Oh joy, a Craigslist scammer

Within one hour of posting my Jeep for sale on Craigslist, I got the following email (my comments are in parentheses):

From: "mah90250@sbcglobal.net"
Is it still for sell?.
(Nice grammar)

Me: yes

From: "Rebecca Rebarich"  (note different email address than the original email)
Thank for your mail. Am satisfied with your advert price (who says "advert price"?), as am requesting this transaction should be done via PayPal so the Pay Pal charges is on me. If my offer is accepted, Get back to me with your PayPal email and your name or send me PayPal invoice so i can pay you right away as soon as i conclude with my shipper. I am always busy at work and do not have much time around me to make or answer calls. Make sure you get back to me so that we can arrange for pick up as i will like the item to be picked at your residence location. Confirm the sales to me by removing it from the CL post.

My reply: cash only.

Her reply: Try and see reason with me, i don't have access to a post office over here (where is "here"?), i can't send you a check (I didn't ask for a check). I wish i have access to western union money transfer it would have been a very good option (but it's only a very good option for scammers) but am still on the base right now (the base? a military base?) the only access i have is by effecting the payment via my online paypal account. However, paypal is the world leading payment master that protects both buyer/seller interest (nice ad for paypal). You are on a secured transaction with paypal. Above all, it's like instant cash (oh instant cash! I've always wanted that!). Please i need you to visit their web site at www.paypal.com and sign up for your free personal paypal account, they will activate your email address to your paypal account and link it with your bank account so you can transfer and receive money online via you paypal account. Please go and activate yours it will actually cost you no money to do this. Do try and see reasons with me. I will await you update. Thanks.

Me: Please stop wasting my time with your scam.

Not that it will matter, but I flagged the initial reply as a scam.

Two hit-and-run fatalities in Anne Arundel County

From the Baltimore Sun:

Glen Burnie woman was killed by a hit-and-run driver Thursday night in the second such fatality in Anne Arundel County within 24 hours, according to police.
...
In the most recent incident, officers found the body of Dawn Lynn Gable, 43, of the 200 block of Cross Creek Drive lying in the area of Cross Creek and Highlander drives about 10:17 p.m., police said.

Gable had suffered massive trauma and was pronounced dead at the scene.

View Larger Map

Meanwhile, police reported that the vehicle involved in the earlier death had been located and that a person was in custody.

Early Thursday morning. Richard Francis Oles, 77, of Pasadena was killed as he walked along Mountain Road in an incident they said was related to the overnight snowfall. Police said that the driver of the vehicle that hit him, described as a red Ford F350 pickup with a snow plow attachment, left the scene without stopping.

Lt. Michael Brothers of the county police said Friday afternoon that the vehicle had been located and that a "person of interest" was in custody. That investigation was continuing.

Problems and limitations to the exclusionary rule

Consider the following situation:

A police officer notices a car driving 43 MPH in a 25 MPH zone.  He stops the car and tickets the driver.  He then searches the car, and finds a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe" underneath the driver's seat.  The driver is arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Now consider a similar situation:

The same officer returns on his shift and soon again, notices yet another car driving 43 MPH in a 25 MPH zone.  He stops the car and tickets the driver.  He then searches the car, but does not find any additional evidence.  The police officer sends the driver on his way.

Now, what is the difference?  We'll answer that eventually, but let's first look at the results of each situation.  The first situation actually occurred, and was the subject of a Supreme Court case called Knowles v. Iowa.  The Court found that:

[t]he search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated offense seems remote. Pp. 3-6.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court (which had upheld the search).  The case was sent back to the trial court, who re-opened the case and eventually dismissed the case against Knowles.  Why?  Because the drug evidence would then be suppressed on account of the exclusionary rule, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is (usually) inadmissible at court.  Now Knowles has been through a lot!  But without the only evidence of the crime, he goes free.

And a quick review of court records shows that Patrick Knowles was not exactly a model citizen, having convictions for multiple counts of domestic abuse, unauthorized possession of weapons, and probation violations.

(Note: It's difficult to find any further details, but I'm not sure why the Iowa courts didn't allow the evidence to be admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon in 1984, since the officer was acting in accordance with established state law.)

Now let's return to the second situation.  This is a hypothetical based on the first one, but given the circumstances, is just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to occur.  As the Supreme Court noted, a "search incident to citation" was lawful in Iowa at the time.  So it seems likely that many such searches occurred at the time.

