Don't Cross the Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Dr. William Mitchell, a retired veterinarian who moved to the deep south from "up north", quickly became a hit in the small, poor and rural Copper Basin area that resides in what is left of the now-abandoned copper mines in the hills of northern Georgia, Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. A land and economy destroyed by 100 years of careless mining, the area came under the protection of the EPA as a designated Superfund site in 2001. In the years since the mining and chemical industry disappeared from the area, other area employment opportunities have also vanished (including Levis, who preferred to export their labor to Mexico), leaving behind a lot of poor folks. So when someone like Dr. Mitchell comes along -  which isn't very often -  people notice.

Shortly after arriving here 10 years ago Dr. Mitchell saw how badly the area needed truly affordable pet care and set up shop by offering low-cost pet neutering. He quickly saw that much more was needed, so he opened what is now the Copper Basin Vet Clinic and began providing low-cost vet services to the community. If there is one thing everyone knows around here, it's that Dr. Mitchell will take care of your pet whether you can pay him or not. This customer review sums up the community's feeling about Dr. Mitchell very well:

Words are inadequate to describe the eagerness to provide prompt care for my 11 year Bichon Frise who needed emergency removal of a large cyst over his left eye. Dr. Mitchell and his staff moved quickly and skillfully to give my dog, BJ, amazing care. 

What can you say about a veterinary practice where 1: no appointments are necessary - just come in with your pets, 2: the doctor calls you back when you leave a message 3: the fees are beyond being more than reasonable and they don't hassle you for payment,4: the staff are just flat out pleasant and helpful in every way and 5: they have some of the greatest office pets roaming around welcoming you to their home.

Oh, deer

To say that Dr. Mitchell's heart is in the right place would be an understatement. Which is why many in the community were shocked when the Georgia Department of Natural Resources served a search warrant on Dr. Mitchell's home, took two deer that were in his pasture, shot them in the face and then issued a warrant for Dr. Mitchell's arrest. According to Dr. Mitchell:

This doe had been rehab by [name redacted] and myself. She had a permit and I was sub-permitted under her. The deer stayed at my place for 7 years. She would leave for periods of time and then return. Have babies, raise them, and then they would leave and she would come back alone. She was called sugar. Very docile and sweet. She had 3 different sets of babies. The last one had only 3 legs so she stayed around longer.

Not the fawn in question but just as cute

For 7 years this female deer lived legally in Dr. Mitchell's pasture, came and went as she pleased and ate very well. And then one day a neighbor (supposedly) called animal control to complain about the deer, and the case was passed on to DNR Sgt. John Vanlandingham.

VANLANDINGHAM and the DNR hid in the woods around my place for severals days, scaring my grandchild and family.  They were dressed in black and would pop out for seconds and the hide again.
When we left for a vacation they executed a search warrant . My friend [name redacted] went over to see what the problem was after my helper called hysterical because they had threaten to shoot him. They immediately attacked him.
They brutally murdered the 3 legged fawn. The mother sugar walked up to them and was executed by DNR OFFICERS. They felt threatened.

Dr. Mitchell later received a phone call from the Sheriff, who told him DNR had obtained a warrant for his arrest, but the Sheriff refused to serve it (probably because his bullshit meter was pegged to the hilt). Dr. Mitchell was then issued a citation for Having Wildlife Without a  Permit. So why is a licensed veterinarian, who is also properly licensed by the State of Georgia to care for wildlife, being picked on by Sgt. Vanlandingham? It's anyone's guess really, but Dr. Mitchell has a theory.

In September, 2010 there was a big to-do when several rednecks shot a black bear out of season on a local WMA, orphaning two bear cubs. The rednecks brought the bear cubs to Dr. Mitchell, who immediately called State and Federal wildlife officials to let them know, but no one seemed interested. So Dr. Mitchell asked a friend, who is a retired law enforcement officer, for help. The friend contacted someone at DNR, who sent Sgt. Vanlandingham and Cpl. Cody Jones to Dr. Mitchell's clinic. Sgt. Vanlandingham and Cpl. Jones took the cubs from Dr. Mitchell's clinic and shot them. Apparently a bullet is the answer to many questions at DNR.

Being the civic-minded community activist that he is, Mitchell retaliated against the DNR's stupidity by publicly criticizing them on television. The Doc didn't hold back and told a Chattanooga TV station all about the ineptness of Sgt. Vanlandingham and his department.

