Bchurch,

Do you have a link to the message board indication?

I've seen several blog reactions, the general reaction I have seen is that Cooper is a bit odd but this "sting" is OK>

And yes, that some action will be taken against him and the organisation. Wasting police time, violating the cops' rights [privacy] by photographing them without permission, whatever.

EvilDave,

I hope you can keep the devil down in the hole.

Prof Kerr,

It's actually hearsay from comments at the Agitator. the site itself doesn't seem to be working for me now:

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/06/gotcha/

This is allegedly the comment and the address at which it's listed:

“They busted the cops by making a fake grow room that pumped out a lot of heat, sent in an anonymous tip, and waited.”

http://nevergetbusted.com/ngbbb/about1999.html

I guess it's possible that the tip was worded in a way to be technically true, but it still provides an entirely legitimate avenue to pursue PC (through, e.g., electric bills, lamp store records, etc.). I'd say a fake CI is more likely than FLIR assuming all this is true.

BChurch, it seems like you must be referring to the comments on The Raw Story. If so, that was just someone speculating that they might have called in a tip without any knowledge that this is so.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/rawstory/13254/

Thanks, all. If this is really a post by the lawyer, then this seems extra fishy: How would Kopbusters know the timing of the raid so the lawyer could be there? Hmm, may have to wait and see what happens with the facts on this one.

Comment #24 on the Agitator post purports to be by a lawyer who was part of the set-up. The commenter (under the name Adam Reposa) explicitly admits that an anonymous tip was called in.

Since that comment includes a phone number and email contacts I am inclined to believe this commenter is who he claims to be

It's an open secret that cops use IR without a warrant, settings aside Kyllo and their putative professionalism. Of course, in some sense, how can we blame them? We charge them with enforcing drug laws that, by their very definition, are impossible to investigate without intruding onto private matters. I really don't envy the LEO on the drug squad -- if he doesn't violate the 4A he's not really doing his job.

Maybe, in the spirit of handgun control laws, we can get laws restricting the police from possession of IR-cameras except pursuant to warrant. Any takers?

Cops need to be kept honest.

That said, the way to do it is by working within the system...unless you like anarchy.

Sooner or later, there just won't be any cops willing to take a $hitty job for low pay, What do you expect from high school educated cops who have 8-20 weeks of formal training and are sent out to take out the trash, all the while being watched by well-paid lawyers with lots of time to find the mistakes that are inevitable.

It's not just the cops who screw up, it's the system that's screwed up.

Sooner or later, there just won't be any cops willing to take a $hitty job for low pay, What do you expect from high school educated cops who have 8-20 weeks of formal training and are sent out to take out the trash, all the while being watched by well-paid lawyers with lots of time to find the mistakes that are inevitable.

Cops in my city make more than PDs and non-supervisory prosecutors. Plus they can retire at 50% salary after 20 years. Still a hard job, and not one I'd care to do - but the idea that they are underpaid, undereducated guys led around by highly paid...PDs? With a lot of spare time? Is ludicrous.

I feel very uncomfortable about setting up a show like this to go after cops. I happen to like law enforcement. I don't relish the idea of cops violating the law, but I also don't relish the idea of baiting traps to catch them.

The end result could be less willingness by the police to investigate crimes. It's always going to be easier to sit on your can than to actively try to investigate crimes and catch criminals.

> I don't like dope laws, don't like dope either. I've found it is closely associated with all sorts of depredation and misery. What do we do about it? Legalize it? Then all the problems it causes will go away fer shurr man.

Legalization doesn't have to solve all of the problems to be better than the current system, it merely has to be better than the current system.

The relevant test is "do the actual benefits of the restrictions exceed the actual costs of the restrictions?"

No - you don't get to say that the restrictions are good because if they worked, no one would have drugs because the restrictions don't seem to significantly affect availability. At best, they seem to reduce social acceptance, aka demand, but that's mainly among a population that it isn't worth "de-drugging". The problem users aren't deterred/discouraged.

The relevant test is "do the actual benefits of the restrictions exceed the actual costs of the restrictions?"

Well, I'm not too concerned about drug dealers and users, I'm concerned about the peripheral damage. Who gets to determine whether the benefits exceed the costs? Especially when it comes to the kids who had the bad luck to be born to a crack whore or a tweeker?

Fundamentally, what the issue is is how much should we spend to deter or at least diminish children's involuntary exposure to drugs. I know of efforts to use child abuse laws to intervene in drug use situations, but the expedient way to do it is to make it as inconvenient as possible for people to screw up their lives through the use of drugs (whether legal or not).

