Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's one of the dumbest lawsuits you'll ever see:
An Oregon man is seeking $25,000 in damages over the opening of his Native American medicine bag during a drunken-driving arrest last summer.Craig Clark Show contends the medicine bag's mystical qualities were destroyed when the bag was opened. Show said the bag, which imparted protection, had been blessed by a medicine woman and sealed since 1995.
Well obviously the protection didn't work very well - it didn't keep you from getting arrested for drunk driving. Hell, it couldn't even protect itself. So much for your magic bag.
Politics
Comments
How did this loon get a license? And anyway I thought the medicine pouch was worn next to the body. If he'd done that, the cop might not have felt the need to violate it. Of course the whole drinking thing makes the point moot.
Kent Hovind should have tried that angle to hide his tax cheating.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 6, 2010 9:35 AM
This case, and your commentary above, illustrate the biases and creeping influence of the forces of antireligion in this country. You sound like PZ Myers gloating over his disgusting desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Anything to mock a sacred religious artifact is OK with you liberals.
The man was processed for DWI. Do you think his medicine bag was large enough to conceal a bottle of whiskey, or a 1.5 liter bottle of Colt .45. Maybe a magnum of Thunderbird, he-he?
He would be subject to a blood sample at the station, which would verify drug use. Only then should the religious artifact be rightfully violated in a search for drugs.
No - the reason the man's medicine bag - an item of legitimate religious sanctity to the poor fellow - was needlessly violated was because of cultural discrimination by the police, who no doubt gloated about being able to desecrate the religious object of 'another drunk Indian'.
Instead of mocking the religious presumptions associated with Native American religious artifacts, you should have presented this case as a cruel violation of religious and personal freedom.
Posted by: Pat Donohue's Dad | February 6, 2010 10:16 AM
Without going the way of Pat Donahue's Dad (and why on earth would anyone want to claim responsibility for having brought Pat into the world?), I think we need more information. I'm no expert, but from the description (the bag being sealed), this doesn't sound like a large "doctor's" bag, but a much smaller item more commonly called a medicine "pouch." If so, it would be big enough to hide a small amount of drugs in, certainly, but probably only enough for personal use, not enough to be a distributor. More importantly, it would indeed be a sacred religious object whose "spiritual value" is destroyed by opening it.
While I don't accept these religious claims as being true, that doesn't mean this might not have been a violation of this guy's First Amendment rights. Without more information, I don't think we can say that this is necessarily a stupid lawsuit.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 6, 2010 10:28 AM
Pat Donohue's Dad:
That's a blatantly untrue assertion. You can't characterize liberals as definitionally disrespectful of people's religious beliefs. In fact the history of liberalism is that they are the primary protectors of individual religious freedom rights and freedom of conscience rights, a legacy that continues to distinguish them to this very day as we see in the courts when ACLU fights for the rights of individuals to express and practice their beliefs.
Ed's ridicule of this particular man's notion is a trait common to people who are not merely secularists, but also believe such notions stifle our moral and economic progress. While much of that group heavily overlaps into the liberal movement, it is a mere subset of liberalism while also bleeding over into libertarian, neoconseratism, and even some authoritarian political ideologies.
But even that category doesn't encompass all those that ridicule primitive beliefs in magic. In addition, it is common for conservative Christians to ridicule the beliefs of other faiths as well, which is also common in fundamentalists of other religions.
Therefore your assertion noted here is fatally defective.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 6, 2010 10:43 AM
Pat Donohue's Dad wrote:
Yes, it is. Religion is a set of ideas and all ideas can be criticized -- you know, just like you're doing here by criticizing my ideas. The mere fact that a ridiculous idea falls under the label of religious or that someone considers it "sacred" does not magically shield it from criticism or make the person doing the criticizing any different from you criticizing my ideas.
On second thought, perhaps I should just declare this blog to be my holy text and call the ideas expressed here "sacred" and accuse you of being an anti-religious "liberal." It would be every bit as valid as the nonsense argument you're making and it would show just how shallow your reasoning is and how incoherently you would attempt to apply it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2010 10:44 AM
James Hanley-
It's possible, of course, that the police may have violated the man's 4th amendment rights by engaging in a search without reasonable suspicion (which is the standard in such cases under court precedent, rather than probable cause). But his rights aren't violated because one of the objects that was searched just happened to be considered "sacred" or because he thinks the search took away the bag's magic powers.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2010 10:46 AM
I would be most amused and entertained observing exactly how this man's legal counsel would go about proving the bag was both magical and its magic was removed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 6, 2010 11:07 AM
James Hanley -
To put this into context, these "medicine pouches" are often used to carry drugs and not always just cannabis. I do not really know how I feel about this - though I think I tend more towards Ed's position on this one.
