On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:48:58 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:57:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Victim Of Dog-Authorized Anal Assault Receives $1.6 Million Settlement

http://tinyurl.com/mshgq8n

See above. That's how the story could have been posted.

Why would anyone dislike the outcome? Seems like you should get the SCOTUS to revise its ruling:

"The Supreme Court has said such evidence by itself provides probable cause for a search unless the
suspect can show the dog is unreliable-an opportunity that does not arise until long after the
search is carried out.

The point wasn't that the search was unconstitutional, the point was
that they went crazy with two X-rays, two digital probes of his anus,
three enemas, and a colonoscopy.

Any one of which would have been sufficient.

Plus, a dog alerted by sniffing a seat.... really?

Maintain too wide a stance and you are guilty of lewd conduct; too
narrow a stance and you are a drug mule. Maybe the SCOTUS needs to
visit "stance profiling" ?!?!

It's cold, the weather sucks, so I'm staying in.... they'll never get
me here.....