Drugs are but the symptom of the illness. One huge problem is that there seems to be no recognition in the law for society to "self-correct" by means of extra-legal sanctions. E.g. When I was a kid, back around the middle of the last century, I lived in a close-knit community wherein everybody knew everybody. The result of this was that there was no anonymity and therefore it was much harder to get away with even minor misconduct. My misconduct resulted in sanctions by many, if not most of the adults I encountered -including the police. Hopefully, we can get back to that. I don't care at all about drug abusers. Their lives are theirs to ruin or rehabilitate. What I do care about is the innocent victims, the weight on the health care system, etc. What should we do?

Well, I'm not too concerned about drug dealers and users, I'm concerned about the peripheral damage.

Prohibition of alcohol was a failure because it caused many people to make flagrant disregard of the law. The fact that there might have been a few less "problem" drinkers and the associated "peripheral damage" does not make up for that and the not insignificant corruption of the justice system.

Look at the ridiculous kabuki dance public officials who came of age in the 70s do now: I didn't inhale, I tried it once, etc.

Ohgoodgrief:

Fundamentally, what the issue is is how much should we spend to deter or at least diminish children's involuntary exposure to drugs. I know of efforts to use child abuse laws to intervene in drug use situations, but the expedient way to do it is to make it as inconvenient as possible for people to screw up their lives through the use of drugs (whether legal or not).

First of all, I don't think it is a question of to legalize or not to legalize. I think the only real question is how to legalize. I say this as someone who tried pot a few times in college and didn't really like it (and today would not use it because it *would* affect my ability to do my job).

I think the key question is what we want to get out of legalization, and how do we want to structure legalization to have that effect. My own thinking here is that I would like to see:

1) Deprive organized crime of money
2) Reduce the impact of the black market
3) Overall, reduce drug abuse.

I would thus like to see growing small numbers of plants of cannabis permitted (opium poppy plants are controlled substances, but that is largely unenforced). I would like to see some controlled import of raw coca leaves. And I would like to see import of marijuana generally controlled at least until the organized crime issue can be sorted out.

I also think that we would like to see some new regulations, governing use of refined psychoactive substances in manufacturing of foods and beverages. The alternative might be to ban refined caffeine if people discover it could be a very powerful (and actually very dangerous) stimulant. I would like to see refined caffeine and similar drugs) require a license to obtain.

Refined caffeine is pretty broad -- coffee beans are roasted ya know.

Ok, I meant pure refined caffeine, not just fermented/roasted plant matter (I think plant matter generally needs to be deregulated).

Anyone who has ever spent any time around off-duty police officers knows about that little scam.
spent almost my whole life around them, i never knew any like that

There are certainly some bad ones, but not all, not even close.

einhverfr,

Does that deregulation of plant matter include things like castor beans?

The Drug Laws do provide important protection to the public.

They make illegal drugs easier to get than beer.

How is that protecting the public you ask?

Well. Uh. Never mind.

i am 100% for "sunshining" abuse and bad police work. and of course i am against the war on drugs. with that in mind

i take issue with the claim that

"When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house"

specifically, the "usually" word. do they have actual evidence that cops USUALLY do this? i doubt it.

and of course we could do away with all this nonsense if the frigging LEGISLATURE would simply decriminalize/legalize marijuana.

it's kind of ironic that they claim police "usually" do this FLIR etc. crap. i've been involved in scores of mj grow search warrants, and have never used flir.

i was involved in one the other day where you could CLEARLY smell the fresh marijuana, there were two windows ajar (IN DECEMBER) to let the lovely odor out, the power meter was spinning like a frigging top (yet the house had gas heat), etc. etc.

but again, we can do away with all this stupid mj enforcement by simply decrim'ing it.

i also take issue with ein...' post about controlling "refined caffeine" etc. we need LESS regulation, not more. we already had to go through ridiculous congressional brouhaha about ephedrine (with bogus AER's etc.) etc. etc.

also, excessive power use, blacked out windows, etc. in and of itself is not (should not) be PC for marijuana grows. there are plenty of legal things people can grow that have similar factors attached.

Dan Simon

I believe that drug laws provide important protection to the public, but that the rule prohibiting infrared scans of homes by the police is unbelievably stupid. Am I entitled to argue that it shouldn't be enforced? Or are judicial fiats somehow morally binding in a way that democratically enacted legislation is not?

You're entitled to argue that the moon is made of green cheese, if you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that police should be subject to higher standards than the citizens since they're entrusted with the citizens' collective police power. That means there's far more harm when the police break the law and get away with it as compared to the harm of citizens breaking the law and getting away with it, all other things equal.

