Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Mountainman, May 29, 2011.
Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell — RT
another "notch" in their guns!
Sounds like this comes under the old "reasonable suspiscion" concept. Nothing new here.......
If the driver smells same as a distillery the driver was drinking is re-applied to the smell of pot.
If a cop had to wait for a warrant to conduct a sobriety test; the drunk would be sober.
However, everyone agreed that "reasonable suspicion" was a good idea with drunk drivers. This agreement opened the door to adding the smell of pot because it is illegal and also impairs. "They" do have a knack for presentation; then suddenly something that many disagree with is added to the list. Perhaps some day the smell of "Hoppe's" will be added?
There is that slippery slope that keeps biting us in the ass. a paraphrase from Melbo that has stuck in my mind since it was uttered in absolute disgust, " The loaf of Freedom was not eaten in one meal but rather, one slice at a time"
The laws are supposed to be by the people for the people,right?Well they are not if the common man,can neither read or understand the laws their forced to live under.If all the thee's,thou's,and double speek were removed,the erosion of our rights,would neither happen,or be tolerated.Matt
Excuse me sir your breath smells like beer.... have you been drinking?... well officer you have a glazed look in your eyes... you been eating doughnuts?...
I may be incorrect, but I believe this is beyond reasonable suspicion and more into probable casue. The same holds true if you purchase a "balloon" in a high crime area. Reasonable suscpision holds true for weapons / safety related searches (frisks basically- read Terry v. Ohio). Probable cause IS Constitutional:
A reasonable person would have probable cause to believe that marijuana is being smoked if they can smell it. I know what it smells like and I have never used it (I may be the only person in the US that has never used it ).
The Court is simply reaffirming what has been case law for years now. No new infringement here.
If you want to argue the Constitutionality of making marijuana illegal, its a bit more complex. I can understand that. I don't agree with it being illegal either. Its more complex than people make it. Regulation (virtually all of it) comes from the Interstate Commerce Clause. If it can be linked to affect interstate commerce, the Feds have jurisdiction to regulate. So, here we are with illegal marijuana. Until the 4th is changed to NOT include probable cause (taking all arrest powers away from police) or marijuana is legalized, I don't see any way to "resolve" it.
For reference, the interstate commerce clause Article I Section 8, Clause 3:
The SC has looked at the interpretation several times as early as the early 1800s. Each time, it has been interpreted the same. No reversal in over 170+/- years (well before the secret government ).
Cigarettes sometimes smell like marijuana.
Yeah... if they are laced....
You haven't smoked any mary-j smelling cigarettes lately have you Broker?
That would explain some of your posts.... it all makes sense now...........
sometimes if you get some improperly cured tobacco it DOES smell like weed
ive had lots like that over the last 30 some years
Oh... you guys are serious....
The smell isn't the only thing that will be looked at in such a situation. Its the totality of the circumstances. Including things like the belief a drug dealer just ran into the apartment complex for refuge...
If a drunk gets pulled over and has glazed eyes, would you rather the officer go ahead and breathalyze even though there are other causes for a glazed over look? If a police officer sees a couple guys leave your bank with a couple large duffel bags and ski masks, should he not intervene because they could just be bank employees going on a ski trip?
To try and boil it down to smell = violation of 4th Amendment isn't correct. There is a lot more to the situation- high crime area, chasing a potentially armed drug dealer to the immediate vicinity, smell what a normal person would believe is MJ (not funky cigarettes)...all this = probable cause. Knock on the door to investigate the fact that they believe a crime is occurring- the occupants stall.... that is your exigent circumstances. Now the door can be kicked in. And, oh by the way, in this case MJ and cocaine was found in plain sight... its a text book open and close case one would hear in a Constitutional Issues class. Its not anything new. I probably had the same scenario as a test question in college. What you guys are getting wrapped up about is the fact that some unknown author that is clearly pro-drug sensationalizes it. Then "Constitutionalists" bite hook, line, and sinker. There is more to it than "4th Amendment Gone with SC Decision". This ruling changed absolutely ZERO. It was a reaffirmation. The author was successful by stealing the spotlight with an ignorant interpretation of the 4th Amendment and a complete lack of knowledge on the last 100 years of supporting case law.
over the last 6-7 years the probable cause for most of the stops ive had to deal with by cops is im ex marine, dress like a farmer and drive a beat up old farm truck with occasional bags of fertilizer cuz i haul loads of stuff for other people
thats gotten me stopped sometimes 4 and 5 times a day
even had my truck near totally stripped down and searched a couple times
Those stops would probably not stand up in any court. Did you consent to a search? If not, fruits of the poisonous tree doth apply. What you are describing is profiling. Profiling an individual does not constitute probable cause. Reasonable suspicion may apply. That would allow for a search of your persons and the immediate compartment where a person could hide a weapon (under the seat, the glove compartment-maybe, etc). That is all that reasonable suspicion would allow. Anything that came from a detailed search (assuming you did not give permission) would not be admissible in court. I would also file a complaint.
Now if you had stuff wired to the Ammonium Nitrate.... they could tear your truck apart.
If the glove box is locked, then a Search Warrant, is REQUIRD, to inspect it. Same with the trunk. No "Plain Sight" exemption would apply.
And what would there be hiding behind the locked glove compartment door...
My box Monkey. He is a smaller version of my Trunk Monkey...
YouTube - Trunk Monkey (All Clips)
And my FAVORITE....
YouTube - Monkey Car Chaperone#
BWAHAHAHA...!!!! Gotta love The Monkey!!
Thanks! I had not seen the Chaperone model!
I happen to know the you need a concealed carry permit to conceal a loaded trunk monkey in your trunk in at least 3 of 50 states.
And...... your Trunk Monkey can save you from Alien Abuction!
YouTube - Suburban Auto Group Trunk Monkey #8 - Alien Abduction‏
Separate names with a comma.