It would be one thing if this happened at a random traffic stop and the man wasn't being arrested. But that is not what happened. He was in fact arrested and that changes the dynamic considerably. I have been arrested on more than one occasion and every time, I have been thoroughly searched - including anything on my person. This is not a situation of the man being singled out for anything, it is a case of standard operating procedure. Cops do not put anything that is on a person's body into their property lockers without searching them. And cops rarely are willing to leave things on a person in the car. The only exception I have been dealt was a cop leaving my keys in the car, so a buddy could pick it up before the tow truck could get it - that, after they searched the car.
Look at it this way, do you honestly think the cops would hesitate to open someone's zipped bible cover, to check for contraband? How about someone's magic box? No matter how fucking ridiculous I think the prohibitions on illicit drugs are, they are illicit. And people are willing to hide their drugs anywhere. Hell, people have been known to stuff crack in their baby's fucking diaper. That totally knocks religious icons out of the water...
Posted by: DuWayne | February 6, 2010 11:12 AM
" ... the Holy Eucharist. Anything to mock a sacred religious artifact ...
... an item of legitimate religious sanctity ..."
Jeez, Pat Donohue's Dad, are you really that naive? Don't you know that a True Christian would consider a heathen medicine bag as anything BUT an item of religious sanctity?
Which, by the by, according to this crazy idea of religious freedom, which you allude to but obviously don't understand, would mean that people of other religions, or no religion, have every right to consider a freely-given "holy eucharist" as nothing more than a cracker.
Where are you getting these unAmerican, unchristian, pan-religious, "everything is holy," ideas?
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 6, 2010 11:13 AM
But his rights aren't violated because one of the objects that was searched just happened to be considered "sacred"
Case in point: the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church (which is unrelated to various other religious organizations which call themselves the Coptic Church) in Miami in the late 1970s. An offshoot of Rastafarianism, they claimed the right to use marijuana as a sacrament, and the Florida Supreme Court upheld that right in 1980. But the authorities suspected, and proved through the sort of police investigative work they are supposed to do, that the church was a front for marijuana smuggling: they were importing far larger quantities than could reasonably be explained by personal use. Several church leaders were convicted of drug trafficking. A Google search turned up this 1981 feature article written by Carl Hiaasen for the Miami Herald; at the time the head of the group (Thomas Reilly, a.k.a. Brother Louv) was awaiting trial and his co-conspirators had been convicted.
So yes, in this case there may be a question of whether the suspicion was reasonable, but if it was then the search did not violate First Amendment rights.
Posted by: Eric Lund | February 6, 2010 11:34 AM
If body cavity searches, which are undeniably invasive, offensive and humiliating, are legal then I cannot see why searching a 'sacred' object would be off-limits where probable cause exists to search it.
Posted by: DaveL | February 6, 2010 11:37 AM
Not to defend silly beliefs about magic bags and such, but how would you have reacted if a cop had removed or forced the removal of some sort of religiously prescribed article of clothing? A prayer shawl or a yarmulke for instance?
No doubt such things happen, but I would think this incident would be looked at in the same way.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 6, 2010 11:55 AM
Gee, from the title I thought he'd been kicked in the nuts.
Posted by: chris | February 6, 2010 12:18 PM
DuWayne,
I was trying to think of a good analogy, and I rejected the zipped bible example, because for a Christian that would not be seen as causing any harm to the sanctity of the bible (even if they might still take personal offense). This is more like the little boxes containing scriptures used by some Jews. Would it be any more or less disturbing to you if the cops stopped a Jewish person who was praying (like the kid on the airplane), and opened those up to search them?
Personally, I would be bothered. And I don't think the drugs argument holds much weight, for two very different reasons. One is that, as I noted, they can't hold that much, so it's not a major distributional issue. Second, I reject the idea that drugs ("Oh, won't somebody think of the children?!") are a good excuse to violate religious liberties.
I'm not aware of, or at least can't at the moment think of, any reasonably on-target Supreme Court precedent that would guide us one way or the other. But I think it's a reasonable legal claim to make, and don't think it's impossible that he could win.
Ed may mock the idea of the bag's sacredness being destroyed. I do, too, on a personal level. But our personal perspectives on the validity of any particular religious beliefs, or on religious beliefs in general, are not at all on point. I think there's a good argument to be made that opening up a medicine bag is a worse violation of religious freedom than ripping off a Muslim women's veil, pulling off a Sikh's turban, etc. I just can't help thinking that there's a certain level of, "I don't take this medicine bag thing seriously, so it can't really be that serious" attitude on this one, with which I can't concur.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 6, 2010 12:36 PM
Obviously the protection didn't work very well - it didn't keep you from getting arrested for drunk driving.
