, but that does not constitute "trolling."
You wrote the GP post anyway.. your postings from 2 years ago are, lets face it, not memorable to anyone but yourself.
Sorry friend, not my style at all. I don't believe any of the discussions here are important enough to warrant reposting something I wrote 2 years ago. Do you really think I'd go to the trouble of:
1) registering 2 separate accounts; 2) Post on them numerous times; 3) Argue with myself?
Again - not my style, as even the most casual perusal of my posts here will confirm.
Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm not sorry. I stand by my original statements: the police didn't arrest him for no reason, these were NOT trumped up charges, this man was NOT railroaded into jail because police wanted an arrest. This was a case of a man deliberately setting out to probe the efficacy of security for the G-20 summit by purchasing chemicals used in bomb making, again - *in an attempt to prove that the security for the G-20 summit was ineffective.* In essence, he was betting that security wouldn't take notice of his activities... and he lost his bet.
Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making. He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit. Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing). Those chemicals were purchased in sufficient quantities that, if combined, could have created several kilos worth of explosive material (as testified by an explosives expert during the case).
And technically, I'm just one person - I wouldn't be laughed at "like a bunch of Keystone Kops" - I'd be laughed at "like a Keystone Kop." But I'm glad something I wrote here was memorable enough that you're this incensed about it 2 years later. You stay beautiful, and let's do this again in 2014, okay?
You're piling on words like "significant" to bolster your emotionally-laden position. It's not enough to kill the guy that has the shit coursing through his veins, now is it?
No, I'm using words like "significant" because it is a "significantly higher" level of radiation than would be expected or predicted by random fluctuations in the average background level of radiation, which is the baseline that these detectors use. Average "natural" radiation baseline is roughly 0.03 mrem per hour. As I linked elsewhere, a typical detector indicates "LOW" radiation levels at 1 mrem per hour - levels at which a health risk is created when the exposure is measured in days. Higher levels create risks in exposure measured in hours, or minutes. For the detector to even register that something is emitting radiation at all, it must do so strongly enough, and persistently enough, that it meets the threshold where the variation from background is statistically significant.
As far as the safety of the "shit coursing through his veins" - there are reasons that federal regulations limit occupational exposure to radiation and doctors recommend minimizing exposure to radiation: namely, it is harmful. And in fact, the "shit coursing through his veins" was potentially harmful enough to other people that his doctor told him to avoid close contact with people for a few hours, and to stay away from his infant for at least 24 hours. So if it was significant enough to pose a health risk to others simply by being near him, it was a measurable, and significant amount of radiation.
No, it comes before. I'll type this very slowly for you so you understand: police officers cannot decide to pull you over or stop you on a whim. They need to have a reason to do so -- which means a specific crime that they think you're committing.
And I'll say this very slowly so you can understand: All they need to pull you over is reasonable suspicion that you may be committing a crime. Transporting nuclear materials without proper markings on your vehicle is illegal. Therefore, if your vehicle - not marked as a hazmat transport - is driving down the road emitting radiation, you know, from actual radioactive materials actually radiating actual radiation into the environment, then that alone is enough to create *reasonable suspicion* that you are committing a crime.
They inform you of the "specific crime" you are believed to have committed when they file charges against you. They are not required to tell you, "I'm pulling you over because I believe that you are in violation of Federal Code 18 Section 27 article 9, Transport of radioactive materials in an unmarked vehicle without proper safety and containment precautions." They are required to explain their *reasonable suspicion* and what the crime was. A statement that "A car emitting radiation with no visible hazmat indicators on the vehicle gave me reason to suspect that the driver was illegally transporting nuclear waste" is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
So in other words, cops can stop you on a whim and decide what crime to charge you with after they've investigated you for anything whatsoever
No, that's just your idiotic twisting of anything I've said so far. The cops may stop you for a specific set of articulable facts which lead them to suspect you 1) may be committing, 2) are about to commit, or 3) have just committed, a crime. "Transporting nuclear material illegally" is a crime, though that's not its specific name, code or section. They can make a traffic stop based on that preliminary suspicion; They can arrest you if they find probable cause that you are "transporting nuclear material illegally." And then when you are charged (after the investigation is completed), they will inform you of the *specific* list of crimes you are believed to have committed. "Specific crime" requ
Gods, you people arguing this are impossibly dense. Be honest now - are you just not even bothering to read in your haste to shout about your opinions?
What part of "transporting radioactive materials without proper hazmat markings and containment protocols is illegal" isn't sinking in? Right there, driving a passenger vehicle that is emitting detectable and significant amounts of radiation is enough for a reasonable person to suspect that the vehicle is transporting radioactive materials that are improperly shielded, and it is trivially obvious to determine whether or not that passenger vehicle is displaying a proper fucking hazmat placard, identifying the contents of the cargo. There's reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, and that's ALL that's required.
The "specific crime" part comes after they arrest you, IF they arrest you - you know, when they actually charge you with a crime!? This dogged insistence that they cannot and will not arrest you, or even investigate you, until they've determined the specific crime they think you may have committed is adorably naive, and no doubt based on hours of studious review of NCIS, CSI, and Law & Order reruns... but... still... it's wrong.
And there's the source of your confusion. Don't feel bad, lots of other people are making the same mistake, and have no comprehension of how the law works.
Reasonable suspicion doesn't require you to say "the most LIKELY explanation for what I'm seeing here is..."
It requires you to say, "There is a reasonable (nontrivial) possibility that something unlawful is happening here..."
I keep saying this, and you all keep shouting back that "but that's not the most likely explanation!" I don't know how else to get across that "the most likely explanation" is not the standard which 'reasonable suspicion' must meet. I'm well and truly stymied by your obstinate refusal to understand that you are absolutely, unequivocally, logically, thorougly wrong in your assertion that only "the most likely explanation for this is that something illegal is happening" is required for any investigation to be made.
