Communism is here

The Associated Press reported that an Iowa state trooper pulled over Michael Spahlinger of Cleveland Heights, Ohio on Thursday. According to the story, the trooper pulled the vehicle over on Interstate 80 near Council Bluffs to perform a routine search and eventually discovered 48 pounds of pot.

Without getting into the whole drug debate, let's stick with the Constitutional issue, specifically the Fourth Amendment, which supposedly protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The part of the story that bugs me is the phrase "routine search". As near as I can tell, any systematic searching of vehicles would be prohibited by the Constitution.

Fourth Amendment -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In the years since this was written, the probable cause requirement has been somewhat weakened by the courts. A cop no longer needs probable cause of a crime to search your car without your consent. Now if an officer has reasonable suspicion that you may be armed and dangerous, he may do a weapons check without asking your permission.

Let's assume the trooper asked Michael Spahlinger if it'd be okay if he looked around. The Supreme Court has said that without reasonable suspicion, the trooper cannot demand to search the vehicle unless the driver consents. So at that point, Spahlinger could say simply that he doesn't consent to any searches.

At that point, the trooper either has to let Spahlinger get back on his merry way or call in a drug-sniffing dog within 20-30 minutes of the traffic stop.

For the most part, they've done away with road blocks for the purpose of detecting drugs, although they still get by with them for finding drunk drivers. But even then, cops would have to have a good reason for searching you or your car; they can't arbitrarily search anyone they feel like because they think they might find contraband.

I'm not an attorney, but I've studied the law and court cases regarding search & seizure issues as a hobby.

ADS: Trust between an AE and an advertiser matters

Here's an example of trust breaking down at an important moment, during the production of a radio commercial.

I've been hearing a spot for a service company on the radio recently that I find alarming from an imaging standpoint. The problem is that the client isn't enunciating well throughout the spot, particularly in stating the name of one of his primary products. I don't mean a slight enunciation error, but a whopper! In fact, "airgsher" is how it comes out.

If you heard the spot, you'd probably know what he meant by its context, so you might think I'm nit-picking a bit, but the problem is that the spot makes the business owner seem like a dolt.

I don't want to beat up on the concept of business owners voicing or appearing in their own commercials because history proves they can gain fame and fortune doing their own. Wendy's founder Dave Thomas, popcorn magnate Orville Redenbacher and KFC's Colonel Harland Sanders come to mind immediately as huge success stories. And you might remember local celebrity and college ballplayer Bill Reichardt as the man who owned Reichardt's Menswear -- or Jack from Irwin’s Bike for promising no pressure or hype ever.

But these were successes for specific reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to deliver the intended message; they were great communicators with solid reputations.

At issue is branding, the thing that influences consumers' emotions about things like the professionalism of a particularly business, contributing to overall company image. If you don't exhibit effort to speak clearly while showcasing your products in front of your prospective customers, how hard will you try to perform their installation? Or address service issues after a sale?

Lack of professionalism can become an intrinsic part of your brand; any positive image you hoped to gain from your ad can be lost because your consultants let you sound like dolt.

In this case, I suspect both the account executive and producer both held their tongues while their customer massacred his lines. They should have stepped up and respectfully recommended the client re-read those portions. In all likelihood, he would have done so graciously.

Being afraid to offend a client and risk a cancellation is no excuse for allowing his brand (and the station) to take a hit. The bigger risk is that your client discovers the trust he put in you to help bolster and grow his brand was misplaced. When that happens, he'll never darken your production studio again.

E-mail 'drafts' on Glenwood death kept secret

A couple things:

1) There's a death at a state-regulated care facility and the state regulators appear to be asleep at the wheel; and

2) The Des Moines Register reports that, during this period of time, the governor and his family are on holiday in Florida, at the residence of their longtime family friend of nearly 40 years, Bill Knapp, who coincidentally happens to have donated $112,500 to Culver's '06 campaign and at least $25,000 toward his re-election.

Well, three things, counting the comments readers posted.

3) Wow, commenter JackDM, you sound like a government insider. But like many people who post comments on the Des Moines Register's web site, you perpetuate ignorance. And by the way, if you want to refer us to a law, just give us the code chapter and section so a few of us can at least try to follow along, instead of ensuring none of us can because you don't have the digital fortitude to paste a functioning web address.

As a member of the free press, I feel the Register has an obligation to get to and report the facts regarding the handling of public government matters, just as any other citizen. As regular citizens, we should encourage their efforts to shed light on matters of public interest.

After all, public employees and elected officials have no right to privacy in their government jobs and offices, except in narrow and well defined circumstances. Nearly every action they take should be known or knowable to the public. If they act reasonably in their dealings, then they have little cause for concern. This issue isn't remotely related to the right of privacy we enjoy as citizens in our own homes. Public business on taxpayer time isn't protected.

So to the state, I say open up and be transparent; own your actions, whether right or wrong. People have a tendency to forgive honest errors in judgment, but lack of honesty and integrity is shameful.

And to the person that said court records aren't available online, check the state's judicial web site, if you have the brains, and you'll see they are!

If the story's true, I say good job Register!