Hey, had it not been for the bag, the guy might have died in an accident. But he didn't. What more proof do you need?
Posted by: Eveningsun | February 6, 2010 1:22 PM
We don't know enough about this case to know how reasonably the police acted. However, I do wonder if the bag, if it were indeed small enough to hold only a personal supply of drugs, couldn't have been held until it could be sniffed by a drug dog.
The issue for those of us who don't share the man's religious beliefs isn't so much whether we have contempt for this medicine bag as whether we have compassion for this person.
I once lost a prized book due to the indifference of a colleague who, instead of apologizing, said, "It's just paper. You can always get another copy from the library." But my grandmother had given it to me, and I valued it. I didn't expect my colleague to have any respect for the book. I did expect him to have enough compassion for me to treat the book carefully because I valued it.
This is the reason I treat my grandson's limp, worn stuffed panda with so much carefulness. Not because the printed cloth and stuffing deserve my respect, but because I have compassion for my grandson who loves it.
This is also the disagreement I have with PZ's cracker behavior. For me, it isn't about whether the rest of us value the cracker, and it isn't about a legalistic issue of whether the cracker was given away to someone else to be his property or whether it was loaned/shared with the requirement that it be used as planned. For me, it was about a lack of compassion, shown about equally, I think, by all parties involved including the priest and the church members and PZ.
You wouldn't want someone unnecessarily to alter or damage or destroy some object that is precious to you for your own personal reasons. So you shouldn't treat other people that way.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 6, 2010 1:37 PM
While the bag is a bit of nonsense, I find myself siding with the man here. We have very strict rules about not disrupting the cultural practices of the natives. While they were 100% correct to enforce the DWI laws, when they searched the bag they ran afoul of federal regulations.
Posted by: Daniel | February 6, 2010 1:40 PM
Once again, Ed and his pals demonstrate the many commonalities between homophobes (and other bigots), and fundamentalist atheists.
Cheap laughs at the expense of other people's dignity, Ed, are the sign of a cheap mind.
Posted by: Never Disappointed | February 6, 2010 1:49 PM
JuliaL,
I share your view about respecting property that is highly valued by someone else even if you don't value it that highly yourself, and think that this man's medicine bag should not have been opened unless absolutely necessary.
I disagree, however, that this extends to PZ's desecration of the communion wafer. He did not abuse someone's property; he abused a symbol. And he didn't do so out of carelessness or malice, but to make a point. I see that as no different than burning a flag to protest it being made illegal, which I've often said is the only time I would burn a flag.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 6, 2010 1:54 PM
Gretchen,
I didn't do much reading about the cracker incident when it happened, so I didn't grasp that a point was being made. What was it?
I get the point about burning the flag, as it's important to preserve the freedom to destroy our own (not somebody else's) copy of a national symbol; it's a type of free speech and illustrates the relationship between government and citizen. But as there are no laws (that I know of)concerning the preservation of crackers, I assume PZ must have had some other kind of point.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 6, 2010 2:06 PM
What is a fundamentalist atheist exactly? Something derogatory by the nature of Disappointed's post but unclear in detail. And what commonalities with homophobes does this point out? Disappointed is rather disappointing.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 6, 2010 2:18 PM
Julia,
Basically, a college kid tried to leave a Catholic church with a consecrated communion wafer. The Catholic reaction ranged from death threats to trying to get the kid expelled from school, so PZ went through with the whole Crackergate thing as a demonstration that such thuggery will not be tolerated, etc.
It was crude but reasonable in my opinion, though your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Nobody Important | February 6, 2010 2:19 PM
JuliaL,
PZ desecrated the wafer immediately after the incident of a college student (I forget from where, but it doesn't matter) absconding with a wafer from a Catholic church, and being physically attacked for it and later having people advocate for his expulsion from university. PZ's point was that the sanctity of the wafer exists in the minds of those who revere it, and it does not entitle them to dictate what others may do with the symbol they revere. Like the flag burning (and like the Muhammad cartoons, now that I think of it), it was a freedom of speech issue.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 6, 2010 2:20 PM
Gretchen: I disagree, however, that this extends to PZ's desecration of the communion wafer. He did not abuse someone's property; he abused a symbol. And he didn't do so out of carelessness or malice, but to make a point.
And, perhaps most importantly, PZ did not do so acting in a capacity as a government agent.
