On 1/21/14, 5:31 PM, Gene Kearns wrote:
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.....


Are you on travel leave, Gene, or did the cold seek you out where you live?