If the search was illegal in the first situation, it seems obvious that it should also be illegal in the second situation.  However, in the first situation, Knowles has a remedy--the judicially-created exclusionary rule (see Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio).  What is the remedy for the second driver?

He could file suit against the officer, but because the officer was in performance of his official duties, and acting within already established Iowa law, the officer is likely to enjoy some form of immunity from prosecution; and even if he was prosecuted, the search was not illegal at the time (meaning the officer acted in good faith), nor was the officer acting with any malice.  So in reality, the second driver has no remedy.

By its name and definition, the exclusionary rule only protects those suspected of criminal behavior--it has no effect on, and is no remedy for innocent victims of illegal searches.  A criminal like Knowles is allowed to go free, yet the unnamed drivers who were also stopped but had no contraband have no legal recourse.  Theoretically, the exclusionary rule it is also meant as a disincentive to police and prosecutors--"if your searches aren't legal, we'll throw out the evidence"--but there are already now additional limitations on the exclusionary rule.  So it's difficult to see if the deterrent factor truly exists in all but the most obvious situations.

An update on the Snowden-DUI-PBJ case

From the Baltimore Sun:

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Ronald A. Silkworth gave Carl O. Snowden a week to decide whether he wants to withdraw his November plea and start over the case with a different judge or have a conviction on his record and possibly a harsher sentence.

I previously wrote about this story here and here.

I ask again: why does this man still have a job for the state's chief law enforcement officer?

Diagnosing high oil pressure on my Jeep

I drive a 2002 Jeep Grande Cherokee.  I noticed over the last month that the oil pressure was registering higher than normal and would rise further during acceleration.  It was time for an oil change, so I was hoping to see the results of the oil change on this problem.  Now on start, the oil pressure rises higher than normal (about three-quarters to the peg).  On acceleration, the gauge pegs and stays there; and then only comes down slowly after letting off the gas.

Cold weather would presumably have some impact on oil pressure, but I don't think it would be this significant.

The most recent oil change would seem to eliminate the possibility that there was a problem with the oil filter.

I'm trying to narrow down the possibilities based on these observations and some research.  So far I have come up with the following:

(1) Bad oil pressure sending unit (seems to be the most common culprit with like models)
(2) Problem with the oil pressure relief valve

What other factors do you think could cause the symptoms I am seeing?

Snowden argues to keep 2nd DUI probation before judgment

From the Baltimore Sun:

The director of the attorney general's civil rights office is trying to keep a sentence that could allow him to avoid a drunken-driving conviction for the second time, a punishment that prosecutors now argue is illegal.

Carl O. Snowden's attorneys wrote in court papers that despite a 2009 change in the law barring more than one probation before judgment every 10 years for drunken driving, other laws prevent Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth from increasing Snowden's sentence.

...

This is Snowden's second probation before judgment in a drunken-driving case in eight years. A third similar charge...was dropped in 2005.

As I wrote about when this snafu first occurred, neither the prosecutor nor the sentencing judge knew that the Maryland law was changed.

Shane Nikolao, an attorney for Snowden, wrote in a December 17th motion that "[t]o allow the state to participate in sentencing after they have agreed to remain silent would throw the entire judicial system into chaos." This is really grasping. It seems unlikely that simply correcting an error could result in such chaos. This one is better:

He also contended that it would be "unfair to prevent Mr. Snowden from receiving probation before judgment when at the time he accepted his first probation before judgment he did so with the understanding that he would be eligible for another one after five years." His third argument is that court rules say that a sentence cannot be increased.

Seriously? "[H]e did so with the understanding that he would be eligible for another one after five years"? Is this an indication that Mr. Snowden was going to continue to drink and drive? The judge shouldn't change the sentence because a defendant is given the expectation (or even the entitlement) of a specific sentence for a future violation? What a joke.

This should already be completely obvious, but regardless of the outcome of this case, it is an outrage that a member of the attorney general's staff could accumulate two DUIs (and have been charged with a third) and still have a job working for the state's chief law enforcement officer. Mr. Snowden should do the right thing and resign.

It's not good when the prosecutor and judge don't know the law...

In 2003, Carl O. Snowden, current director of the civil rights office in the state attorney general's office, received probation before judgment (PBJ) for drunken driving.  In a PBJ, the offender effectively admits their guilt and is given a period of probation.  If they satisfactorily complete their probation, the offense goes away as if it never happened.  PBJs are somewhat common among first time offenses (especially DUIs).