Posted by: abb3w | February 6, 2010 2:22 PM
BaldApe wrote:
The fact that an object is religious simply means nothing to me. If the police violated the 4th amendment by searching something they should not have searched, it's no worse if they did so to a purely non-religious tote bag or a purse than if they did it to some "sacred" magic bag. It's the absurd idea that the bag was magic that I am objecting to and making fun of here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2010 2:44 PM
James Hanley wrote:
Okay, let's assume that the police violated this person's 4th amendment rights by searching when they had no legal warrant to do so. Is it worse because the object they searched just happens to be considered "sacred" by the person? I argue that it cannot be or we are automatically elevating religious objects above non-religious objects in importance.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2010 2:47 PM
Never Disappointed wrote:
First of all, if you've paid any attention at all (and since you've commented here under half a dozen different nicknames, you clearly have) you know damn well that I can hardly be called a "fundamentalist atheist." Second of all, the word "dignity" is totally meaningless here. I made fun of someone's irrational beliefs. Beliefs are ideas and ideas are always open to criticism. Criticizing someone's bad ideas does not harm their "dignity" and only perpetual drama queens would claim that it does. The mere fact that an irrational belief is a religious irrational belief does not mean that it cannot be mocked and criticized without hurting someone's "dignity."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2010 2:52 PM
Nobody Important and Gretchen,
Ah, that does put a rather different light on the matter. I wasn't remembering the bit about the person originally taking a wafer as being a separate incident to which PZ was responding.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 6, 2010 2:54 PM
The last line of the story:
Maybe it really was a magic medicine bag.
Posted by: Dr X | February 6, 2010 2:57 PM
Ed said:
Is it (or should it be) a greater offense, legally? No. Is it worse, ethically? I would say yes, regardless of whether the object is held to be "sacred" for religious reasons or not.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 6, 2010 3:02 PM
Julia L. #28 wrote:
PZ was also directly responding to 'Catholic League of Decency' head Bill Donohue, who had decided that this incident provided an excellent opportunity to publicly grandstand for the holy cause of having universities consider 'blasphemy' an offense worthy of expulsion. Why shouldn't Catholics get the same deference as the Muslims did, with the cartoons? I think that Donohue's intrusion and escalation of an already overblown situation played a large part in prompting PZ's response. If Donohue was going to pick on someone for the crime of violating the 'sacred,' it seemed like a good idea to give him a much better target than some poor kid who was getting death threats.
Posted by: Sastra | February 6, 2010 3:20 PM
This man Show is wrong: his feelings are hurt but, only $25,000 worth of hurt? Seriously I would be hurt more than that if my mystic bag was violated. I would be hurt to precisely the tune of $25,500.50. NO ONE touches my sac.
Posted by: Aardpig | February 6, 2010 4:05 PM
@Ed:
I am a bit surprised by your comments on this issue.
As a Fundamentalist Atheist, I have no problem with laughing at the law suit claiming that the bags magical properties have been lost.
However, on the general principle that the police, in this case, and people as a whole in the general case, should not cause unnecessary harm I think you are mistaken.
If we assume that the police in this case acted lawfully in opening the bag, we can still say that they should have weighed the harm caused by doing so (as felt by Mr Show) against the benefits. i.e. If they had any reason to believe that the bag contained illict material then sure they should go ahead and open it.
However, if they merely opened it because 'that's what we always do', _without any regard_ to Mr Shows wishes (who I will assume indicated to them that he/it would be 'harmed' if they were to open it) then I think they erred.
After all, the police should always attempt to maintain the trust/support/respect of the populace, and it would be through the basic use of common sense and general human kindness in cases such as this that they could do so.
In this particular instance I would say that if the individual officers in this case considered these issues and decided nonetheless to open the bag then they were OK.
However if in fact they had _no regard_ to the questions then they erred.
(Of course, the mere fact that a 'suspect' asks you not to open a particular container, may be considered reason enough to do so, and this may be an unfortunate fact that religious people may have to come to terms with. For example when strapping boxes to their heads on aeroplanes!)
Posted by: Felix | February 6, 2010 4:29 PM
Wonder what the Fox "news" reaction would have been if the cop had ripped open a plastic dashboard Jesus?
(And for some reason I have the Mojo Nixon/Jello Biafra song "Plastic Jesus" in my head).
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | February 6, 2010 5:08 PM
A lot of you are missing the point. When arrested the police have every right to search you. That's not relevant. What is relevant is how you can prove a magic bag's magic can be destroyed in a court of law for a lawsuit.
First you have to establish the magical properties of the bag in the first place. That should prove mighty interesting. And quite worthy of a good blog post.
Posted by: Phil | February 6, 2010 5:43 PM
Did the cops even know it was a special magical medicine bag in the first place? I would hardly blame them for opening something that looks like a small purse or wallet.