Well, this sure puts "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" on the other foot for once, doesn't it?

As for decrim, even the liberal states (WA, OR, CA, NY and now MA) do not allow cultivation.

In CA, medical marijuana users and their designated "caregivers" can grow if they also have a 215 license, as long as they are not selling it.

OhGoodGrief:

"Sooner or later, there just won't be any cops willing to take a $hitty job for low pay, What do you expect from high school educated cops who have 8-20 weeks of formal training and are sent out to take out the trash, all the while being watched by well-paid lawyers with lots of time to find the mistakes that are inevitable. "

Asie from the fact that there's a waiting list to join the police force in many areas, the laywers watching the police are generally either PD's, paid like sh*t, or ACLU, pro bono. As for 'inevitable mistakes', read 'The Agitator, and note the ratio of abuses to 'inevitable mistakes'.

Just be a bit careful about that smell - just yesterday (2008DEC08) FARK.COM linked to a case in the UK where that smell wafted through the neighborhood, and an armed SWAT-style force forced entry. Seems the couple living there liked the pretty purple flowers of a certain moss [sic] and had a lot of it in their back garden - and it smells exactly like marijuana.

that's fine. i can only state from past experience, that when i did a search pursuant to PC and that included the smell of mj, i have never failed to find mj there.

n= at least 100

Whit, Barry Cooper says that his task force (Permian Basin Drug Task Force) did this all the time. Odessa is part of the PBDTF. It's a reasonable inference if we have (a) actual evidence in this case and (b) an officer from that task force testifying to that effect.

i don't think that's a reasonable inference at all. just because his organization was corrupt, according to him, doesn't mean others do the same thing USUALLY.

i am not denying it happens, i am asking for proof for "USUALLY".

i have never seen it happen, and i've worked for 3 agencies.

fwiw, i could name 20 houses off the top of my head that we "know" are grow ops or labs, but we are not going to manufacture evidence or break the law to go after them. since we don't have PC, they continue to do what they do.

if they can ply their trade and we can't develop PC , then they get to continue to do what they do.

As for decrim, even the liberal states (WA, OR, CA, NY and now MA) do not allow cultivation. Would you vote for legalization cultivation? Any amount? # of plants?

i disagree. WA protect cultivation
RCW 69.51a.010

"(2) "Medical use of marijuana" means the production, possession, or administration of marijuana, as defined in RCW 69.50.101(q), for the exclusive benefit of a qualifying patient in the treatment of his or her terminal or debilitating illness."


refer to : In 2008, the Washington State Department of Health defined a 60-day supply of medical marijuana as no more than 24 ounces of usable marijuana and no more than 15 plants, at any stage of growth. Patients who possess no more than this amount will be presumed to be in compliance with the law

the law as i understand it protects people in possessing mj, to include plants.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=182

see also:
"Under the Medical Marijuana Act, the cultivation of marijuana plants for the personal, medical use of a patient is permitted."
http://www.eventure.com/i692/Pages/brochure.html

my understanding has always been that in my state (WA) somebody can grow their own medical mj, as long as it is not more than a 60 day supply/15 plants.

see also the NORML website:
SUMMARY: "Fifty-nine percent of voters approved Measure 692 on November 3, 1998. The law took effect on that day. It removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess "valid documentation" from their physician affirming that he or she suffers from a debilitating condition and that the "potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks." Patients diagnosed with the following illnesses are afforded legal protection under this act: cachexia; cancer; HIV or AIDS; epilepsy; glaucoma; intractable pain (defined as pain unrelieved by standard treatment or medications); and multiple sclerosis. Other conditions are subject to approval by the Washington Board of Health. Patients (or their primary caregivers) may legally possess or cultivate no more than a 60-day supply of marijuana. The law does not establish a state-run patient registry"

i thought you meant they didn't allow cultivation for medical mj patients. they do.

regardless, i think mj should be (at least) decrim'd and/or legalized.

and considering all the wanking i am hearing about the crap economy (i love bear markets, fwiw), it would certainly be a good way to raise income - mj tax!

i thought i made it clear. maybe it was implied.

i think as long as the people are adults, non-medical citizens should be able to cultivate all the mj they want.

if they are going to sell it, they should need a business license, etc. obviously.

i thought i made it clear. maybe it was implied.

i think as long as the people are adults, non-medical citizens should be able to cultivate all the mj they want.

if they are going to sell it, they should need a business license, etc. obviously.

It wasn't clear to me, but you can assign blame for that however you like. :-)

That's a long way away, at any rate. Better for now to decrim simple possession (that's about all the public can handle) and rely on the 4A to protect growhouses.