This year, Mr. Snowden received his second DUI and received PBJ again (and while PBJs are common for first time offenses, they are apparently rare for subsequent offenses).  But there is another problem here: Maryland law regarding the granting of PBJs changed in 2009 such that an offender in a DUI can only get one PBJ in a ten year period.  This second PBJ would be Mr. Snowden's second in seven years.

The prosecutor nor the sentencing judge knew of this change in Maryland law.

Oops.

The Baltimore Sun has the story here.

Your street car is not a race car (so don't pretend it is)

This is the first post in a (probable) series of posts on street cars and race cars; specifically, when street cars are modified in ways to make them appear like race cars and/or (attempt to) perform like race cars.

So what exactly are my qualifications to judge these sorts of modifications? Well, weak, admittedly. As a naval flight officer, I had a number of courses in aerodynamics and nearly 1,000 flight hours over the course of about 4 1/2 years, so I have a pretty good understanding of Bernoulli's principle, of lift and drag, and thrust and weight. I consider myself a fairly serious fan of racing (NASCAR specifically), have been watching races since I can remember, and generally think I am well-versed on the technical aspects of racing. On the other hand, I have never owned or driven a race car, nor I have I ever owned a street car that was ever modified in any way to resemble or perform like a race car. So take that as you may.

In this first post I am going to talk about aerodynamic changes to street cars, and more specifically, spoilers and wings. But before I begin, I need to define the difference between a spoiler and a wing. I also recognize that there is some controversy as to exact definitions, but I am going to go forward with what I think is the prevailing opinion. Also, in reference to spoilers, I'll be writing specifically about rear spoilers. I recognize that front "air dams" are often considered spoilers, but perhaps we'll save that one for another day.

First, the spoiler, and be advised I am copying and pasting some of this directly from Wikipedia because it says exactly what I intend to say:

A spoiler is a device whose intended design function is to 'spoil' unfavorable air movement across a body of a vehicle in motion; it functions by disrupting or diffusing the airflow passing over and around a moving vehicle. This diffusion is accomplished by increasing amounts of turbulence flowing over the shape, "spoiling" the laminar flow and providing a cushion for the laminar boundary layer.

The goal of the spoiler in racing is to improve handling and fuel efficiency by decreasing the lift that is generated by the car moving forward.

Second, the wing:

A wing is an aerodynamic device intended to increase drag and/or generate down force on an automobile.

While an airplane wing produces lift upwards, an automotive wing does just the opposite by providing lift downwards. This increases downforce on the rear of the vehicle but also increases drag. By increasing rear downforce, the tires grip the road better, providing for better handling and higher speeds.

Now I fully recognize that many passenger cars come with spoilers and/or wings pre-installed, although these are usually very innocuous, and are solely designed for cosmetic purposes. So I'm not talking about these devices. I am speaking specifically to obviously after-market spoilers and wings.

Here are my issues, generally, regarding spoilers and wings:

• The desirable aerodynamic effects that you would intend from spoilers and wings do not really present themselves until you reach typical highway speeds, and even then, the effect is not considerable.
• Surely, many people do drive faster than highway speeds, but I suspect that driving considerably faster (like, 100+ mph) isn't an every-mile occurrence, and even then, I would argue the aerodynamic effects still aren't that pronounced.
• But...you actually do race your street vehicle? I guess that's possible and undoubtedly happens, but I'm not sure why you'd want to do that on a regular occasion.
  
• The wing, which is intended to provide downforce on the rear wheels, is often installed on cars with front wheel drive. In most (although not necessarily all) cases, this is counter-intuitive, and tends to increase understeer. While understeer is designed into most passenger cars, it exists for stability and control.
• Lastly, and I understand this is just my opinion, but large wings on street cars just look dumb. :-)
  

Is it possible that some after-market spoilers and wings are added with ignorance to the above information? I guess it's possible, but if you're going to spend money, I'd hope you'd know what you're doing it for. Is it also possible that some after-market spoilers and wings are added with full knowledge of the above information, but still did so simply for decorative or "status" purposes? Again, no doubt it's possible.

In summary: generally speaking, your street car doesn't travel fast enough to have the desired aerodynamic effects that are associated with after-market spoilers and wings.

What are your thoughts?