Without knowing the size it would be hard to tell if the cops were searching for something in particular (drugs), but from what I know isn't conducting a full body search and a vehicle search standard for arrests? I mean saying "magical items are offlimits" seems like it would open up a pretty big hole in the safety and efficacy of law enforcement. Of course there is always the problem of deciding what exactly is "magical" enough to be off limits in searches in the first place.
Ugh, thinking about such things seriously is making me wonder if the "god is energy" people might sue electric companies that shut down their power (for not paying the bills) because it restricts them from their worship (sitting their ass on the couch and watching Oprah).
Posted by: deep | February 6, 2010 5:47 PM
James -
Would it be any more or less disturbing to you if the cops stopped a Jewish person who was praying (like the kid on the airplane), and opened those up to search them?
See my comment, per magic boxes.
As for the amount one can fit - crack, for example, does not take very much space at all.
As per the value of intercepting even a personal use sort of quantity, obviously I am not one who thinks searching for drugs is reasonable at all. But that is because I think they should be legal and rather irrelevant.
This is standard operating procedure with the police - period. The cops would have been downright irresponsible not to search it - especially given a guy they just pulled over for DUI was asking them not to search it. This is not just about arresting someone and doing what they normally do - this is about arresting someone for intoxication while driving. When you get busted for DUI, the cops search everything very thoroughly for intoxicants.
On top of that, a drug dog hit on his motorcycle, so they had reason to assume that there were drugs somewhere.
Bottom line - I am not ok with the idea that we have separate rules for religious people. If I were pulled over for DUI and a fucking dog hit on my vehicle, I would expect that they are going to go through all my shit with a fine tooth comb. Why should someone else be any different? Why should an item he was wearing that as well as being a religious item, is also known as something that can be used to transport drugs be left unsearched?
I'm sorry, but not only do first amendment rights not make this a bad search, but given the drug dog hitting on the dude's bike, it was a good search. Not to mention that the man was arrested and taken to jail - his bike impounded. Being intoxicated on the road is enough to justify the search alone.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 6, 2010 5:58 PM
People are forgetting that PZ also desecrated a page from the Qur'an and the God Delusion as well as a banana, for all you Ray Comfort supporters out there. Only kidding about the banana it just ended up in the trash as well. It was an act designed to show that nothing is sacred, that elevating the importance of inanimate objects above individual's rights and freedoms is ridiculous and to invoke a negative reaction from the people that see it the other way so that all the sane people can see just how ridiculous they are.
Posted by: Doug Little | February 6, 2010 5:58 PM
Daniel -
What makes you think he was native American? The article doesn't say he was and it is just as likely that he's a fucking hippie. I have seen far more medicine bags on friends who were assuredly not native American, than I have on actual native Americans. He's a Portlander, so I would tend to assume fucking hippie, before native American.
Even if he was, I would love to know what federal law would protects him from a legal search on a U.S. road.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 6, 2010 6:03 PM
@Julia
Ah, that does put a rather different light on the matter. I wasn't remembering the bit about the person originally taking a wafer as being a separate incident to which PZ was responding.
I'm not surprised, actually. That little bit of information has a weird habit of disappearing whenever somebody wants to criticize PZ for the cracker thing (not referring to you, mind, just a general observation).
Anyway, here is the original post that started the whole thing, if you're interested.
Posted by: Nobody Important | February 6, 2010 7:23 PM
DuWayne: That would be the US Constitution, Amendment V.
There are two primary potential issues, depending on the size of the pouch and where he was carrying it. If it were attached to his body (around his neck or around an ankle) the Law Enforcement Professional gets to search his whole body incident to arrest. If the bag were larger and located in or on the vehicle, then the "Wingspan Rule" takes effect: Anything the Defendant can reach is searchab;e, except for items in locked containers.
This is why a LEO stopping someone for possible DWI always calls for backup, so that another officer can search the car while the arresting officer is putting the Defendant though a field sobriety test. That way the vehicle does not have to be impounded t the time of arrest and without the necessity of getting a warrant.
Assuming the pouch were either on the man's person, or the pouch were in the vehicle without any kind of lock, no problem, the search is legal. If the pouch were not on his person, and manifestly sealed, the cops needed a warrant.
This is true regardless of any religious value the Defendant placed on the bag. That's really not an issue in arrest procedures.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 6, 2010 7:34 PM
DuWayne said:
Not sure why it matters. And there are "fucking hippie" native Americans, you know.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 6, 2010 8:06 PM
@36
Back in college, I was a passenger in a car when the driver was arrested for DUI. Adding to the horror of the situation, when the driver stopped, she accidentally put the car into reverse and backed into the front end of the police car that curbed us. It was not good.