So Doc thinks the deer are payback for publicly embarrassing Sgt. Vanlandingham and Cpl. Jones. Being a former law enforcement officer myself, I find it hard to believe that a public servant would stoop to revenge for being made to look like an idiot. Just kidding, I've seen so many people use their position of authority to promote their own personal agenda over the years that nothing surprises me anymore. Luckily for Mitchell, Judge Brenda Weaver and the rest of the judiciary around here has a well-tuned bullshit meter and hopes are high that she will see this case for what it really is - an attempt by someone who has had their pride stepped on to get back at a 69 year old retired veterinarian. Mitchell's arraignment is April 11, 2013. We'll be there, as will hundreds of other people that appreciate the contribution that Dr. Mitchell has made to this tiny community. Stay tuned!

This isn't a picture from the Mars Rover. This is what happens when you dump sulfuric acid  on the land for 100 years. Copperhill, Tennessee ca. 1975.

Footnote: I want to make it clear that Sheriff Kirby and the Fannin County Sheriff's Office had nothing to do with the arrest and prosecution of Mitchell. In fact, for all the hell as I raise on this blog about law enforcement, Sheriff Kirby's administration (so far) has been the most honest, fair and professional department this county has had in a long time, and there are few around here that would disagree with this statement.

"Burn that fucking house down"

It seems the local NBC affiliate KCAL accidentally broadcast the instructions of an unknown officer to burn down the house that Chris Dorner was barricaded in. In the video (below) you can hear at least one officer repeat his instructions several times to "burn that fucking house down" over a loud speaker.

The person that uploaded the video states the video was taken around 1:30 PM PST, which would have been far earlier than the time the cabin actually burned down. But it does clearly show that someone on scene with the authority to give orders during the stand-off wanted Dorner dead. And if that were that the only evidence that suggested intent on the part of officers on scene to kill Dorner then a reasonable argument could probably be made that those instructions and the fire that Dorner allegedly set were unrelated. But then there's this troubling audio.

If you are the impatient sort skip to the 1:00 mark.

Officer 1: "Alright Steve, we're going to go forward with the plan...with the burn"
Officer 2: "Copy"
Officer 1: "Like we talked about"
Officer 1: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire"
Dispatch: "Copy seven burners deployed and we have a fire"

Aaaaand, at the 3:00 mark an officer reports to dispatch that he heard one shot fired from inside the residence.  This was a full minute and a half AFTER the fire was reported to have been set, not before as was reported to the media.

Drug dogs are wrong more than they are right

From the "I told you so" files comes a scathing new report from the Chicago Tribune that shows drug sniffing dogs are right about finding drugs in less than half of the cases studied. Well duh.

But even advocates for the use of drug-sniffing dogs agree with experts who say many dog-and-officer teams are poorly trained and prone to false alerts that lead to unjustified searches. Leading a dog around a car too many times or spending too long examining a vehicle, for example, can cause a dog to give a signal for drugs where there are none, experts said.

Just because something is accepted doesn't make it right. Read the rest of the Tribune article here.

Police Lying Under Oath: As Simple as Tying Your Shoes

THE pressure to boost arrest numbers is not limited to drug law enforcement. Even where no clear financial incentives exist, the “get tough” movement has warped police culture to such a degree that police chiefs and individual officers feel pressured to meet stop-and-frisk or arrest quotas in order to prove their “productivity.”

Police would LIE? Say it aint so! Read on.

More Asset Forfeiture Bologna

From Reason.com we see the most recent round of bullshit that occurs when the federal government convinces local governments to help them steal. From the article:

As Russell Caswell, the motel’s 69-year-old owner, explained to the Associated Press, “They are holding me responsible for the actions of a few people who I don’t know and I’ve never met before, people who rent a room.” Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of civil forfeiture, where property can be guilty even when its owner is innocent.

That's right. The government convinced a federal judge that a small-fish motel operator should be responsible for the actions of his guests. Read the rest of this unbelievable nightmare of the government overstepping the bounds of common decency.

Anatomy of a Police Drug Dog Search

I've found myself to be a really random contributor to my own blog. I think it's because I really enjoyed writing before I felt like I had to write something. But when you start a blog it becomes a grind just like anything else (for me at least). So I have found that if I force myself to care less about maintaining this blog, when I do write something it is because I am jumping up and down on the inside, dying to convince the world of something that has become really obvious to me.