Again, if that's the standard, then a man walking down the road, carrying a big old bloodstained butcher's knife would be immune from questioning, because it's far more likely that he's a butcher, or a cook! He probably just was cutting some very fresh meat, and it's way more likely that that's just animal blood, or gravy, or ketchup, or some other food residue on the blade, anyway, amirite?
I say again: transporting radioactive materials in improperly shielded containers, such that it's leaking significant radiation into its surroundings, or without appropriate hazmat identification on the vehicle, is illegal.
I say again: it is therefore reasonable to suspect that something illegal might be happening, to see an unmarked passenger vehicle emitting detectable levels of radiation.
I say again: It is therefore reasonable to stop the vehicle to investigate the source of the radiation.
But it's okay, you're not the only one who has no idea how things work. You've got lots of company.
If you want to articulate precisely, you would need to reference ionizing radiation, and the amount measured, and reference the normal backround amount in that area, and also note what level above normal is considered remarkable.
No, the data you're specifying is *FAR FAR* above "reasonable suspicion." The data you're suggesting is required for reasonable suspicion is data which would be gathered in preparation for a trial. This is like saying, "you can't question a person carrying a bloody knife on suspicion they've harmed someone with it unless you know the blood type of the blood on the blade, and have a specific person in mind that they have harmed, as well as know the precise time and GPS coordinates of the crime you believe they've committed."
One. Last. Motherfucking. Time: "reasonable suspicion" is a yes/no question - it does not require specific chance of likelihood, only that suspicion was "reasonable" based on the evidence that the officer can see. The evidence is that a single car, out of thousands that the officer has seen on a particular day, is emitting radiation significantly above the natural background level of radiation. It has no hazmat identification, and it is a passenger vehicle. It is, indeed, POSSIBLE that the person has been administered a radioactive dye. It is also indeed POSSIBLE that the person is transporting radioactive materials illegally. Therefore, it is REASONABLE for the officer to make a traffic stop and investigate the matter further, to determine whether probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed exists, and if so, to arrest the person.
What officers are not required to do: 1) Have thoroughly investigated the situation before asking any questions in an attempt to investigate; 2) Go through a complex statistical analysis to determine the "most likely" reason the car is emitting detectable radiation; 3) Consider every possible explanation and discard any based on Slashdot's fanciful imaginings about how "common" it is for cars to be driving around emitting radiation because somebody was administered a radionuclide for a medical test;
And as has been pointed out to YOU over, and over, and over again the percentage of legitimate, non-criminal explanations so far outweighs the extraordinarily unlikely use of radiation in a terrorist or criminal attack that, given no other obvious evidence, this stop was not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
Stop fixating like a retard on "hurr durr terrorism." Transportation of radioactive waste is illegal, if done improperly. When you are leaking significant, measurable levels of radiation, from a passenger vehicle, with no hazmat identification on the vehicle, there is ample reasonable suspicion to believe that, if nothing else, you are creating a public safety risk by illegally transporting radioactive materials. That alone is sufficient to stop the car for a brief investigation.
There is always a way to spin any circumstances as reasonably indicating a possible crime. Surely we want our police to be more reasonable than you suggest.
No, there isn't. "I witnessed the driver driving down the road, well within safe limits for the conditions, emitting no radiation, and exhibiting absolutely no unusual, suspicious behavior," is exactly the reason why allegations of racial profiling get thrown at police. It is *reasonable* to be suspicious of a car that is not marked as a hazmat transport vehicle that is emitting radiation.
Also, to your Subject:
Everythign emits radiation ALL THE TIME
Which is exactly why these detectors are designed to measure current natural background readings, and only indicate the emission of radiation that is statistically unlikely to be caused only by random natural fluctuations. When there are significant spikes in radiation above the "ambient" levels, it registers as elevated radiation on the device. Do you honestly think that the engineers and physicists who design these detectors have no idea how environmental radioactivity works?
"I detected radiation being emitted from the vehicle. I saw no signage indicating the vehicle was being used in transportation of hazardous radioactive material. Based on this, I suspected that the operator might be transporting radioactive material illegally, and might intend to dispose of it illegally, creating a public health hazard during the transport and after disposal. Based on this suspicion, I made a traffic stop to investigate."
You danced all around it, but you still haven't solved the problem that a mysterious black box going ping for a level of radiation that low has never indicated that a crime was taking place but can easily trigger for the much more common condition of having had a medical procedure. That's important given how rare the crimes are in the first place.
And you keep ignoring the simple fact that "reasonable suspicion" doesn't require a "most of the time" qualifier. But if you want to approach it that way, "most of the time," that detector doesn't go off at all. "most of the time," people aren't driving around emitting detectable & elevated-above-background-levels of radiation from their cars. You keep latching on to the "he assumed the guy was a terrorist," angle, and I keep repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in: the guy need not be a terrorist to be engaged in illegal transport and disposal of radioactive materials. And in fact, as the Superfund site list I sent you demonstrates, there HAVE been crimes committed where these materials have been illegally disposed of.
You have to consider too, what a patrolman is going to do next. He has no training or instrumentation to safely determine what might be illegal radioactive waste. Lots of things make a survey meter click, few of them are a problem. Keep in mind too, we don't want the officer to get a lethal dose opening the wrong container or to spread contamination all over the highway.
Right, because his first action after pulling somebody over is going to be to dismantle the vehicle and lick every item he finds to try and find the radiation. I know what a patrolman is going to do, if he makes a stop and finds odd, unmarked containers of strange liquid in the trunk of the car: he's going to cordon off the area, and call in a hazmat team, which is precisely what his training would tell him to do. His detector has warned him that there is something emitting radioactive materials, that's all he needs to know to call a hazmat team in for proper disposal if he finds that there is probable cause to believe there's a crime being committed and makes an arrest.
