posted 12-10-2003 10:47 PM            

CHARLESTON — The Goose Creek Police Department appears not to have followed its own rules on using drug dogs in its guns-drawn raid at Stratford High School last month.

A videotape the Police Department released shows a police dog passing close by students who had been forced to kneel on the floor during the Nov. 5 raid. It also captures an officer lecturing students as that part of the raid ends.

“If you’re an innocent bystander to what has transpired here today, you can thank those people that are bringing dope into this school. Every time we think there’s dope in this school, we’re going to be coming up here to deal with it, and this is one of the ways we can deal with it,” the unidentified officer says.

More than 100 students were in the hallway that morning as a police dog passed close by, barking and excitedly sniffing their backpacks. At one point, the dog grabs a backpack with its mouth and shakes it. At another time, the dog jumps briefly on its hind legs onto his handler as they check students huddling in an alcove.

The department’s procedure on “illegal narcotics detection” states, “Only after the on-scene supervisor has cleared the area of all personnel will the canine enter and conduct an illegal narcotics detection.”

The tape shows Goose Creek police officer Jeff Parrish and Major, a Czechoslovakian shepherd, entering the hallway.

Jim Watson, secretary of the North American Police Work Dog Association, says Goose Creek’s K-9 unit is certified. Watson won’t comment on the Stratford search, which found no drugs, but says he knows Parrish and Major.

“Jeff is nationally certified, and he has a helluva good dog. He has excellent control of the dog,” Watson said.

Major is an extremely sociable dog that “loves to search for narcotics,” Watson said.

Barking during a drug search isn’t a threat, Watson said. Dogs are taught to treat finding drugs as a game of hide and seek.

“Why is a dog barking?” Watson said. “It’s not because it wants to bite someone. He just wants to play that game.”

Some dogs are trained as passive alert dogs and will sit when drugs are found. Others are aggressive alert canines and bark or take other actions.

“The Supreme Court has ruled you can search a person with a passive alert dog,” said Cpl. Louis Reed of the Charleston Police Department. “We have a passive alert dog, but we still don’t search people because of the possibility of someone saying something happened to them or that they felt threatened.”

Other agencies, including Reed’s, wouldn’t allow police dogs to go near children during drug sweeps.

“We don’t want people to say they were threatened by the dog,” Reed said.

Students could stare, make catcalls or provoke a dog in other ways, he said. While Reed won’t comment on the specifics of the Stratford High sweep, “it’s not how my unit would have done it,” he said.

In a lawsuit filed Friday, students say they felt frightened as the dog passed by, and they say the dog was unruly and appeared to be unresponsive to commands.

Charleston’s prosecutor last week turned an investigation into the raid over to state Attorney General Henry McMaster.

Apart from a surveillance camera that triggered the national reaction to the raid, a police officer videotaped the incident. The Post and Courier of Charleston obtained a copy of that tape under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

That recording begins seconds after a team of Goose Creek officers sealed one of Stratford’s hallways. Two officers can be seen with their guns drawn

“Get on the ground! Get on the ground!” an officer yells as students fall to the floor. “Hands on your head, hands on your head, do you understand?”

A few minutes later, a voice on a loudspeaker says, “All right, bring the dogs down.”

posted 12-10-2003 10:54 PM            

I hope the parents sue those cops and principles asses off.

How would THOSE cops like german shepards snapping at their kids necks and steroid amped, nazi-like males point guns at the back of THEIR kids heads on SUSPICION of having drugs?

Yep...its the new AmeriKa...spelled with a big fat K.

Guilty untill proven innocent.

posted 12-10-2003 11:06 PM            

Now they are using those same "Anti-terrorism" laws to apply to "the war on drugs" (the war on the poor).

But its "FOR YOUR SAFETY".

One more way of reducing your liberty.

It's a sick joke and totally unacceptable in a freedom loving society.

posted 12-11-2003 05:23 PM            

Phoenix school first to install face scanners
advertisement

System can spot sex offenders

Pat Kossan
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 11, 2003 12:00 AM

A north-central Phoenix school is the first in the nation to install cameras designed to detect the faces of sex offenders or missing children and instantly alert police.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office used a grant to install equipment in the entrance and attendance office at Royal Palm Middle School, 8520 N. 19th Ave. The cameras are expected to be operating next week.

Rebecca Dornbusch, deputy director of the International Biometric Industry Association in Washington D.C., had never heard of biometric face scanning being used on K-12 campuses. Biometric handprints are being used by a few day care centers to insure the right adults are picking up kids after school, she said.

