Scott comments here that "So, once again, if these officers' actions turn out to be legal, it's time to change the law."

Of course this is correct. And like most of my LEAP colleagues, I deplore the the entire framework of "Drug War" laws that lies behind the very existence of undercover drug cops.

I have also advocated for decades that "ordinary citizens" are quite capable of reading and understanding most of their state's criminal statutes, and should do so. Especially if you're charged with a crime, please read the the statute. You may be surprised to find that, even though the name of the statute makes it sound as though you've been caught red-handed, the actual elements of it show that the state has no case against you.

(I particularly urge this if you live in an area where many defense lawyers are corrupt, and will insist on cutting a deal even if the state has no case whatever against you. With all due apologies, this is largely the impression I have of western Massachusetts. Vermont and New Hampshire defense attorneys, by contrast, in my experience care more about the law than about keeping a balance in the favor bank with prosecutors.
One of the "pernicious myths" that Scott and Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights present in their interview with Mike Nixson on Common Sense (uh, guys -- how about putting the list on the Flex site?) is the myth that "you shouldn't get a public defender." Among other reasons, I know this to be a myth because it is often the hot-shot lawyers who are most concerned with always giving the prosecutor something -- meaning a criminal conviction for you, the defendant.)

On the other hand, statues concerning illegal police activity are few and hard to find, if they exist at all. In fact, if the police illegally arrest you, destroy your property, injure you or even maim you for life, most probably your only recourse is a civil lawsuit against them. In other words, you can't charge them with a crime, but only sue them.

When cops hear some defendant -- and there was a time when it was me -- handcuffed in the back seat of their cruiser ranting and raving about how "I know my rights!" and "I'm gonna sue your asses off", I can hardly blame them for chuckling.

Yes, you can sue the cops -- or the state or town or whatever. And you can even do so without a lawyer. But suing is not the same as winning. And unless you have a powerful lawyer working for a percentage of the monetary reward, your chances of winning a lawsuit against your state, say, are virtually nil. I speak from experience.

What you can't do, as a mere citizen, is bring criminal charges against the cops for acting illegally. Again, I speak from experience. I grant that it's theoretically possible, but the DA (or State's Attorney, etc.) is not going to bring charges against cops unless there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, as in the Rodney King case.

There are actually defensible reasons for this reluctance, if I am not mistaken. My understanding is that a cop who gets a convicted of even a misdemeanor gets fired. And a cop even charged with a criminal act is hobbled, even if only by having to go through the grist mill of court appearances that, as any criminal defendant knows, can derail your working life. The DA typically reasons that if she brought charges against every cop for every misdemeanor they commit while on the job, the police force would be crippled.

I have long advocated that citizens should be able to bring "minor misdemeanor" charges against a cop, charges which would only entail a hefty fine, and not get the the cop fired. But that ain't the way it is. And -- despite having been harassed, handcuffed, arrested, thrown in jail, falsely charged, and all the rest a number of times in my 60 years -- I think there are times when a cop is morally right to break the law, even to the extent of violating my own or another's civil rights.

Cops are not the real problem. They're mostly just working-class lugs with a really lousy job. Sure, some of them are fascist pigs, but more of them are just decent men and women trying to make a living. And many of them are as sincere as I could ever claim to be in trying to make world a better place. I urge anyone reading this to check out the LEAP web site. Pete Christ, for instance, is now ashamed of what he did as a drug cop, but he really thought -- for a while -- that he was doing something good.

All that having been said, I'm going to assume that Scott means "change the laws" that lie beneath the situation that lead to Isaac Singletary's lamenatble death, rather than changing the laws -- if they exist -- that might adequately punish his killers.

These underlying laws are those that impose savage criminal penalties on the basic human right of self-medication, which includes choosing one's own recreational drugs and having them legally available. These laws and their alleged enforcement constitute one of the most egregious violations of human liberties in the last 100 years.

But how do we change laws? The single way that I know to be most effective is to get busted and go through an appeal process that reaches the Supreme Court. I won my 1992 New Hampshire "disorderly conduct" (for calling Hanover NH Policeman Drew Keith a "stupid piece of shit", "fucking fascist asshole", and other terms apt to his behavior) case because I was able to find HOUSTON v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) , and then gave the judge in my case Justice Brennan's brilliant decision. This is what Ray Hill does, or at least was doing for at least a decade. The Houston cops got orders never to arrest him. What a heroic man!