As for the butcher knife, unlike the radiation case, there are PLENTY of cases where someone wandering in public carrying a bloody knife in exactly the way butchers don't has indicated a crime. That makes the suspicion reasonable. Same thing at a fire pit or on a farm, not quite as suspicious.
And there are plenty of cases where somebody transporting hazardous materials illegally has committed a crime by both transporting them illegally, and disposing of them illegally. So how is it "reasonable suspicion" when there's a guy with a butcher knife, but not "reasonable suspicion" when it's an unmarked passenger vehicle emitting detectable levels of radiation? Either incident is very rare, there are obvious cases where both are related to criminal activity.
That brings up a point as well. I doubt the cops have anything like the training needed to actually know how much radiation is 'too much' and how much is reasonable for various innocent situations. The more reasonable thing then is to re-calibrate the machines so they only go off in cases where the amount is certainly too much to have a harmless and innocent explanation OR provide significant training in nuclear physics to the cops that carry the more sensitive instrument.
"how much radiation is too much?" ANY. If you're emitting detectable levels of radiation on top of normal background radiation, you are adding to your own (and others) cumulative radiation exposure. Every bit of it adds up. If you go read any of the links I provided (I know, it's slashdot, we don't bother with facts), you'll see some interesting numbers. 1-10 mrem per hour is the "LOW' level detected by a typical detector. 10 millirem is about the strength of a typical chest x-ray. So, expos
Sure, and that's why I also included the crime of attempted bombing which would still need more for reasonable articulable suspicion.
One more time: that's not the only crime which it is possible to commit with radiological materials. And it is *reasonable* to suspect that someone who is driving down the street emitting enough radiation to show up on a radiation detector may be engaged in unlawful activity, or a *victim* of unlawful activity. Either way, at that point the officer has the authority (and, I'd argue, a duty) to make a traffic stop and investigate.
"Reasonable suspicion" is based on the totality of the situation, and the totality of the situation is that a privately owned passenger vehicle was driving down the highway emitting enough radiation to be detected as *at least* statistically significant above and beyond background radiation levels, and perhaps even enough to imply that the source of radiation posed an imminent health risk to other people, or the person operating the vehicle. The vehicle displayed no signage indicating it was being used in legitimate transport of hazardous materials, either. Given that unsafe transportation and disposal of radioactive materials *is* a crime, it's hard to see how any argument can be made that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" - enough to warrant a traffic stop - has not been met.
You want an articulable statement to describe the suspicion? Here:
"I detected radiation being emitted from the vehicle. I saw no signage indicating the vehicle was being used in transportation of hazardous radioactive material. Based on this, I suspected that the operator might be transporting radioactive material illegally, and might intend to dispose of it illegally, creating a public health hazard during the transport and after disposal. Based on this suspicion, I made a traffic stop to investigate."
I'd say that's pretty specific, articulable, and reasonable based on the facts the officer had on hand. The traffic stop revealed additional facts that proved the suspicion to be baseless, and the officer let the driver continue on about his business - no arrest was made, no charges were filed, and no verdict will need to be rendered on the non-existent charges pursuant to the non-existent arrest.
Would a reasonable person conclude that the mere presence of radiation above normal levels is indicative of a crime? No. Emitting radioactivity is not a crime in and of itself. So, a reasonable person would ask themselves, what other factors are in play that might give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion? In this instance, there were probably none. As such, he should have been left alone.
Yes, a reasonable person would ask themselves, "what other factors are in play that might give rise to reasonable suspicion?" And those factors are:
1) A private passenger vehicle, emitting some statistically non-trivial, and perhaps even harmful (we don't know the actual dosage readings), level of radiation above average background radiation; 2) Said vehicle containing no indication that it is being used in the transport of hazardous materials;
You're right, "emitting radiation" is not a crime in and of itself - because "emitting radiation" is done by radioactive isotopes, which have no intrinsic rights. But what a human being *does with* those radioactivity-emitting isotopes can very well be a crime, or can be evidence that they themselves have been a victim of a crime.
In light of these additional facts, the (LOW) threshold for "reasonable suspicion" has been met, and the cop may thus make a traffic stop and ask some questions. If the story had continued on to say that, "despite his protests that he had had a medical treatment earlier that day, including production of a valid letter from his doctor indicating the treatment and its side effects, the cops arrested him and locked him in a jail cell for three days," then there would be a justifiable reason to be up in arms over this case. But that didn't happen - the cop said, "hey, you set off my radiation detector," the guy said, "yeah, I had radioactive dye injected for a medical procedure this morning, and here's a letter explaining it," and the cop said, "Okay then, no longer any reason for me to believe something criminal may be happening - have a nice day."
As it is, here on Slashdot, all you have to do to guarantee a host of "HURR DURR KKKOPS R KKKURUPT" comments is post an article titled "Police Officer does something." Because nothing else is required to try, convict, and sentence a cop in the court of Slashdot's public opinion other than a job title.
You DO need reasonable suspicion. One might expect that to require that some articulable thing has ever in written history actually indicated a crime.
Well, you can start here for examples of how improper storage, disposal, and / or transport of radioactive wastes has resulted in civil and criminal charges. There's quite a few.
Unsafe transport, storage, and disposal of radiological and other hazardous waste *is* illegal. Irradiating your fellow citizens against their will *is* illegal. Regulations suggest that "maximum" emissions on a vehicle transporting radiological waste is 200 mrem / hr at the *surface* of the vehicle. At 2 meters, the emission cannot register more than 10 mrem / hour. What appears to be a standard, vehicle-mounted detector will detect "Low" (1-10 mrem / hr), "Moderate" (10-100 mrem/hr), and High (100+ mrem / hr) levels, as well as a "minimum detectable level" based on current location's background readings, and statistical variation from that background.
