From: Karen Lancaster <lancaster.karen@gmail.com>
Date: 10/15/09, 10:12
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

Gee, glad to see my money is going to help fund your drug abuse! This is an incredibly immature and self-aggrandizing posting.
How are your pitches going to the Onion, Texas Tribune, Vanity Fair and other paying clients? Have you finished your book yet?
It's disappointing, disgusting and devastating to me to see how you're spending your time with these nonpaying -- not to mention irresponsible -- postings which boast about your drug experience.
Time to grow up, Barrett. You need to do your video game playing, drug purchasing and pro-bono activitism on your own dime, not mine.
I've really had it and I think your dad has, too.
 
Barrett Brown says:
October 14, 2009 at 1:19 am

“what happened that appeared to be unconstitutional?”

The problem is that nothing seems to have happened that would have made the search constitutional; they were not observed buying or selling any drugs, the two of them having obtained these pills some hours before.

“So [the alleged lack of MDMA] is your basis for the stop being unconstitutional?”

Of course not.

“So because of your previous drug use you are now an expert and can determine what is ecstacy merely by looking at a pill?”

Not exactly. Let’s say you live in a community where kids are constantly being sold oregano passed off as weed. It would not be amiss to suspect that a random kid who thinks he has weed actually has oregano.

“Obviously you have not a clue as what you are talking about when it comes to legalities of civil right violations.”

From your past comments, it’s obvious that you have no concern for the Fourth Amendment in the first place and consider most anything a cop does in the line of duty to be justified. You’re not exactly our target demographic.

“Maybe one of your ‘capable lawyers’ would like to chime in on the legalities here.”

At some point we’ll be posting a FAQ regarding the Fourth Amendment and how it’s currently applied to searches such as these. We’ll most likely have more to say about the particulars of this case in the near future.