Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 veggie
Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 13,985
Loc: 
|
 Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] 
#8649269 - 07/18/08 01:21 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car
July 17, 2008 - seattlepi.com
Supporters of marijuana decriminalization celebrated Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court restricting police from arresting passengers simply for being in a car smelling of pot.
Justices were unanimous in the decision to overturn a 29-year-old precedent allowing officers to search or arrest passengers after smelling marijuana near a car. They found that simply being in a car smelling of marijuana isn't enough to outweigh the state constitution's robust privacy protections.
Advocates for drug-law reform cheered the ruling as a long overdue step in the right direction.
"As a general statement, it's a step back from the direction that our government has been going as we're veering into a sort of surveillance society," said Alison Holcomb of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington chapter. "It strikes me as refreshing that the court has reaffirmed the values that our constitution calls for."
The court's decision will not bar authorities from searching a car because it smells of drugs, the court said. But justices indicated that a drug smell might be stronger evidence supporting arrest if there were only one person in a vehicle.
When it comes to passengers, though, the scent of pot alone doesn't give probable cause to arrest everyone in the car. Officers need additional evidence that each individual broke the law.
"Our cases have strongly and rightfully protected our constitution's protection of individual privacy," Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the court. "The protections ... do not fade away or disappear within the confines of an automobile."
The case before the court centered on a 2006 traffic stop in Skagit County. A state trooper arrested both driver Lacee Hurley and passenger Jeremy Grande after smelling marijuana coming from the car.
The trooper searched both of them, discovering a pipe and small amount of pot on Grande. Grande and Hurley were both charged with drug crimes.
In a pretrial hearing for Grande, the district judge found there was not specific probable cause to justify his arrest, and suppressed the evidence. But the Skagit County Superior Court overturned that ruling, pointing to a 1979 appellate ruling that said the smell of pot coming from a car was probable cause to arrest the passengers and driver.
On Thursday, the state Supreme Court said subsequent federal case law has wiped away the legal footing of that 1979 decision.
Grande's attorney, David Zuckerman, said it was "unfortunate" that the previous state case law on drug-smell arrests stayed on the books for so long, particularly since the Supreme Court unanimously rejected its legal reasoning.
"I think it's led to an awful lot of innocent people getting handcuffed by the side of the road just because they happened to be in a car that smells of marijuana," Zuckerman said.
Longtime Seattle pot rights supporter Vivian McPeak said the ruling should help keep innocent individuals from being convicted of drug crimes.
McPeak, founder of Seattle's Hempfest celebration, said it's not uncommon for people to face jail, the loss of property and the stigma of a criminal conviction because they were in a car with a marijuana smoker.
"A lot of people have gone down because of these vehicle offenses," he said. "Being in a car used to be one of those wrong-place, wrong-time kind of situations."
The decision will also protect friends of medical marijuana users from unlawful search, McPeak said.
In Grande's case, the Supreme Court ruled the trooper had probable cause to search the car for more evidence of drug possession. But arresting both people in the car before doing so was wrong, the court said.
That distinction raises the evidentiary bar for officers, said Holcomb, director of the ACLU of Washington-sponsored Marijuana Education Project.
Officers will now be required to continue investigating before arresting or searching passengers, Holcomb said. The court has required that officers show evidence that each individual is involved in the crime -- simple association is no longer enough.
"This is a reminder that the Constitution requires more," she said. "It's not enough to assume that they could be involved in criminal activity."
Law enforcement officials said Thursday's ruling should have a minimal effect on day-to-day policing in the state.
"This is just going to require a little more investigation on the part of our officers on the street, to develop some additional probable cause," said Don Pierce, director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
Holcomb disagreed, saying that a number of drug prosecutions have been on hold as attorneys waited to hear the outcome of the Grande case.
McPeak said he believes Thursday's decision by the elected justices shows that the political climate with regard to marijuana is changing, at least in Washington. He said such a decision would have been seen as too politically risky even a few years ago.
"We all know everything eventually comes down to politics," McPeak said. "I think that politically there's an environment with more discretion to make decisions like this than there was 10 years ago."
|
unknown1123
Experimental
Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 4,581
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: veggie]
#8649391 - 07/18/08 01:56 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
does this only apply to WA?
--------------------
|
FurrowedBrow
Free yourself from yourself
 
Registered: 10/26/06
Posts: 2,402
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: unknown1123]
#8649445 - 07/18/08 02:13 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, it was a state supreme court ruling. OK, so the cops could arrest everyone in the car because the car smelled of pot. What would the charges have been? Conspiracy? I think I am missing something.
|
 Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,394
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 3 days
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: veggie]
#8649949 - 07/18/08 07:47 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
When it comes to passengers, though, the scent of pot alone doesn't give probable cause to arrest everyone in the car. Officers need additional evidence that each individual broke the law.