Exposure to levels even at the LOW (1-10 mrem / hr) levels in units of days will result in a public health hazard. Higher levels create those same risks in units of hours, or even minutes, depending on intensity.
Average natural background radiation is in the order of 2.4 millisieverts per year, which translates to roughly 0.03 millirem per hour. So, let's say the detector flags as "minimum detectable" for anything between 0.03 millirem and 1 millirem, assuming you're in an area where radiation is roughly "average."
Now... you're in your squad car day in, day out, and that radioactivity detector never issues a peep. Then one day, it lights up, indicating a vehicle is emitting radiation that is statistically unlikely to be random variations in the background radiation levels. It *could*, given that the man was told to avoid close contact with other people, and stay away from his infant son for at least 24 hours, even be into the "Low" category of risk. And you look and see that the vehicle is not a transport vehicle with placards and other signage indicating that it is transporting hazardous materials, but a normal passenger vehicle. And that doesn't trigger even the slightest shred of "what the fuck is going on here?" suspicion?
Because that's ALL that's required, by law: the suspicion of a reasonable person to be aroused. At that point, it is entirely legal and within due process to make a traffic stop to investigate. What are possible crimes being committed? Well: 1) He's transporting radioactive materials illegally, or perhaps intends to dispose of them illegally; 2) He has been the victim of exposure to radiation through someone else's carelessness or deliberate intent, and so is at risk himself, or putting other people at risk; 3) He has a bomb and intends to set it off;
Of these, #3 is certainly the least likely, and of lowest actual concern. But there are other "reasonable" ways you could suspect a crime that don't even involve "terrorism." Given the number of Superfund sites, and the cost of cleanup for radiological contamination, I could certainly see where somebody who has some material they know to be hazardous might just dump it in the landfill on the sly. It happens - this is how some Superfund sites are created in the first place. Number 2 is perhaps less likely, but it's possible that he's been exposed, either knowingly (i.e., poisoned) or unwittingly, i.e., through some contamination of his home, water supply, food supply, work environment, etc., in which case there is a public safety risk.
Do you also advocate for police to only respond to car crashes when a crime is known to have been committed? If I'm a victim of road rage, they'll come help me, but if I experience mechanical failure, and I lose control, and sideswipe a guardrail, throwing debris across the highway and injuring myself (no crime committe
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly; but the wishes of anybody who wishes to affix a price tag to the music they've created shouldn't be ignored, either. If you don't like the price they're asking, you're welcome to haggle with them, or you're welcome to pay what they've asked. What you are not welcome to do is just take a copy and offer them no compensation. What this comes down to is simply a question of whether or not you respect your fellow human being enough to not take something they haven't consented to giving you, simply because they lack the means to stop you from doing it. Trade is (or should be) mutually beneficial, and by mutual consent - either you get a great song to listen to whenever and wherever you want AND the artist gets to pay his or her bills and continue honing their craft, hopefully producing even MORE music you think is great, or no deal happens and the artist realizes his audience just isn't big enough to allow him to support himself with music, and he relegates music to a fun hobby.
And that's the flip side of this argument. Nobody is "owed" an income, just because they "kinda think they wanna be like Lady Gaga." But if that person tries to sell their music, no member of the listening public is "owed" a free copy, either: mutual consent + mutual benefit, or no deal at all.
Certainly obnoxious, but not a crime.
Really? I wasn't aware my only options to buy music were from Apple. I guess Best Buy, Amazon, Wal Mart, Target, eMusic, and dozens of other online and real-world music sellers didn't get the memo.
Um. What? Every single song I've ever bought from the iTunes store can be loaded and played on any computer, portable player, or device that supports AAC. How am I locked into iTunes? Every single song I've ever bought from Amazon, Google Music, eMusic, or ripped from CD, I can load on my iPod.
Yes, god forbid anybody should challenge Amazon's monopoly of the ebooks market, where dumping ebooks as a loss leader to sell more Kindles is the strategy du jour. Apple has dick for market share in the ebooks market. If you want to talk about distortion of the market, you should probably be pointing at Amazon.
Such as? If they're constant, surely you can give us, say, 5 examples of Facebook "illegally breaching various data protection acts across the globe"? But while we're on privacy, we should also mention Google's standing as a persistent abuser of Safari & IE users - disregarding their chosen privacy settings because Big Daddy Google knows what's *best* for those users, and they must have just been confused in their preferences, and so developed a method to circumvent those settings. Since, you know, you hate double standards, I'd like to make sure Google gets mentioned in "privacy abuses" like that.
I'm sorry... wait. Did anybody ever for a moment believe that Ellison and company were somehow "good?" just because they shined their shoes before they picked you up?
Uh. Yeah, Microsoft has never been investigated for Antitrust allegations. And Apple is the subject of an active investigation for exactly the ebooks issue you mentioned (though how Apple gets targeted, and Amazon at least ALSO doesn't get some scrutiny, I'll never understand). Various EU regulatory agencies have also done some saber-rattling in Facebook's direction about their privacy policies and user data. And HP is currently (or was, at least end of last year) petitioning the EU antitrust regulators to investigate Oracle for the same. All of these companies have been involved and targeted at one point or another. Google is certainly just as deserving as any of these.
So... two cases equals a ton.
Got it.
Well let's see - you're trolling, and attempting to shout down somebody who holds a different opinion from you... I think you just succeeded in doing what you're trying to paint me as having done. That's rich.
Stay gold, Ponyboy.
Okay, specific to this scenario - if this standard results in "lots" of innocent people having their lives disrupted, then surely we can come up with at least a handful of other people who have had their lives disrupted in this same fashion, right? Can you name even one person affected this way aside from this man, who went out of his way (by his own admission) to draw suspicion down on himself? People who have been dragged through a two year long legal ordeal as a result of being victimized by this policy after making perfectly legitimate, completely legal purchases of chemicals?