Another way to get rid of unjust laws is to learn about and practice "jury nullification", and encourage others to do the same. I am a member of FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association. Alcohol prohibition came to an end in this country because juries started refusing to convict.

What I do not believe works to get rid of unjust laws is "the democratic process", meaning that you vote for the politician who, in the legislative session of your state, is going to represent your views. Both the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures in the past 5 or 10 years have passed preposterous laws criminalizing "underage drinking". I'll take bets that 95% of the voting citizens in both states had no idea that these laws were passed, let alone that they were earlier being voted on by the legislature. Maybe I'm just a lousy citizen, but I feel that these things are not adequately publicized. State legislatures for the most part sneak to impose laws upon us.

Many who follow this site may be too young to remember when -- in the mid 70's, as I recall -- it was suddenly announced that the USA had a uniform speed limit of 55 mph. Whoa! --said I and my hipster and hillbilly friends -- when the heck did we ever vote that crap into law? I don't even remember seeing any notices that it was up for getting passed. "Democracy" my hind foot!

I am also old enough to remember well when homosexuals were as despised as junkies, and as avidly sought out and arrested by undercover cops as junkies and other "drug abusers" still are. The statutes that homosexuals were charged with violating -- and frequently convicted of, and sentenced to decades of prison time for violating -- were the "sodomy statutes". Most of these did not mention homosexuality, but made it a felony for anyone -- including a man and wife -- to engage in oral or anal erotic activity. These laws were almost entirely enforced only against male homosexuals.

In the mid 70's, homosexuals began to make a loud outcry about their legal persecution-- the Stonewall riots, for instance. More importantly, in my opinion, they started coming out. Doctors, lawyers, and other "respectable members of the community" stood up and announced, "I'm homosexual." Police persecution of homosexuals ended almost overnight, at least in my old fart's time scale.

What I believe is crucial to know about this sudden significant social transformation is that almost none of the laws used to persecute homosexuals were repealed. Instead, in the face of changing public opinion, DA's simply quit bringing charges against gay men for violating the long extant sodomy statutes. And, of course, if the DA ain't gonna prosecute it, word quickly gets to the cops to quit busting people for it. It's not part of the business of prosecution to have cops making charges that are dropped.

In a larger sense, the end of legal persecution of homosexuals was arguably the "democratic process". But in the legal sense is was anything but. This change was not brought about by voting for representatives, and having the legislature repeal laws. It was, rather, effected by DA's deciding to stop enforcing the law.

It is for this reason that in 1995 I had a page in my Dartmouth College math department web site called "I Take Drugs for Pleasure", which advocated that every drug user in this country come out of the closet, just as homosexuals had done. I did so myself, in that same site -- by acknowledging that I drink coffee, and even sometimes beer.

Except for possibly a few Amish or organic commune folks, there's just about no one in this country who does not take drugs for pleasure, even if it's someone who only drinks an occasional cola.

Want to stop brutal idiocy like Isaac Singletary's death from happening? By all means, learn about drug laws and encourage others to do so. Vote for people who dare to talk sense, like Vermont's Windsor County's State's Attorney Robert Sand, who has laid his career on the line by proclaiming that the "drug war" is not working.

But I still advocate most strongly that you come out of the closet that over 90% of the people in this country are either cowering or hypocritically denying their presence in

Finn

to the charge of cowardice in not coming out as a user of cannabis. I've suffered way too much already from these alcohol supremacist thugs.

I must be missing something- since when do cops have the right to go onto private property without the permission of the owner without a warrant. No warrant was mentioned. Perhaps you could clarify this, Scott?

The obvious is stated it is time for to laws to change all the way around on some subjects, The power that these officers have should be more restricted and should be punished for their crimes however considering that our government in majority is crooked that will not change because then the government would also have to fix themselves, and you know they won't let the people fix it or we would be hit with the charge for treason, or terrorism, along with inciting a national riot, which we by the constitution are given the right to do. Not to mention the laws on Cannabis that need to be changed, but the government refuses to acknowledge the possible benefits that could and would accrue if things changed.........
Do we still live in a Democracy ?