In other words, keep your mouth shut and don't admit to anything or make up excuses. "I'm sorry officer. I mean no disrespect, but my lawyer told me to never make a statement to the police without him being present. Am I being detained, or may I leave now?"
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
unknown1123
Experimental
Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 4,581
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: Seuss]
#8650555 - 07/18/08 01:05 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
When it comes to passengers, though, the scent of pot alone doesn't give probable cause to arrest everyone in the car. Officers need additional evidence that each individual broke the law.
In other words, keep your mouth shut and don't admit to anything or make up excuses. "I'm sorry officer. I mean no disrespect, but my lawyer told me to never make a statement to the police without him being present. Am I being detained, or may I leave now?"
you forgot one major line "I do not consent to searches..."
--------------------
|
itsthedank
The Dude
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 4,733
Loc: The Gray Tapes
Last seen: 1 hour, 1 minute
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: unknown1123]
#8650938 - 07/18/08 02:34 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm a little confused, is the scent of marijuana considered probable cause for a search or can i still use that trustworthy line above?
|
linx88
Seeker
Registered: 06/22/08
Posts: 169
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: itsthedank]
#8650957 - 07/18/08 02:39 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"This is just going to require a little more investigation on the part of our officers on the street, to develop some additional probable cause," said Don Pierce, director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
PAIN IN THE ASS
--------------------
|
agonyandecstasy
Hippie
Registered: 03/21/08
Posts: 63
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: linx88]
#8651114 - 07/18/08 03:26 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
linx88 said:
Quote:
"This is just going to require a little more investigation on the part of our officers on the street, to develop some additional probable cause," said Don Pierce, director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
PAIN IN THE ASS
Just keep spray and clear eyes in the car.
|
bugabuga420
bUgAbUgaBOO
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 488
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: agonyandecstasy]
#8651156 - 07/18/08 03:34 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
blunt power ftw!!! shit is amazing. dont know what im talking about or cant get them locally see www.bluntpower.com
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,394
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 4 months, 3 days
|
Re: Pot smell isn't cause to arrest everyone in a car [WA] [Re: unknown1123]
#8652203 - 07/18/08 07:57 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> you forgot one major line "I do not consent to searches..."
As a passenger in the car, which is the premise of the story, you do not have authority to submit to a search of the vehicle.
> I'm a little confused, is the scent of marijuana considered probable cause for a search or can i still use that trustworthy line above?
The scent is probable cause for a search of the car. However, the scent is not evidence that passengers in the car broke the law, thus the scent alone does not give police the right to arrest passengers for drug violations in the state of Washington.
As an example, say the Washington State Police see a car change lanes without using a turn signal, so they pull the car over. The cop smells what he thinks is cannabis smoke as he approaches the car. He notices the driver acting odd, glazed eyes, a bit slow and slurred, etc. The driver fails a field sobriety test and is arrested for DUI. Before this ruling, the cop could also arrest the passengers based upon nothing more than the smell of smoke in the car. Now, the cop cannot arrest the passengers based upon the smell of smoke in the car. The courts said, "Hey, just because you smell smoke doesn't mean the passengers were the ones breaking the law. The driver is fair game, but not the passengers." So as long as you are a passenger, you don't have anything on you, and you keep your mouth shut, you will walk (in theory) in the state of Washington.
In this case, let the police know that your lawyer has told you what to do. (Never tell a cop that you know your rights... they don't care and it increases their level of contempt towards you... "you think you know your rights... I'll show you just how little you @#$@#ing know!" type of attitude. Tell a cop that your lawyer told you what to say (or more to the point, what not to say), and they start to pay attention.) Always be polite and respectful and always ask if you are being detained or if you can leave. (Detained is not arrested.... when you get pulled over, or questioned, you are being detained. If the cop has no legal reason to detain you, he has to let you go if you ask. The longer you remain detained, the more likely you are to end up arrested.)
Edit: I'm not a lawyer and my interpretation may be flawed. This is your freedom that we are playing with, so be sure to talk to a real lawyer and find out exactly what the ruling means. (Assuming that you live in the state of Washington and travel with friends that smoke cannabis.)
Edited by Seuss (07/18/08 08:00 PM)
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Alan Rockefeller
1,265 topic views. 4 members, 36 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