The simple fact of the matter here is this: it's an exceptionally unusual case, and it only happened after Mr. Sonne tried to arouse suspicion. His own comments during the trial indicated that he was *surprised* by the severity of the response, because he didn't expect anything more than a visit from the CISC where he could clear up the misunderstanding by telling them he had no illegal intent.
Not automatically. US law allows for dual citizenship, with some caveats:
And yet you reposted that "troll garbage" and called me out by name? Somebody having an opinion you disagree with doesn't make them a troll. I'd say your obnoxious ad hominems are a lot closer to trolling than anything I've said, 2 years ago, or today. You've demonstrated no understanding of the legal system or due process, and you've demonstrated that you're much happier slinging insults at the people you disagree with than engaging in any rational discussion.
So remind me again which one of us is supposedly trolling?
Now I understand your confusion - that's not what I said at all, and you don't understand due process. Here's something I also wrote at the time, which you conveniently omitted in an attempt to score rhetorical points:
The arrest was entirely legitimate - he was trying to create suspicion, and he did. Police then conducted an investigation, and felt that his activity created probable cause, so they arrested & charged him. And what do you know, the "police state" tried him, decided there wasn't proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he intended to do something illegal, and so he was declared not guilty and acquitted of all charges. This is how due process works - they aren't required to prove you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they arrest & charge you.
yes, there is. And it's a much lower standard of evidence than is required for a guilty verdict. This is why numerous cases have "not guilty" verdicts rendered. Unless you're advocating that police & the public prosecutor display evidence guaranteeing a conviction before an arrest can even be made?
Requiring that police have "actual evidence of imminent harm" before making an arrest pretty much means they need to catch someone in the act in order to make ANY arrest. That's not the standard of any legal system I'm familiar with, so your comment that "this should never happen," is just wishful thinking.
You might want to go look at my response to Karl Cocknozzle's (his name, not a derogatory nickname I've given him) sibling post. You know, the one where I wrote: "Denying bail and detaining him for 11 months while his trial was pending - I believe that's unreasonable. Pressing charges after the full investigation suggested he was mostly a harmless crackpot? Probably unreasonable, but apparently the prosecution felt they had a stronger case than they did."
"The officers in question"? Really? So a couple random cops who were sent out to arrest him are the ones who masterminded and directed the entire politically motivated persecution you're alleging happened? If there was political motivation friend, his target should be much higher than "officers Smith and Jones, who arrested me." If it was politically motivated, you're looking at city, provincial, and perhaps even national elected officials. Not a couple patrol cops who got sent out to arrest him.
How did the police officers "abuse the trust placed in them?" What "personal agenda" did they pursue? They arrested a man they had cause to believe was planning to build and use bombs during the G-20 summit. A man who went out of his way - by his own admission - to behave suspiciously in an experiment to "test security." A man who was TRYING to bring security scrutiny down on his activities. And then when they focused on him, he thought he could just go "HA HA! Just kidding guys! I'm really harmless," and they'd smile and say "Oh okay then, have a nice day, eh?"
The civil suit he has stated his intention to file will no doubt examine his treatment by the police, and whether the 11 months in jail warrant some compensation by the state. But there is no requirement that you be "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" before the police arrest you. All they need is probable cause, and, again, he went out of his way to give them that.
I encourage you to read that Toronto Star article I just linked. It details his attempts to get the police to take notice of him - and they did. It also, interestingly, it closes like this:
Indeed! I'll be happy for you to point out a single instance of me trolling. Just one. Being "a trolling jerk" sort of requires that I have "been a troll," and strongly implies that I make a habit of it.
Each comment should be evaluated on its merits. Now, please, show me just one you evaluate as "trolling," where trolling isn't simply your shorthand for, "I disagree with you, or dislike your position."
You do realize that an arrest generally occurs before the full investigation, which precedes the decision of whether or not to file criminal charges... right?
My comments 2 years ago were specific to the *arrest* of Mr. Sonne, in response to somebody claiming that the arrest was bogus, and there was absolutely no cause to suspect he was doing anything illegal.
Denying bail and detaining him for 11 months while his trial was pending - I believe that's unreasonable. Pressing charges after the full investigation suggested he was mostly a harmless crackpot? Probably unreasonable, but apparently the prosecution felt they had a stronger case than they did.
But the arrest of a man who had gone on a purchasing spree of materials used in the manufacture of explosives, and who had been talking up his intent to "test" security? Absolutely reasonable - absolutely what the police should have done. Police aren't the people who are required to prove his guilt - that happens at trial. The police conduct the investigation, and when you have a man deliberately provoking the suspicion of authorities, neglecting to investigate this would have been an abdication of their responsibilities.
Yes, and it appears that his INTENT was not to commit a crime, and so he was declared NOT GUILTY. You are allowed to bring charges against someone if you have probably cause to believe they are committing - or INTEND to commit - a crime. When somebody talks about their intent to "test security" and goes on a chemical purchase spree, it's reasonable to question somebody's intent. You evaluate that intent in something known as a trial.
What I posted 2 years ago was in response to somebody claiming that the arrest was nothing but trumped up nonsense - the arrest was valid, because he went out of his way to give off the appearance of somebody looking to bomb something. It was his *express intent* to look that way. So they arrested him; They tried him - and during the trial, it was determined that he never "INTENDED" to harm anyone. This wasn't about "oh my god, you bought a bag of fertilizer." It was about, "oh my god, you bought a number of chemicals that could be used to make bombs, and then told people you were doing so specifically to provoke a security response from the G-20 security." And he did. What sort of response would you have the police make?
For what, exactly? Having an opinion that somebody disagreed with on slashdot?
