Rick Collins, bought your book AND

[Dr. JK]

I think it's the best book I have spent money on since Anabolics 2000/2002

I didn't believe in buying it because I thought it would pertain mostly to US law and not enough clear direction/examples for the Canadians, but boy was I wrong.

Great info and clear/straight forward examples of how things are done and looked at in the judicial system.

Although I live in Canada and the laws are different in terms of gear "posession", the laws are similar in other aspects, i.e. RPG's, search warrents, seaizures and most importantly say nothing when detained without a lawyer.

I like how you gave examples of how NOT to allow your privacy to be intruded/invaded, i.e. the knock & talk part and "pit bulls' using intimidation tactics.

I am up to the chapter on how gear is used in medicne so still not half way through, but definitely a MUST read for anyone interested in the law.

The only thing I didn't notice (would suggest) is enough info on wire taps , i.e. how are they initiated/approved and used in the system. For example if code words are used on the phone how do the pit-bulls use understand it/use it.

Also, one more thing, wire taps sometimes are started without the JP's approval and then worked backwards to be justified. How do we protect our Charter of Rights (Canadian term) to that privacy invasion??

I posted some questions a while ago. Maybe you can find some time to elaborate more on this topic. If it is in the book then my appologies and please direct me to the Chapter/page.

Once again great book still got lot of reading/learning to do.

PS.
What does JD mean?

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

JD is the abbrevaition for juris doctorate, the degree that is awarded in U.S. law schools for successful completion of the curriculum. Technically speaking, lawyers call also go around calling themselves "doctor" because they have a doctorate degree. For some reason they don't, and believe me, it's not humility.

Did you like the story about "Pit Bull" the cop who pulls those kids over? Yeah, I like that one too.

RW

 

[Dr. JK]

Thanks for the JD clarification, RW.

How true is the connection between Mexican pharmacies and Mexican customs?? That is scary shit to say the least.

Also, Rick talks about the how cops will ask if they search the car (look around) and you object by saying no. What is the best way to "say no" nicely so the cop does not turn into a "pit bull" and cause more grief, like calling in the K9 unit?

Cops here get defensive if you are not open with your answers and automatically assume something is up, just because you want you right to un-biased privacy.

I just want my privacy protected.

Thanks for the help/info RW

DR. JK

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

There is state case law to support the assertion that it is improper for police to even ask for consent to search the vehicle whilke on a simple traffic stop. Just firmly refuse the search. "Fuck off pig" might be a bit much, but you get the point.

There isn't any scientific evidence to support the contention that k-9 units can detect AAS; it's simply bullshit.

RW

 

[Rick Collins]

WOW, Dr. JK, I'm glad even Canadians love LEGAL MUSCLE!!! [But I suspected they might .] Please spread the word to your buddies up North!

As for wiretaps, they are almost never used in steroid investigations. I could offer a basic overview on electronic surveillance at some point, but it would be mostly academic. LEGAL MUSCLE covers virtually every important gear-related legal issue, and then some! Enjoy!!!

 

[Biter]

Agree with the good doctor

Awesome, awesome book Rick. Truly eye opening!

I've been going through this thing like wildfire. Amazing stuff.

Thanks Rick!

 

[liftshard]

"Juris Doctorate"?? This is abhorrent.

It is "Juris Doctor."

As far as police and searches...ALWAYS decline consent for a search.

Let me just paraphrase what I just said so that I can be clearer - NEVER CONSENT to a search. Ever. Never. Ever. Ever.

Got it yet? If they wanna fuck with you, they will. K9s cannot sniff AAS. They're trained on particular drugs, normally all the recreational shit. If the cops ask you if they can search your car, say "No; I do not consent to your searching the car." They will probably start with the shit about "what do you have to hide?" At this point, ask if you are under arrest and if their answer is "no," attempt to leave. Once the cops forcibly detain you, your legal status changes and the rules of what they can and cannot do change.

Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has ruled that "stop and sniff" checkpoints are violative of the 4th Amendment. It is simply not the case that you can be detained and your car sniffed over without probable cause - the Court ruled that this level of intrusion in terms of detainment must be supported by a valid arrest. If you are crossing the border, this is not the case. You and your car can be searched for any reason.

The most common uses of drug dogs are for searching border crossers or people using common carriers. However, if your pissed off ex-girlfriend rats you out, the cops may arrest you pursuant to probable cause and then bring a dog to sniff your car.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

"Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has ruled that "stop and sniff" checkpoints are violative of the 4th Amendment. It is simply not the case that you can be detained and your car sniffed over without probable cause - the Court ruled that this level of intrusion in terms of detainment must be supported by a valid arrest.

This is an interesting anomaly. If they have PC and effectuate the arrest, they could go ahead and perform the search and this would obviate the need for the K-9 unit. Please share the citations for this line of cases. I assume it is a line of cases, as you refer to it as jurisprudence.


RW

 

[liftshard]

The stop and sniff case was decided in 2000. It is not a line of cases. It is one case in a line involving the 4th Amendment and increasing encroachment on it.

I can go get a cite on FindLaw...ah, here it is: City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 (2000). I think Scalia and Rhenquist dissented, but they've never yet found a limit to the police power of the State or failed to find a "compelling State interest" that would necessitate curtailment of the Constitution's protections.