She was cuffed and patted down and they went through her pockets. They did not search the car.
I was totally sober, so they asked me to drive her car back to the police station. They let me stay with her through the booking process and even asked me to take her aside and calm her down when she started crying uncontrollably, so maybe this wasn't a typical experience. They were awfully nice about the whole thing.
While they were processing her, they also asked me to go back out to her car and retrieve her purse. I went through the purse first and removed a few ludes I found in it before I brought it to them. Quaaludes weren't something I was into, but I wasn't about to see her misery compounded by a felony possession arrest.
I don't know if they asked me to get the purse because they didn't have the right to remove it from the car or, maybe they were in the mood to cut her some slack and give me the chance to remove any contraband that might be in the purse.
When I brought the purse to the cop, he poured the contents out on his desk, but he only seemed interested in finding her driver's license. I don't remember if she had given him permission to go through the purse, but I thought it that the way this was unfolding was a little bit strange.
I should mention that this was many years ago when a DUI wasn't quite the scarlet letter it is in recent years. And the possibility that I could wind up in a car with a drug-abusing drunk person driving is 0.
But, finally getting to the point, I was left with the impression that vehicle searches are not automatic in these situations.
Posted by: Dr X | February 6, 2010 8:15 PM
Gretchen -
Read the comment I was responding to.
Kurt -
The guy was probably wearing it on his neck, the common place to have it. And he was riding a motorcycle drunk, being arrested (which means bike was getting impounded) and a drug dog hit on his bike.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 6, 2010 8:29 PM
For those searching for analogous situations, how about airport security and the Sikh kirpan?
Posted by: Pseudonym | February 6, 2010 8:44 PM
I hear the prosecution plans to put a big Show on the witness stand. There are other rumors that this will be nothing but a Show trial. Perhaps at the end, to quote the late James Brown, "Papa's got a brand new bag!"
Posted by: MadScientist | February 6, 2010 8:50 PM
@ dr. x
No offense, but I'm guessing that your "many years ago" was about 30-40 years ago. I imagine the war on drugs and the crackdown on drunk driving probably changed some of what was standard for police to do.
Posted by: deep | February 6, 2010 10:12 PM
the point is he said the bag did not work anymore,can he show how it did in the past and did not now.like..they took my camera and it worked fine,now all the photos are blurred.
Posted by: Dave | February 6, 2010 11:25 PM
DuWayne was certainly not insulting hippies. He is, in fact, a hippie himself by any reasonable definition. In fact, the older he gets the more he truly is morphing into Jeffrey Lebowski, or El Duderino if you're into the whole, you know, brevity thing.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2010 2:04 AM
@ deep:
Oooh, yeah. Get caught with 3.5 ounces of pot in Ohio, which used to warrant a $100 civil fine, and you're treated like a sociopath carrying a suitcase nuke. My son has a criminal record for possession that wouldn't have raised a cop's eyebrow in my college days.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | February 7, 2010 9:41 AM
Ed,
Respectfully, your responses to me keep focusing on the 4th Amendment, whereas I was focusing on the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean you'd change your position, but it does mean we're talking past each other somewhat.
DuWayne,
You're too right about Portland. And if you weren't insulting hippies, I'll step up and take on that responsibility (too many years in Eugene!). ;)
Posted by: James Hanley | February 7, 2010 1:29 PM
I don't know if this guy is Native or not, but I have a lot of sensitivity about Native religious freedom. We have had to endure religious oppression - propagated not just by zealous missionaries but with the help of federal and state government - to stamp out any and all Native religious practices.
Not that long ago, the government banned native ceremonies. Up until the 1950s, people were arrested for attending ceremonies like the Sun Dance, and religious items taken away. Yes, obviously this was a complete violation of the First Amendment. But it happened. Also, in California, Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel eradicated wild tobacco in Northern California - because it was, and still is, used in ceremonies by Yurok, Karuk, Hupa, Tolowa and other CA natives.
The gov't has half heartedly turned its back on these policies. It was in the late 70s - 1978? - the American Indian Religous Freedom Act was passed. But even today, Natives following native religions run in to problems - most particularly in protecting ancient religious sites. The fight for our survival as unique cultures goes on.
So, we're a little sensitive 'bout this sort of crap.
Posted by: Cranky NDN | February 7, 2010 1:54 PM
Hey now James, there is no reason to go after hippies - some of us aren't all that bad...It is a huge part of what I love about Portland, when you come down to it - the hippies and freaks. I mean how many cities (for example) have a regency society at all, much less one that is run by a guy who fronts a punk band? Or a robotics club? Or Unitarian/Universalist congregations where atheists make up virtually the entire membership?