My posting history here will put that misconception to rest pretty quickly. You may not agree with me, you may not LIKE my opinions, but that does not constitute "trolling."
Sorry friend, not my style at all. I don't believe any of the discussions here are important enough to warrant reposting something I wrote 2 years ago. Do you really think I'd go to the trouble of:
1) registering 2 separate accounts;
2) Post on them numerous times;
3) Argue with myself?
Again - not my style, as even the most casual perusal of my posts here will confirm.
Awww, apparently I hurt somebody's feelings! I'd apologize, but then, I'm not sorry. I stand by my original statements: the police didn't arrest him for no reason, these were NOT trumped up charges, this man was NOT railroaded into jail because police wanted an arrest. This was a case of a man deliberately setting out to probe the efficacy of security for the G-20 summit by purchasing chemicals used in bomb making, again - *in an attempt to prove that the security for the G-20 summit was ineffective.* In essence, he was betting that security wouldn't take notice of his activities... and he lost his bet.
Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making. He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit. Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing). Those chemicals were purchased in sufficient quantities that, if combined, could have created several kilos worth of explosive material (as testified by an explosives expert during the case).
And technically, I'm just one person - I wouldn't be laughed at "like a bunch of Keystone Kops" - I'd be laughed at "like a Keystone Kop." But I'm glad something I wrote here was memorable enough that you're this incensed about it 2 years later. You stay beautiful, and let's do this again in 2014, okay?
No, I'm using words like "significant" because it is a "significantly higher" level of radiation than would be expected or predicted by random fluctuations in the average background level of radiation, which is the baseline that these detectors use. Average "natural" radiation baseline is roughly 0.03 mrem per hour. As I linked elsewhere, a typical detector indicates "LOW" radiation levels at 1 mrem per hour - levels at which a health risk is created when the exposure is measured in days. Higher levels create risks in exposure measured in hours, or minutes. For the detector to even register that something is emitting radiation at all, it must do so strongly enough, and persistently enough, that it meets the threshold where the variation from background is statistically significant.
As far as the safety of the "shit coursing through his veins" - there are reasons that federal regulations limit occupational exposure to radiation and doctors recommend minimizing exposure to radiation: namely, it is harmful. And in fact, the "shit coursing through his veins" was potentially harmful enough to other people that his doctor told him to avoid close contact with people for a few hours, and to stay away from his infant for at least 24 hours. So if it was significant enough to pose a health risk to others simply by being near him, it was a measurable, and significant amount of radiation.
And I'll say this very slowly so you can understand: All they need to pull you over is reasonable suspicion that you may be committing a crime. Transporting nuclear materials without proper markings on your vehicle is illegal. Therefore, if your vehicle - not marked as a hazmat transport - is driving down the road emitting radiation, you know, from actual radioactive materials actually radiating actual radiation into the environment, then that alone is enough to create *reasonable suspicion* that you are committing a crime.
They inform you of the "specific crime" you are believed to have committed when they file charges against you. They are not required to tell you, "I'm pulling you over because I believe that you are in violation of Federal Code 18 Section 27 article 9, Transport of radioactive materials in an unmarked vehicle without proper safety and containment precautions." They are required to explain their *reasonable suspicion* and what the crime was. A statement that "A car emitting radiation with no visible hazmat indicators on the vehicle gave me reason to suspect that the driver was illegally transporting nuclear waste" is sufficient for reasonable suspicion.
No, that's just your idiotic twisting of anything I've said so far. The cops may stop you for a specific set of articulable facts which lead them to suspect you 1) may be committing, 2) are about to commit, or 3) have just committed, a crime. "Transporting nuclear material illegally" is a crime, though that's not its specific name, code or section. They can make a traffic stop based on that preliminary suspicion; They can arrest you if they find probable cause that you are "transporting nuclear material illegally." And then when you are charged (after the investigation is completed), they will inform you of the *specific* list of crimes you are believed to have committed. "Specific crime" requ
Gods, you people arguing this are impossibly dense. Be honest now - are you just not even bothering to read in your haste to shout about your opinions?
What part of "transporting radioactive materials without proper hazmat markings and containment protocols is illegal" isn't sinking in? Right there, driving a passenger vehicle that is emitting detectable and significant amounts of radiation is enough for a reasonable person to suspect that the vehicle is transporting radioactive materials that are improperly shielded, and it is trivially obvious to determine whether or not that passenger vehicle is displaying a proper fucking hazmat placard, identifying the contents of the cargo. There's reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, and that's ALL that's required.
The "specific crime" part comes after they arrest you, IF they arrest you - you know, when they actually charge you with a crime!? This dogged insistence that they cannot and will not arrest you, or even investigate you, until they've determined the specific crime they think you may have committed is adorably naive, and no doubt based on hours of studious review of NCIS, CSI, and Law & Order reruns... but... still... it's wrong.
And there's the source of your confusion. Don't feel bad, lots of other people are making the same mistake, and have no comprehension of how the law works.
Reasonable suspicion doesn't require you to say "the most LIKELY explanation for what I'm seeing here is..."
It requires you to say, "There is a reasonable (nontrivial) possibility that something unlawful is happening here..."
I keep saying this, and you all keep shouting back that "but that's not the most likely explanation!" I don't know how else to get across that "the most likely explanation" is not the standard which 'reasonable suspicion' must meet. I'm well and truly stymied by your obstinate refusal to understand that you are absolutely, unequivocally, logically, thorougly wrong in your assertion that only "the most likely explanation for this is that something illegal is happening" is required for any investigation to be made.
Again, if that's the standard, then a man walking down the road, carrying a big old bloodstained butcher's knife would be immune from questioning, because it's far more likely that he's a butcher, or a cook! He probably just was cutting some very fresh meat, and it's way more likely that that's just animal blood, or gravy, or ketchup, or some other food residue on the blade, anyway, amirite?