"This is a very interesting and new application of the technology," Dornbusch said.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the cameras cost about $3,000 to $5,000 for a school to install and will not violate the privacy of anyone not already in the Arizona sex offender or in the national missing children databases, including possible abductors of missing children. If the camera registers a possible hit, the Sheriff's Office is quietly alerted and will send a deputy or police officer to investigate.

Arpaio said the Royal Palm system is not set to recognize people wanted for other crimes. School districts are not interested in becoming law enforcement agencies, he said.

"The main issue is to take care of kids," Arpaio said. "We're not going to go after people who have warrants."

The system scans 28 facial features and matches them against logged images in the databases. School personnel will not know about the alert, and images that do not match the databases are erased, with no permanent recording.

Mary Lou Micheaels is a mother of three and a member of the Washington District School Board. She's heard no complaints from parents.

"I wanted to make sure it was a system that protected our children and protected people's privacy," Micheaels said. "If one child isn't abducted, or one is found, it's worth it."

Principal Mike Christensen carries around the responsibility for the safety of Royal Palm's 1,180 seventh- and eighth-graders. Christensen said he volunteered to test the new equipment, even though the campus has reported no problems.

"I do not think we can do too much," Christensen said. "When kids walk on campus, the expectation is they need to be safe."

Royal Palm mother Teresa Johnson said she supports the idea and would like to see the campus install a third biometric camera in the parking lot, a more likely place to find sex offenders lurking.

Arpaio's office already is using biometric equipment to help verify the identity of suspects being booked into county jails. The locally based Hummingbird Defense Systems donated $350,000 worth of equipment to Arpaio's office for pilot projects.

The chances of catching a molester or finding a missing child on this campus are remote, Arpaio said, but this is an experiment that could begin to make a difference in a growing problem. Arpaio said he's ready to help other districts install the equipment.

posted 12-11-2003 06:03 PM            

Many are blind to the fact that government has grown to bohemoth size under Bush, welfare, medicare, blah blha blah. He says that Islam and Christians worship the same God (NOT!) The patriot and partiot act II speak for themselves as abhorent to the constitution...and the worst of the worst is his raping of the second amendment with the tratorious NRA backing and his signing of the Our Lady of Peace Act, threatening to sign the old Clinton assault gun ban, plastic gun ban renewal blah blah blah. Last but not least the anti life partial birth abortion bill that is such a trojan horse it's not funny. As long as the doctor causes death in the birth canal than that's OK no matter how healthy the baby is. Grrrreeeat....

Sorry for the rant and run on sentences, but I am one disillusioned true conservative. The republicans no longer represent conservatives plain and simple. The circle is complete, left and right are meeting at the left and the constituion is out in the cold.

posted 12-11-2003 06:20 PM            

President Bush Is Less Conservative Than Clinton

Orange County Register

I am writing this column to one particular sort of reader. I want as many people as possible to read my column, of course, but this week's essay is geared toward those who insist that President George W. Bush - a man I supported and voted for - is advancing the cause of freedom.

Don't be influenced in your thinking about the president by the odd gyrations of America's leftists, who are consumed by Bush-spite. They despise him and embrace kooky ideas about him. It's almost enough to make one rally to the president's defense, but we shouldn't.

The enemy of our enemies is not necessarily our friend. Especially when the president, even though I believe him to be a decent man, is busy expanding government power at a pace that would have been unthinkable even under Bill Clinton's horrible administration.

We need to be hardheaded and evaluate this president in the same way we evaluated Clinton, Jimmy Carter and other presidents. I remain a Republican, because over my lifetime, Republicans have been the only party with a winning chance that has come close to advocating, however inadequately, principles of limited government.

Watching the Republican Party at the national level over the past three years is causing rethinking on my part. I want other Americans of right-leaning persuasion to hold the president and the Republican-majority Congress accountable for their deeds, rather than their occasional fine-sounding words.

The U.S. Constitution means what it says. It does not live and breathe, which is a liberal euphemism for stretching the Constitution to say whatever it is liberals want it to mean at any particular time, usually in service to some modern, government-expanding idea.

Government must be limited. Growth in government is not good, because government is based on coercion. Individuals do a better job spending their own hard- earned money than government, which lavishes its ill-gotten gains on special interest groups and constituencies that whine the loudest. Government should protect the national defense and do some basic, clearly delineated tasks, but defense means defense, not offense. American civil liberties must not be endangered by never-ending wars with constantly shifting endposts.

