The Volokh Conspiracy

Sounds like one of the process servers around here.

Thing is, if it had been the Bush administration instead of a Kentucky sheriff, they'd grab the wrong guy, and then the guy would spend 5 years in Gitmo, because we gotta "defer to the executive" on these things.

Is this what passes for humor among the Dems these days?

"Is this what passes for humor among the Dems these days?"

Actually I think it's what passes for humor among Republicans these days. Oh, and their definition of rights.

this story is wonderful from beginning to end...i am glad anderson was able to add to the high comedy.

the rationale for going forward with a suit against Butler County was genius -

Oros, who lives in Earlimart, Calif., said he's never sued anybody before, and he is reluctant to sue Butler County, in part because of his affection for Gaddie.

"I love that guy," Oros said.

But he said he's poor and needs the money, in part to pay $10,000 in restitution on a previous conviction for theft.

"I asked him why he signed the waiver of extradition," Gaddie said. "And he said he didn't know what he was signing."

The nice man with the gun wanted him to sign it, evidently.

Too bad they didn't think to bring along a confession to the anthrax killings.

Well, at least they didn't send a gang team of masked thugs officers armed with automatic weapons and grenades to kick in anyone's door and shoot up the wrong place in the process. If the authorities are going to make mistakes when arresting people (and they are--nobody's perfect) I'd much rather see more like this and fewer in which innocent peoples' homes get trashed and innocent people get killed.

OK, I shouldn't have counted the 49 cents going to California. But still...

On the way there, they stopped to sightsee at country music star Buck Owens' Crystal Palace in Bakersfield, Calif.

Oros was incarcerated in Tehachapi. What route did they take from Kentucky that sent them through Bakersfield to get to Tehachapi?

Whit, I agree with you in theory. In practice, try reading, side by side, cases about what constitutes probable cause to search someone: He was talking on his cell phone, or he wasn't talking on his cell phone, or he had luggage, or he didn't have luggage, or he was driving the speed limit, or he wasn't driving the speed limit. In practice, most judges (and juries) accept as gospel pretty much any story a police officer decides to tell no matter how silly, implausible, or internally inconsistent.

I realize that after spending 10 or 20 years on the street one develops a gut instinct that can't always be well-articulated, but still. I'm not saying that police as a group are stupid or dishonest; I'm just saying that under the current system there's no real reason for them not to be.

Whit, I agree with you in theory. In practice, try reading, side by side, cases about what constitutes probable cause to search someone: He was talking on his cell phone, or he wasn't talking on his cell phone, or he had luggage, or he didn't have luggage, or he was driving the speed limit, or he wasn't driving the speed limit. In practice, most judges (and juries) accept as gospel pretty much any story a police officer decides to tell no matter how silly, implausible, or internally inconsistent.

among other things, what constitutes (or is recognized ) as PC by one officer is NOT necessarily the same thing as that recognized by another BECAUSE a more experienced officer knows far more than a rookie, etc. and can thus rely on a much broader base of knowledge to meet that "totality of the circumstances" that = probable cause.

i TOTALLY disagree that judges and juries accept as "gospel" what a police officer says. that is simply nonsense, but typical of what one would see from a defense attorney bias. have you actually spent any time in a courtroom?

sure cops are going to have MORE credibility than the average (lawyer, car salesman, etc.).

I realize that after spending 10 or 20 years on the street one develops a gut instinct that can't always be well-articulated, but still. I'm not saying that police as a group are stupid or dishonest; I'm just saying that under the current system there's no real reason for them not to be.

we're not talking gut instincts. gut instincts can only justify non-privacy intruding methods, and certainly don't constutute PC. like if i have a gut instinct guy X is up to no good, I can follow him or keep watching him vs. driving on. I can't stop him (no reasonable suspicion) and that certainly isn't PC.

but certainly, some cops develop AMAZING instincts. One of my FTO's was like that. The guy was amazing. I never saw him make a "bad stop" iow he always had valid legal reasons. But part of the art for him was choosing where to be, and WHICH people to stop. and an EXTREMELY high percentage of the time he would make a stop, he would get stolen property, warrants, drugs, illegal guns, etc. It was simply amazing. Certainly, some of his observations could add to RS (and/or PC) but you need a lot more than just that.

as for your last point, there is PLENTY of reason for cops to be honest. It's called integrity. Not to mention for some - the fear of perjury convictions, getting fired, etc.

and it doesn't have to be 10 or 20 years. The layman simply doesn't understand (and I have had several people remark this to me AFTER doing a ride along with me) the depth of knowledge and observational skills the average patrol guy with even 5 yrs on has. I read an article once that drew an equivalence in terms of working knowledge in their job between a 5 yr busy street cop and a 3rd year medical resident at a busy hospital. take that for what it's worth.

the ultimate 'proof' for me is that when i have an instinct, and that instinct turns out later to be correct. FAR more often than not. remember how the french connection case was solved. one guy suspiciously throwing around too much money in a bar led a savvy cop to a huge bust. that's how good police work is done (and this applies to intelligence work too, in which our country got way off track pre-9.11 and we are just starting to recover). it is amazing what you can observe when you open your eyes. most people don't. and when you apply those observations, compare them with a whole bunch of other subtle things, and a large base of knowledge- it's not magic or secret. it's expertise.

Having once been a 3d year medical student myself, that instills exactly no confidence in the observational powers of the police.

except i didn't say third year medical STUDENT.

I said third year medical RESIDENT.

last i checked, a resident had received a medical degree already, and who practices medicine under supervision. or at least wikipedia thinks so.

from wikipedia...

Residency is a stage of graduate medical training. A resident physician or resident is a person who has received a medical degree and who practices medicine under the supervision of fully licensed physicians, usually in a hospital or clinic. A residency may follow the internship year or include the internship year as the first year of residency. The residency can also be followed by a fellowship, during which the physician is trained in a sub-speciality. Successful completion of residency training is a requirement to practice medicine in many jurisdictions.

Whereas medical school teaches medical practitioners a broad range of medical knowledge, basic clinical skills, and limited experience practicing medicine, medical residency gives in-depth training within a specific branch of medicine. A medical practitioner may choose a residency in anesthesiology, sports medicine, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatric medicine, psychiatry, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, radiation oncology, or other specialities; such as surgery.