I say again: transporting radioactive materials in improperly shielded containers, such that it's leaking significant radiation into its surroundings, or without appropriate hazmat identification on the vehicle, is illegal.
I say again: it is therefore reasonable to suspect that something illegal might be happening, to see an unmarked passenger vehicle emitting detectable levels of radiation.
I say again: It is therefore reasonable to stop the vehicle to investigate the source of the radiation.
But it's okay, you're not the only one who has no idea how things work. You've got lots of company.
No, the data you're specifying is *FAR FAR* above "reasonable suspicion." The data you're suggesting is required for reasonable suspicion is data which would be gathered in preparation for a trial. This is like saying, "you can't question a person carrying a bloody knife on suspicion they've harmed someone with it unless you know the blood type of the blood on the blade, and have a specific person in mind that they have harmed, as well as know the precise time and GPS coordinates of the crime you believe they've committed."
One. Last. Motherfucking. Time: "reasonable suspicion" is a yes/no question - it does not require specific chance of likelihood, only that suspicion was "reasonable" based on the evidence that the officer can see. The evidence is that a single car, out of thousands that the officer has seen on a particular day, is emitting radiation significantly above the natural background level of radiation. It has no hazmat identification, and it is a passenger vehicle. It is, indeed, POSSIBLE that the person has been administered a radioactive dye. It is also indeed POSSIBLE that the person is transporting radioactive materials illegally. Therefore, it is REASONABLE for the officer to make a traffic stop and investigate the matter further, to determine whether probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed exists, and if so, to arrest the person.
What officers are not required to do:
1) Have thoroughly investigated the situation before asking any questions in an attempt to investigate;
2) Go through a complex statistical analysis to determine the "most likely" reason the car is emitting detectable radiation;
3) Consider every possible explanation and discard any based on Slashdot's fanciful imaginings about how "common" it is for cars to be driving around emitting radiation because somebody was administered a radionuclide for a medical test;
Stop fixating like a retard on "hurr durr terrorism." Transportation of radioactive waste is illegal, if done improperly. When you are leaking significant, measurable levels of radiation, from a passenger vehicle, with no hazmat identification on the vehicle, there is ample reasonable suspicion to believe that, if nothing else, you are creating a public safety risk by illegally transporting radioactive materials. That alone is sufficient to stop the car for a brief investigation.
No, there isn't. "I witnessed the driver driving down the road, well within safe limits for the conditions, emitting no radiation, and exhibiting absolutely no unusual, suspicious behavior," is exactly the reason why allegations of racial profiling get thrown at police. It is *reasonable* to be suspicious of a car that is not marked as a hazmat transport vehicle that is emitting radiation.
Also, to your Subject:
Which is exactly why these detectors are designed to measure current natural background readings, and only indicate the emission of radiation that is statistically unlikely to be caused only by random natural fluctuations. When there are significant spikes in radiation above the "ambient" levels, it registers as elevated radiation on the device. Do you honestly think that the engineers and physicists who design these detectors have no idea how environmental radioactivity works?
As I stated in another reply to you elsewhere:
"I detected radiation being emitted from the vehicle. I saw no signage indicating the vehicle was being used in transportation of hazardous radioactive material. Based on this, I suspected that the operator might be transporting radioactive material illegally, and might intend to dispose of it illegally, creating a public health hazard during the transport and after disposal. Based on this suspicion, I made a traffic stop to investigate."
Specific. Articulable. Reasonable.
Any further questions?
And you keep ignoring the simple fact that "reasonable suspicion" doesn't require a "most of the time" qualifier. But if you want to approach it that way, "most of the time," that detector doesn't go off at all. "most of the time," people aren't driving around emitting detectable & elevated-above-background-levels of radiation from their cars. You keep latching on to the "he assumed the guy was a terrorist," angle, and I keep repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in: the guy need not be a terrorist to be engaged in illegal transport and disposal of radioactive materials. And in fact, as the Superfund site list I sent you demonstrates, there HAVE been crimes committed where these materials have been illegally disposed of.
Right, because his first action after pulling somebody over is going to be to dismantle the vehicle and lick every item he finds to try and find the radiation. I know what a patrolman is going to do, if he makes a stop and finds odd, unmarked containers of strange liquid in the trunk of the car: he's going to cordon off the area, and call in a hazmat team, which is precisely what his training would tell him to do. His detector has warned him that there is something emitting radioactive materials, that's all he needs to know to call a hazmat team in for proper disposal if he finds that there is probable cause to believe there's a crime being committed and makes an arrest.
And there are plenty of cases where somebody transporting hazardous materials illegally has committed a crime by both transporting them illegally, and disposing of them illegally. So how is it "reasonable suspicion" when there's a guy with a butcher knife, but not "reasonable suspicion" when it's an unmarked passenger vehicle emitting detectable levels of radiation? Either incident is very rare, there are obvious cases where both are related to criminal activity.
"how much radiation is too much?" ANY. If you're emitting detectable levels of radiation on top of normal background radiation, you are adding to your own (and others) cumulative radiation exposure. Every bit of it adds up. If you go read any of the links I provided (I know, it's slashdot, we don't bother with facts), you'll see some interesting numbers. 1-10 mrem per hour is the "LOW' level detected by a typical detector. 10 millirem is about the strength of a typical chest x-ray. So, expos
One more time: that's not the only crime which it is possible to commit with radiological materials. And it is *reasonable* to suspect that someone who is driving down the street emitting enough radiation to show up on a radiation detector may be engaged in unlawful activity, or a *victim* of unlawful activity. Either way, at that point the officer has the authority (and, I'd argue, a duty) to make a traffic stop and investigate.