Compared to this ideal, President Bush is a disaster. Even compared to other modern conservative politicians, he has been a huge disappointment. In fairness, the president has been good on tax cuts, has appointed some decent people to judicial posts and has resisted some of the worst proposals from the left, such as the Kyoto global warming treaty.

But mostly it has been one sellout after another.

Writes the Cato Institute's Doug Bandow in a cover story in the American Conservative magazine: "Despite occasional exceptions, the Bush administration, backed by the Republican-controlled Congress, has been promoting larger government at almost every turn. Its spending policies have been irresponsible, and its trade strategies have been destructive. The president has been quite willing to sell out the national interest for perceived political gain, whether the votes sought are from seniors or farmers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 encouraged the administration to push into law civil-liberties restrictions that should worry anyone, whether they are wielded by a Bush or a Clinton administration."

It's hard to argue with this.

This president has not vetoed a single bill, which means he has signed into law every big-spending project that has come down the pike. Federal spending, even on non-military matters, has soared. His nation-building experiments are downright Wilsonian, a far cry from the "humbler" foreign policy he promised when he ran for office.

These are criticisms from the right, so save the "you stinking Democrat-loving pinko" e-mails for someone else. I argued for libertarians to vote for Bush in a column before the election, believing that his calls for limited government and restrained foreign policy were far superior to Al Gore's quasi-socialism, nutty environmentalism and love of Clinton-style nation- building. (Note: The Register doesn't endorse candidates, but one week we featured columns by each editorial writer explaining our personal choices for president.)

But look at what we've got, with the largest entitlement increase in decades pushed forward by the president (prescription drugs), and it's hard for me to know what to say. The right words are coming to mind: "I'm sorry." I'm sorry to my readers for suggesting such a choice. I'm sorry to my libertarian colleagues, who warned me there wouldn't be any noticeable difference between a Bush and Gore administration.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, writing last week for LewRockwell.com, agrees: "The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican Congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25 percent since President Bush took office." As Paul explains, the president no longer even uses conservative rhetoric. He doesn't just act like a social democrat, but he talks like one.

Yet so many conservatives continue to celebrate this president as a conservative champion. At least under the Clinton administration - and I did and still do resent the former president's liberal policies and deceptions - the Republican Congress fought back. Now pure partisanship pushes the GOP to endorse policies it opposed under Clinton.

Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz explains in a recent Washington Post column that under President Ronald Reagan, non-defense discretionary spending fell by 13.5 percent but increased by nearly 21 percent under Bush II. How is that for a contrast?

Pointing to vast federal expansions in education, medical care and other areas under Bush and the Republican Congress, conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote on Nov. 30: "We are moving rapidly, under Republican 'leadership,' past the nanny state and the welfare state to what might be called the state as family. ... Is it time for another revolution yet? Who's got the tea?"

Tough stuff. But if you still refuse to listen to these conservative and libertarian leaders, then pay attention to one of Republicanism's great modern heroes, former President Reagan.

Here are words from his famous 1964 speech supporting Barry Goldwater's presidential run:

"I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. ...

"It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the founding fathers. ...

"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? ... We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation."

posted 12-11-2003 07:35 PM            

Uhhhh...Kook.

I luv yah..but please don't associate my name with Mr. NAFTA/GATT Klintoon please.

We have a one party state masquarading as a two party state. Little will change untill we wake up more and more people..especially those with pull and who have capital. Well...those who love the REAL America and have capital.

101+ ways to fight the New World Order.

LINK:
http://themech.proboards22.com/index.cgi?board=dark&action=display&num=1069147460

Copy this and paste this into a word program...print it out...keep it close by when you think you aren't doing enough to destroy the New World Order..copy and give to all Patriots.

posted 12-11-2003 07:53 PM            

Give everyone who cares about the Constitution and Liberty this URL.

posted 12-11-2003 08:33 PM            

If Bush was doing what he put his hand on the Bible to do...

"Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America"....

I wouldn't have nothing to complain about. But I know the history of the Bush family...I know how Bush JR. has expanded big government larger than Klintoon ever did in only 3 short years...and just about ruined our right to privacy....our ability as a country to compete...you name it.

If it was a Democrap doing the same thing...you would see in a second that I would harp on about them to. I am NOT in favor of the Chuckie schumers of this world, the Hillary's...the Feinsteins...none of them.

There are only a handful of honest Republicans and Democrats who represent the Constitution and what it stands for as far as i'm concerned. you could debate ALL DAY just WHO is "Better". Won't change a damn thing. The "Change" is up to all of us...as frightening as that sounds.