Nothing says fun like all sorts of insane great clubs...
Posted by: DuWayne | February 7, 2010 1:54 PM
Cranky NDN -
I really and truly am sorry about and appalled by the absolute horrors that my ancestors heaped upon native Americans. There is absolutely no way to condone the pitched insanity of it all. It was beyond reprehensible, beyond repugnant in every way conceivable. And I am horrified by the difficulties that still occur today.
That does not exempt you from the law of the land. That does not exempt one from the standard procedures involved in a drunk driving arrest, or situations where illicit drugs are suspected. This is just as true as it would be with any other arrestee, no matter their religion. This is not about trying to further desecrate native American religious beliefs. This was all about doing what is done when someone is arrested for DUI and a drug dog has scented contraband.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 7, 2010 2:05 PM
Duwayne may be hippie-esque. But only those who remember the sixties can be True Hippies.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 7, 2010 2:20 PM
DuWayne, I mean. I hate mistyping somebody's name.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 7, 2010 2:23 PM
Yeah, but most people who care about the history of liberalism go by the name "libertarian" these days, in order to avoid being mistaken for those who have no idea what liberalism is and yet insist on using the word anyway. Thus, most of those who object to liberalism are objecting to the policies and actions of those who have appropriated the word rather than to the policies and actions that are logically conveyed by the word itself.
Does it need to be? One of the great things about the rule of law is that we can expect to not have our possessions mishandled by authoritarian thugs whether they think that we have a good reason or not.
Posted by: Miko | February 7, 2010 4:54 PM
DuWayne,
I'm not criticizing Portland, which is my favorite city. I'm criticizing only those who infest it with bad body odor and a belief that there is something romantic about sponging off others.
If you do not use patchouli oil in place of regular bathing, do not ask working people to support you (and then delude yourself into thinking you've somehow escaped "the system"), and have never led a puppy on a string (which puppy mysteriously disappears when it reaches adulthood), then you're not on the list of bad hippies.
If you truly are just Lebowski-like, what's not to like?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 7, 2010 5:00 PM
Sure you weren't...I actually knew that, because you have mentioned you love Portland before. In all honesty, I did spend my late teens and the slightest bit into my twenties pretty much exactly like that - down to the patchouli in place of bathing. Though I never did have a puppy and the only time I had a cat, it was to rescue it from fucking morons who weren't taking care of it. He lived with me for a little while and stayed with the house - ultimately staying with the house to the next owner.
And I am not really sure about the whole Lebowski thing. I have to actually watch the movie sometime, because people tell me that quite often upon meeting me. I am not exactly sure that it is entirely complimentary...I am going to school now and will hopefully be teaching and doing addiction research in about six or seven years.
JuliaL -
I didn't claim that label and figured I was hippie-esque, until people who do remember the sixties, several of whom never got over it accused me of being a hippie. Given my penchant for causes (including getting tear gassed and asskicked by cops), extremely heavy drug use (including rather extreme hallucinogen use), sex and the way I dressed - I figured at that point I might as well accept it.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 7, 2010 6:05 PM
DuWayne,
Ah! So you've been examined by the True Hippies, and approved. That'll work then. You're officially a True Hippie, New Model.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 7, 2010 7:23 PM
The use of religious items to smuggle small objects has occurred in the past. I'm pretty there have been cases involving smuggling of diamonds in Tefilin (phylacteries). They are about the same size or slightly smaller.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | February 7, 2010 7:43 PM
A puppy on a string??
It's a great name for a band, but to what were you referring, James?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 7, 2010 9:54 PM
Sastra said:
Exactly so. Another thing about this case, IIRC, was that this did not take place in a church, but rather on campus in a cafeteria facility, which the church was using temporarily for some reason.(!)
Which raises the chutzpah index of Donohue and his minions to transcendent levels.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 7, 2010 10:07 PM
DuWayne, the point is not that someone's great-grandad may have done something bad to another person's great-grandad - this suppression of religious expression is still going on. TODAY. So I am dismayed by such a mocking tone of Native religous expression considering the long ugly and continuing history of this suppression. (Even tho' this Shows fellow may or may not be a loon and legally in the wrong)
Posted by: cranky NDN | February 8, 2010 12:31 AM
I'm not sure this compares to damaging a personal heirloom, or potentially damaging one. Damage is damage. Opening the bag probably did no damage at all, except to the imaginary "magic" inside, based on what this guy was told and what he believed. There's no real way to say that it was damaged at all. He could close it up and carry on, except that he believes the spell is broken. It's damage that he's imagining, and he's filing a lawsuit over it.
