Other

[Pertinacious Tom]

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, or just saying, "other."

The form that Louisville, Kentucky, police officers use when they seek search warrants includes a list of possible justifications, such as the expectation that stolen property, tools of crime, or other evidence of illegal activity will be discovered. In one case recently highlighted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), an officer checked "other" but wrote nothing on the three lines next to that option, where he was supposed to explain the reason for the warrant.


A judge nevertheless gave the officer permission to search a man's home. That incident underlines a lesson that comes through clearly in a DOJ report published last week: The civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are meaningless without an infrastructure of accountability that ensures those promises are kept.

...

Other. A cop wrote that, which is pretty disturbing. Far more disturbing, a judge thought it OK.

And it wasn't one incident.

The 90-page DOJ report lays out a litany of outrageous police abuses in Louisville, including illegal searches, unannounced home invasions, excessive force, and retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Those abuses were tolerated and abetted by supervisors and judges who shirked their constitutional obligations.

In Louisville, the DOJ says, "search warrant applications routinely fail to demonstrate probable cause," which requires "a reasonable belief, based on trustworthy information," that police will find evidence of a crime. Affidavits commonly relied on boilerplate language instead of specific evidence, misused confidential informants, and failed to justify the breadth of the warrants that police were seeking.

Those deficiencies, which cut the heart out of the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures," might have been discovered by supervisors, in-house counsel, or prosecutors if they had reviewed the affidavits. But they did not, and judges rubber-stamped the warrants despite "glaring omissions."

Boilerplate warrants approved with cursory, if any, examination are a feature, not a bug, of the stupid drug war.

 

[Raz'r]

Odd that I can see a topic that someone wrote, said someone having me on double-secret ignore.

 

[tybee]

Odd that I can see a topic that someone wrote, said someone having me on double-secret ignore.

ditto. has he "relented" or simply come to his "senses"?

 

[Grrr...]

ditto. has he "relented" or simply come to his "senses"?

Maybe, after ignoring all the people who told him he was an idiot, he got tired of being the only one here?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Sorry, I probably should have mentioned that there are threads devoted solely to gossip about me here and here.

This thread is more intended for those who would not be interested in gossip.

 

[BeSafe]

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, or just saying, "other."

Yea, that's pretty clear evidence that things are dumb.

I have to fill out a 'variance report' that explains why my budget is more than 10% off of forecast in any given month. My projects are always larger ticket items that arrive every few months and the forcast is a nice linear projection of annual spending. My receivables are lumpy. It's blind luck if I happen to hit within 10% on any given month - but over years, i'm always in the pipe.

So, every month or so, I cut-and-paste the same generic reply about delivery schedules. And management knows this - they aren't dumb and approve the budget and know what's going to happen. But there's only one form and the reality is the spending they're worried about is a different chunk of managers who have a different kinda job. But we can't really have a 'budget review' where its only half of the budget.. soo.....

That's the problem with forms in a nutshell. One size rarely fits all.

My bet is that 90% of the 'others' are completely justified - which is why they get use to using other. But that complaciancy is what leads to stupid fuckers doing stupid shit like Brianna Taylor.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

My bet is that 90% of the 'others' are completely justified - which is why they get use to using other. But that complaciancy is what leads to stupid fuckers doing stupid shit like Brianna Taylor.

I don't know if I'd guess that high. Did you read the other article, linked in the quoted text of my topic post? A "pattern and practice" indicates more than ten percent.

...

The investigation found stunningly unprofessional behavior by LMPD officers.

"Some officers have videotaped themselves throwing drinks at pedestrians from their cars; insulted people with disabilities; and called Black people 'monkeys,' 'animal,' and 'boy,'" the report says.

The two-year investigation also found that LMPD unreasonably deployed tasers and police dogs on compliant and non-threatening suspects and used unjustified neck restraints.

Narcotics search warrants reviewed by Justice Department investigators were constitutionally deficient. Some were missing sufficient details to establish probable cause, and others were overbroad. LMPD officers also misused confidential informants to obtain search warrants on flimsy grounds.

And when officers carried out those search warrants, they often violated residents' rights by failing to properly knock and announce their presence before bursting into a house.

...

I think the stupid drug war is hard to enforce because it involves a lot of consensual, private behavior, so drug war units tend to view the fourth amendment as an obstacle to be ignored if possible, worked around if not.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

My bet is that 90% of the 'others' are completely justified - which is why they get use to using other. But that complaciancy is what leads to stupid fuckers doing stupid shit like Brianna Taylor.

If they're even partially justified, I would expect something other than this:

In Louisville, the DOJ says, "search warrant applications routinely fail to demonstrate probable cause,"

If they have probable cause, but "routinely" fail to demonstrate it, that's pretty bad.

If they don't have it at all but are "tolerated and abetted by supervisors and judges who shirked their constitutional obligations," well, that's the stupid drug war for you.

 

[BeSafe]

Yea, my intent was not to justify bureaucracy, only elucidate how they think and tend to operate.

I've worked with a pretty decent number of tradesmen and honestly, most of them are good guys but can't - in writing - defend what they do. They can tell you what they're doing. They can tell you why they're doing it. They can show you what's going on. But they can't put it on paper in any meaningful way. What ends up happening is someone else up ends up redrafting and changing the language to fit the appropriate form. I help people draft stuff all the time, and go to probably annoying lengths to make sure that the person I'm helping understands what I've changed, why, and learn the skill so they can fill out said form without my help next time. That takes a lot of time from me, up front, but I like to believe it saves me time later and helps the person learn a skill so they can advance their career when they move to a new job or position.

The downside of that is concentration of soft power. You HOPE that the guy helping draft all these documents isn't evil, malicious, or self serving. But only time can justify that.

The solution is to a) simplify the documentation and b) make sure there's enough time and training to get the documentation done correctly and c) that you've hired the right folks in the first place.

Raise taxes, spend the money.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yea, my intent was not to justify bureaucracy, only elucidate how they think and tend to operate.

I've worked with a pretty decent number of tradesmen and honestly, most of them are good guys but can't - in writing - defend what they do. They can tell you what they're doing. They can tell you why they're doing it. They can show you what's going on. But they can't put it on paper in any meaningful way. What ends up happening is someone else up ends up redrafting and changing the language to fit the appropriate form. I help people draft stuff all the time, and go to probably annoying lengths to make sure that the person I'm helping understands what I've changed, why, and learn the skill so they can fill out said form without my help next time. That takes a lot of time from me, up front, but I like to believe it saves me time later and helps the person learn a skill so they can advance their career when they move to a new job or position.

The downside of that is concentration of soft power. You HOPE that the guy helping draft all these documents isn't evil, malicious, or self serving. But only time can justify that.

The solution is to a) simplify the documentation and b) make sure there's enough time and training to get the documentation done correctly and c) that you've hired the right folks in the first place.

Raise taxes, spend the money.

The thing about a warrant that's different from other forms people fill out is this:

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.

The whole end of the amendment is about making government agents put it on paper.

"Other" makes a complete mockery of the fourth amendment. It's never justified.