Like the drug dog scam

When this guy shows up you are no longer dealing
with facts and evidence, you are subject to the K-9
handler's feelings, biases and prejudices.

It wasn't until I read this article on reason.com that it finally occurred to me how crazy the use of dogs to sniff out drugs really is, at least when the discussion is about civil liberties. Think about it. We convict thousands of Americans every year based on the word of a creature whose sole mission in life is to please its master. We have designed a system where we rely on the testimony of a human who says he was able to properly interpret the body language of a dog that is playing a game, and he says he does so without bias or personal opinion.

I think to see how absurd this really is you have to understand how a dog is trained to locate narcotics (or explosives or squirrels or missing remote controls). It doesn't matter what the object is that is being searched for, the dog is trained basically the same way. You see, a "police" dog isn't really trained to find narcotics, it is trained to alert to an odor that he associates with his reward. Some could reasonably argue that a a standard police k-9 is not just trained to search for marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and opiates, he is also trained to find his tennis ball, if that is the reward that is associated with a particular scent. To the dog a vehicle search is a game because when he "comes through" he is rewarded with his tennis ball, rope tug, etc.

But the handler gives the toy (reward) no matter what the outcome of the search so the dog "wins" whether he alerts or not, right?

And if the above statement held water I would be much more inclined to see the possibility of a modicum of validity to a police dog search. But here's why it's bullshit:

That's not a coke can in his mouth
it's his reward for "finding drugs".

Most people have never been present during a k-9 search and don't really know what happens, but I have been involved in at least 100 and I can attest to the FACT that K-9 handlers keep their finger on the scale (in their favor of course) in the vast majority of searches. I have seen searches where an alert was indicated, and I have seen searches where the handler said the dog did NOT alert and the praise and reward heaped on the dog ALWAYS differs based on whether or not the dog produced an alert. If you were a dog would you rather get a tennis ball bounced and then put back in the car or would you rather get a tummy rub and a game of fetch?

¿por qué Pedro?

The position these guys hold is HIGHLY coveted in most departments and their retention as a handler depends on producing results. Most police dog handlers get their own take-home vehicle (so the department pays for all their gas and other commuting expenses), lots of specialized training (which are often just government-sponsored vacations) and best of all GUARANTEED OVERTIME. My former department adhered to federal labor law and paid all of our K-9 handlers 45 minutes per day, 7 days per week, for time spent caring for their agency-owned dog at home. That may not sound like much but that was an extra 273 hours per year, paid at time + half. Where I worked that meant an extra $8,190 per year ($20 per hour x 1.5 x 273 hours) in extra salary alone. So to say there is an incentive to keep your position would be a big understatement.

What a K-9 alert looks like

I have heard many people who have been subjected to police K-9 searches (both as a law enforcement officer and now as a critic) say something like "but the dog never even barked". I've taken people to jail over their protests of "the dog never did ANYTHING different". But what they don't understand is that a police dog alert is something that only one person at the scene is trained to "interpret", and that person is the handler. Typically a K-9 alerts on an object by sitting down (they used to be trained to scratch but departments got tired of buying paint jobs after false alerts). When the dog sits he is telling the handler "I found my toy, now give it to me". But there are other more subtle "indicators" handlers are trained to look for like changes in breathing pattern, tail pattern and other types of body language that can be interpreted to mean a positive alert is being communicated by the dog.

Does this really sound like science to anyone? There are ZERO requirements set forth in federal law pertaining to how a police K-9 is trained, how the handler is trained and very little case law that helps determine what a properly trained dog is. Yet courts interpret an "alert" as probable cause, equating a mysterious (and rarely recognizable on camera) reaction by a dog to that of a search warrant? This drug war is the biggest cash cow the government has ever had and it's made us all stupid.

Policing for Profit

How the states have used the War on Drugs to legalize and endorse highway robbery

Please note: This article is intended to expose local and state law enforcement tactics used to steal large sums of money from citizens. While this is a fairly specific article, there are thousands upon thousands of examples of this happening on the federal level as well. I mention this because most of what I write about is from personal experience as a law enforcement officer. As I have never been involved in a federal seizure I will not attempt to dissect federal laws as they are even more complicated and convoluted.

It used to be that a man had the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". This old, outdated concept comes from the 4th Ammendment of our Constitution. Furthermore it is supposed to apply to every man, woman and child, whether a citizen or not, as long as they are on American soil . Furthermore, the Constitution states that no State shall pass any law to interfere with the rights granted to us by the constitution.