I agree with Ed: $25,000 for a magic spell is the dumbest lawsuit I've seen in a long time. It's like suing someone for touching your precious athame; it's ridiculous. Maybe I can cast a magic "good drawing" spell over my pencil and sue for $100,000 when someone breaks the spell by touching the pencil. I could claim that it's affecting my livelihood because I can't draw anymore.
As an aside, considering the number of Indians I've seen get really, really angry at the idea of sacred (and sometimes non-sacred) regalia being worn by non-Indians, and the tooty-frooty "medicine bags" people can buy on eBay or at any truck stop, I'm kind of curious as to what sort of medicine bag it is.
Posted by: Makyui | February 8, 2010 3:29 AM
It's ok, I've just reblessed it using ancient rites from a forgotten primordial time.
I heartily recommend not opening the bag again lest you attract the attention of That Which Shall Not Be Named and usher in the End Times. Also, avoid sharp angles like the corners of rooms wherever possible.
Good luck!
Posted by: Captain Obvious | February 8, 2010 6:45 AM
cranky -
I understand that and am appalled that is still goes on today. But that is in regards to respecting your right to practice your faith. I respect the rights of anyone to practice their faith as long as doing so doesn't break laws that others follow. I am pretty damned adamant about it in fact.
However I do not and will not respect religion, any religion. I reserve my right to mock it when I think it is silly - which covers a great deal of religious expression. That I really don't do so very often is more due to the fact that religion often pisses me off to the point that I rather wish people would just give it up across the board. It also tends to piss me off that people are constantly wanted special exemptions from the law.
The only difference that I see in the context of native Americans, is that on specific lands held by native Americans should be treated as a sovereign nation where you are allowed to practice your faith as you see fit - regardless of whether that may skirt our laws. I also think that certain sacred places should be given over to native Americans.
But make no mistake. I believe that that would be the right thing to do. I believe that you deserve that freedom. But when push comes to shove, no matter how much I respect you and your rights - I do not have one iota of respect for your faith. None.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 8, 2010 8:25 AM
Cranky - nope, try again. If I decide the entire universe is 'sacred', does this make it so? Does this mean any reasonable police search is completely invalid?
'Religious' objections do not, in my view, necessarily make a search invalid, because the law is not concerned with such things, it is only interested in what can be proved in court of law.
Could such a person prove that the magic bag is less magic now? Could the police prove that a DUI driver may have had trafficable amounts of LSD, GBH, DMT, MDMA or some other drug in that bag, and such a search was 'reasonable' in the circumstances?
That is what this is really about. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 8, 2010 9:01 AM
You misunderstand me Dingo Jack. I don't know enough about law to know whether or not the police were completely in the legal right to do the search they did. I never went to law school. However, what I object to is the mocking tone, because of the long ugly history of active suppression and destruction of Native practices on the part of the government. I can't think of any other groups in the US who have experienced the same thing, except some might make the argument for the Mormons in the 19th century.
For those interested in past weird intersections of Native religious practices and the state of Oregon, I'd suggest looking into the Al Smith case.
Posted by: cranky NDN | February 8, 2010 12:39 PM
Thank you cranky, I am going to use that case in the context of a discussion on my cross cultural communications class discussion board. And that case is exactly what I had in mind, when I mentioned the sovereignty of native lands.
To be very clear about my position on all this, I believe that that case was decided wrongly. Something that is (or should be) legal under the laws of another country should not be used to punish someone when they leave that country.
I will be posting my post from the discussion board on my blog as well.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 8, 2010 12:58 PM
I find it highly doubtful that Ed or any commenter here used a mocking tone for this story because the guy is carrying around a "Native" magic bag, rather than because he's suing a substantial amount of money over the "magic" being "broken". I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think the guy claiming that it's an Indian medicine bag (as opposed to a mass-produced truckstop medicine bag?) makes his lawsuit any less ridiculous, and I certainly don't think he is suddenly undeserving of mockery on a message board just because it's a medicine bag versus, say, a magic amulet or a Christian cracker (or bible, or cross, for that matter).
Woo is woo, religious nonsense is religious nonsense, and frivolous lawsuits are frivolous lawsuits. Oh, be right back, my brother just touched my magic "good drawings" pencil and I need to sue him for loss of income now.
Posted by: Makyui | February 9, 2010 5:40 AM
Where do you draw the line? Should anyone be able to prevent the police from doing their jobs by saying "sorry, officer - that shed in the yard is a sacred spiritual space".
Compare this with the lunatic idea that people should be able to claim civil damages for having offence caused them.
Posted by: Paul Murray | February 12, 2010 8:06 PM