"Reasonable suspicion" is based on the totality of the situation, and the totality of the situation is that a privately owned passenger vehicle was driving down the highway emitting enough radiation to be detected as *at least* statistically significant above and beyond background radiation levels, and perhaps even enough to imply that the source of radiation posed an imminent health risk to other people, or the person operating the vehicle. The vehicle displayed no signage indicating it was being used in legitimate transport of hazardous materials, either. Given that unsafe transportation and disposal of radioactive materials *is* a crime, it's hard to see how any argument can be made that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" - enough to warrant a traffic stop - has not been met.
You want an articulable statement to describe the suspicion? Here:
"I detected radiation being emitted from the vehicle. I saw no signage indicating the vehicle was being used in transportation of hazardous radioactive material. Based on this, I suspected that the operator might be transporting radioactive material illegally, and might intend to dispose of it illegally, creating a public health hazard during the transport and after disposal. Based on this suspicion, I made a traffic stop to investigate."
I'd say that's pretty specific, articulable, and reasonable based on the facts the officer had on hand. The traffic stop revealed additional facts that proved the suspicion to be baseless, and the officer let the driver continue on about his business - no arrest was made, no charges were filed, and no verdict will need to be rendered on the non-existent charges pursuant to the non-existent arrest.
Yes, a reasonable person would ask themselves, "what other factors are in play that might give rise to reasonable suspicion?" And those factors are:
1) A private passenger vehicle, emitting some statistically non-trivial, and perhaps even harmful (we don't know the actual dosage readings), level of radiation above average background radiation;
2) Said vehicle containing no indication that it is being used in the transport of hazardous materials;
You're right, "emitting radiation" is not a crime in and of itself - because "emitting radiation" is done by radioactive isotopes, which have no intrinsic rights. But what a human being *does with* those radioactivity-emitting isotopes can very well be a crime, or can be evidence that they themselves have been a victim of a crime.
In light of these additional facts, the (LOW) threshold for "reasonable suspicion" has been met, and the cop may thus make a traffic stop and ask some questions. If the story had continued on to say that, "despite his protests that he had had a medical treatment earlier that day, including production of a valid letter from his doctor indicating the treatment and its side effects, the cops arrested him and locked him in a jail cell for three days," then there would be a justifiable reason to be up in arms over this case. But that didn't happen - the cop said, "hey, you set off my radiation detector," the guy said, "yeah, I had radioactive dye injected for a medical procedure this morning, and here's a letter explaining it," and the cop said, "Okay then, no longer any reason for me to believe something criminal may be happening - have a nice day."
As it is, here on Slashdot, all you have to do to guarantee a host of "HURR DURR KKKOPS R KKKURUPT" comments is post an article titled "Police Officer does something." Because nothing else is required to try, convict, and sentence a cop in the court of Slashdot's public opinion other than a job title.
Well, you can start here for examples of how improper storage, disposal, and / or transport of radioactive wastes has resulted in civil and criminal charges. There's quite a few.
Unsafe transport, storage, and disposal of radiological and other hazardous waste *is* illegal. Irradiating your fellow citizens against their will *is* illegal. Regulations suggest that "maximum" emissions on a vehicle transporting radiological waste is 200 mrem / hr at the *surface* of the vehicle. At 2 meters, the emission cannot register more than 10 mrem / hour. What appears to be a standard, vehicle-mounted detector will detect "Low" (1-10 mrem / hr), "Moderate" (10-100 mrem/hr), and High (100+ mrem / hr) levels, as well as a "minimum detectable level" based on current location's background readings, and statistical variation from that background.
Exposure to levels even at the LOW (1-10 mrem / hr) levels in units of days will result in a public health hazard. Higher levels create those same risks in units of hours, or even minutes, depending on intensity.
Average natural background radiation is in the order of 2.4 millisieverts per year, which translates to roughly 0.03 millirem per hour. So, let's say the detector flags as "minimum detectable" for anything between 0.03 millirem and 1 millirem, assuming you're in an area where radiation is roughly "average."
Now... you're in your squad car day in, day out, and that radioactivity detector never issues a peep. Then one day, it lights up, indicating a vehicle is emitting radiation that is statistically unlikely to be random variations in the background radiation levels. It *could*, given that the man was told to avoid close contact with other people, and stay away from his infant son for at least 24 hours, even be into the "Low" category of risk. And you look and see that the vehicle is not a transport vehicle with placards and other signage indicating that it is transporting hazardous materials, but a normal passenger vehicle. And that doesn't trigger even the slightest shred of "what the fuck is going on here?" suspicion?
Because that's ALL that's required, by law: the suspicion of a reasonable person to be aroused. At that point, it is entirely legal and within due process to make a traffic stop to investigate. What are possible crimes being committed? Well:
1) He's transporting radioactive materials illegally, or perhaps intends to dispose of them illegally;
2) He has been the victim of exposure to radiation through someone else's carelessness or deliberate intent, and so is at risk himself, or putting other people at risk;
3) He has a bomb and intends to set it off;
Of these, #3 is certainly the least likely, and of lowest actual concern. But there are other "reasonable" ways you could suspect a crime that don't even involve "terrorism." Given the number of Superfund sites, and the cost of cleanup for radiological contamination, I could certainly see where somebody who has some material they know to be hazardous might just dump it in the landfill on the sly. It happens - this is how some Superfund sites are created in the first place. Number 2 is perhaps less likely, but it's possible that he's been exposed, either knowingly (i.e., poisoned) or unwittingly, i.e., through some contamination of his home, water supply, food supply, work environment, etc., in which case there is a public safety risk.
Do you also advocate for police to only respond to car crashes when a crime is known to have been committed? If I'm a victim of road rage, they'll come help me, but if I experience mechanical failure, and I lose control, and sideswipe a guardrail, throwing debris across the highway and injuring myself (no crime committe