|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: thodub]
#14472956 - 05/18/11 12:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
not just that but most cops are unable to distinguish between the smell of marijuana and many other scents
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Maverick]
#14472958 - 05/18/11 12:01 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maverick said: I guess if the 'law' permits it they're within the law. Does this make the law absolute and correct? Nope.
Yep. That's how the law works, precedent establishes precedent. Then the law changes, and you need new precedents.
But the law is the law, and there's no way anybody can fault cops for following the law.
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor



Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14472973 - 05/18/11 12:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
the part the gets to me is that it was in an apartment complex
who is to say that it was ONLY king that was smoking pot in his apartment?
everyone in the entire complex could have been doing the same. you can't really tell where the pot smell is EXACTLY coming from in an apartment, you can narrow it down to a certain wing or corner but you can't pinpoint exactly with 100% accuracy where it was
it's a pretty bullshit ruling because:
1.) pot should not be illegal 2.) you cannot trust cops in the first place
the ruling is resting on the basis that these 2 statements should be true and correct
lets switch it up to something different. jenkem case. you smell shit coming from an apartment, knock on the door...you just hear loud farting noises...
now is that probable cause that someone is getting jenked up in hurr?
-------------------- You are at once both the quiet and the confusion of my heart. -Franz Kafka
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor



Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Doc_T]
#14473003 - 05/18/11 12:12 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc_T said:
Quote:
Maverick said: I guess if the 'law' permits it they're within the law. Does this make the law absolute and correct? Nope.
Yep. That's how the law works, precedent establishes precedent. Then the law changes, and you need new precedents.
But the law is the law, and there's no way anybody can fault cops for following the law.
ah yes another fault of american government
that a "law is a law"- the arbitrary tautology that confirms and validates itself. that laws shouldnt be critiqued, instead just regulate and add more policy.
common law practice and parliament make so much more sense. for one you can vote a no-confidence and re-vote for the entire parliament. the checks and balances system rests on the idea that our branches of government dont trust eachother, and can therefor never be solvent in their own right, only playing catchup and attempting to "check" the procedure (however arbitrary) of the other branches.
i mean look at canada FFS, vancouver had LSD and MDMA perfectly legal just because of a critical re-definition of an established tort that allowed for their sale...even on the streets....even in front of the courthouse
-------------------- You are at once both the quiet and the confusion of my heart. -Franz Kafka
|
Maverick
Lover of Earwigs!




Registered: 12/18/05
Posts: 13,437
Loc: Valleys of Willamette
Last seen: 12 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473011 - 05/18/11 12:14 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: not just that but most cops are unable to distinguish between the smell of marijuana and many other scents
It takes a pothead to be able to distinguish pot completely from similar diffused scents. Oh also I'm stoned.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything] 1
#14473033 - 05/18/11 12:18 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said: it's a pretty bullshit ruling because:
1.) pot should not be illegal 2.) you cannot trust cops in the first place
it doesnt matter if it should or shouldnt be illegal, the law is what it is, as it stands it's illegal
if there was no cocaine and marijuana on the table the courts would have dismissed the case before it got to the supreme court
|
I R Crankey
bang bang choo choo


Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 2,005
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Maverick]
#14473038 - 05/18/11 12:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maverick said: So... basically a cop can lie and say he smelled marijuana, bust into your place, and ruin your life, even if there is no marijuana present, just because he now has that ability... Great. I've still got a 12'guage shotgun for hunting that's also the primary indoor defense weapon here. If someone's breaking in, I won't wait to see if it's a cop or not, I'll just blow their head off, then after the fact, it's self-defense of a break in.
how do cases like this usually end? im always reading about some poor sucker getting blasted by the cops for having a weapon, but the home owner rarely ever gets a shot off, let alone kill a piggy in the process.
i tried searching and all i could find was http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?191781-Homeowner-kills-cop-during-no-knock-warrant&s=83f5343efccdf68869898fdc37a76641
look how well shooting the intruding cop went for him.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Maverick]
#14473042 - 05/18/11 12:19 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Maverick said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: not just that but most cops are unable to distinguish between the smell of marijuana and many other scents
It takes a pothead to be able to distinguish pot completely from similar diffused scents. Oh also I'm stoned. 
no, even potheads cant always tell, I've smoked cigarettes that have smelled like pot and had potheads ask if I was smoking weed
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: I R Crankey]
#14473060 - 05/18/11 12:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wut a Twist said:
Quote:
Maverick said: So... basically a cop can lie and say he smelled marijuana, bust into your place, and ruin your life, even if there is no marijuana present, just because he now has that ability... Great. I've still got a 12'guage shotgun for hunting that's also the primary indoor defense weapon here. If someone's breaking in, I won't wait to see if it's a cop or not, I'll just blow their head off, then after the fact, it's self-defense of a break in.
how do cases like this usually end? im always reading about some poor sucker getting blasted by the cops for having a weapon, but the home owner rarely ever gets a shot off, let alone kill a piggy in the process.
i tried searching and all i could find was http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?191781-Homeowner-kills-cop-during-no-knock-warrant&s=83f5343efccdf68869898fdc37a76641
look how well shooting the intruding cop went for him.
most times the home owner is killed, some arent, a case in atlanta where a 90yo woman was killed when she fired on what she believed to be people breaking in and another in Minnesota or someplace where the home owner fired 5 shots hitting but not seriously injuring 4 cops while they fired 21 rounds and didnt hit anyone... the cops received awards from the city
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473070 - 05/18/11 12:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: it doesnt matter if it should or shouldnt be illegal, the law is what it is, as it stands it's illegal
Why is this so difficult for some people? Is it a generational thing?
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Doc_T]
#14473082 - 05/18/11 12:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
because they seem to believe their own beliefs should override the laws, that would work out great for real criminals, I believe it's perfectly fine to kill people so my beliefs should over rule the courts decisions
|
Doc_T
Random Dude




Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 42,395
Loc: Colorado
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473087 - 05/18/11 12:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Beliefs DO overrule law... after you vote your beliefs. 
-------------------- You make it all possible. Doesn't it feel good?
|
AntiEverything
im not a doctor



Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473088 - 05/18/11 12:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Doc_T said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: it doesnt matter if it should or shouldnt be illegal, the law is what it is, as it stands it's illegal
Why is this so difficult for some people? Is it a generational thing?
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said: because they seem to believe their own beliefs should override the laws, that would work out great for real criminals, I believe it's perfectly fine to kill people so my beliefs should over rule the courts decisions
didn't read any of my posts directly before this. did you?
edit: doc has me nigged so apparently not
-------------------- You are at once both the quiet and the confusion of my heart. -Franz Kafka
Edited by AntiEverything (05/18/11 12:37 PM)
|
I R Crankey
bang bang choo choo


Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 2,005
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473097 - 05/18/11 12:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
google Ryan Frederick, you'll find he got a 10year sentence for killing that dumass cop, there were NO drugs in his house and definitly no grow op, then add the fact that he has no criminal record, BUT he still got 10years for killing a piggy who was illegally breaking into his home.
|
Maverick
Lover of Earwigs!




Registered: 12/18/05
Posts: 13,437
Loc: Valleys of Willamette
Last seen: 12 hours, 26 minutes
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: I R Crankey] 1
#14473125 - 05/18/11 12:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wut a Twist said: google Ryan Frederick, you'll find he got a 10year sentence for killing that dumass cop, there were NO drugs in his house and definitly no grow op, then add the fact that he has no criminal record, BUT he still got 10years for killing a piggy who was illegally breaking into his home.

Bah. Fuck the world!
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: AntiEverything]
#14473132 - 05/18/11 12:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AntiEverything said: that a "law is a law"- the arbitrary tautology that confirms and validates itself. that laws shouldnt be critiqued, instead just regulate and add more policy.
the law is defined, at least in the US
Quote:
common law practice and parliament make so much more sense. for one you can vote a no-confidence and re-vote for the entire parliament. the checks and balances system rests on the idea that our branches of government dont trust eachother, and can therefor never be solvent in their own right, only playing catchup and attempting to "check" the procedure (however arbitrary) of the other branches.
we have checks and balances in the US as well, 2 house of congress have to approve and then the president has to sign, if he does not it would have to go back before the house and be passed with a 2/3 majority to over rule a presidential veto... the system works pretty well, of course then we have the court systems that are also interpreting the laws all the way to the supreme court and the juries that also have the ability to put the law on trial
Quote:
i mean look at canada FFS, vancouver had LSD and MDMA perfectly legal just because of a critical re-definition of an established tort that allowed for their sale...even on the streets....even in front of the courthouse
except it's illegal in vancouver and all of canada, a temporary loophole opened for a brief time doesnt mean that it's legal it simply gave relief for a few people for a brief time
http://wikitravel.org/en/Vancouver#Cannabis
Quote:
A common belief is that marijuana is legal in British Columbia. That is a myth. Although Vancouver's police and the justice system tend to turn a blind eye to marijuana use, tourists should be advised that possessing any amount of marijuana is illegal in all of Canada without a government-issued medical exemption (the legality of possession is, however, currently under dispute by the Supreme Court).
http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13458.shtml
Quote:
"There's no open buying and selling in Vancouver, yet unfortunately a lot of people come with that impression," said Scott Hearty at the B.C. Marijuana Party headquarters and bookstore, one of a dozen legal hemp-friendly businesses.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: I R Crankey]
#14473139 - 05/18/11 12:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wut a Twist said: google Ryan Frederick, you'll find he got a 10year sentence for killing that dumass cop, there were NO drugs in his house and definitly no grow op, then add the fact that he has no criminal record, BUT he still got 10years for killing a piggy who was illegally breaking into his home.
right, because as I stated, the courtrooms are the place to fight illegal entry by cops (unfortunately it should have been in an different thread)
|
citricacidx
FunGuy




Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 9,027
Loc: GA
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: DeadHearts]
#14473148 - 05/18/11 12:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DeadHearts said: Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg was in the minority, opposing the majority decision made by the court.
Did anybody read what Ginsburg said about this? It's awesome to see a politician that wants to hold police and other politicians to the law.
Quote:
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting. The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court's reduction of the Fourth Amendment's force.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people "The right ... to be secure in their ... houses ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." Warrants to search, the Amendment further instructs, shall issue only upon a showing of "probable cause" to believe criminal activity is afoot. These complementary provisions are designed to ensure that police will seek the authorization of a neutral magistrate before undertaking a search or seizure. Exceptions to the warrant requirement, this Court has explained, must be "few in number and carefully delineated," if the main rule is to remain hardy. United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407 U. S. 297, 318 (1972); see Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 31 (2001).
This case involves a principal exception to the warrant requirement, the exception applicable in "exigent circumstances." See ante, at 6-7. "Carefully delineated," the exception should govern only in genuine emergency situations. Circumstances qualify as "exigent" when there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury, or danger that evidence will be immediately destroyed, or that a suspect will escape. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403 (2006). The question presented: May police, who could pause to gain the approval of a neutral magistrate, dispense with the need to get a warrant by themselves creating exigent circumstances? I would answer no, as did the Kentucky Supreme Court. The urgency must exist, I would rule, when the police come on the scene, not subsequent to their arrival, prompted by their own conduct.
I
Two pillars of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence should have controlled the Court's ruling: First, "whenever practical, [the police must] obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 20 (1968); second, unwarranted "searches and seizures inside a home" bear heightened scrutiny, Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980). The warrant requirement, Justice Jackson observed, ranks among the "fundamental distinctions between our form of government, where officers are under the law, and the police-state where they are the law." Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 17 (1948). The Court has accordingly declared warrantless searches, in the main, "per se unreasonable." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978); see also Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 559 (2004). "The police bear a heavy burden," the Court has cautioned, "when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches." Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U. S. 740, 749-750 (1984).
That heavy burden has not been carried here. There was little risk that drug-related evidence would have been destroyed had the police delayed the search pending a magistrate's authorization. As the Court recognizes, "persons in possession of valuable drugs are unlikely to destroy them unless they fear discovery by the police." Ante, at 8. Nothing in the record shows that, prior to the knock at the apartment door, the occupants were apprehensive about police proximity.
In no quarter does the Fourth Amendment apply with greater force than in our homes, our most private space which, for centuries, has been regarded as " 'entitled to special protection.' " Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103, 115, and n. 4 (2006); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 99 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Home intrusions, the Court has said, are indeed "the chief evil against which ... the Fourth Amendment is directed." Payton, 445 U. S., at 585 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961) ("At [the Fourth Amendment's] very core stands the right of a man to retreat to his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."). " 'Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are [therefore] presumptively unreasonable.' " Brigham City, 547 U. S., at 403 (quoting Groh, 540 U. S., at 559). How "secure" do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?
II
As above noted, to justify the police activity in this case, Kentucky invoked the once-guarded exception for emergencies "in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant ... threatens 'the destruction of evidence.' " Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 770 (1966) (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964)). To fit within this exception, "police action literally must be [taken] 'now or never' to preserve the evidence of the crime." Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U. S. 496, 505 (1973).
The existence of a genuine emergency depends not only on the state of necessity at the time of the warrantless search; it depends, first and foremost, on "actions taken by the police preceding the warrantless search." United States v. Coles, 437 F. 3d 361, 367 (CA3 2006). See also United States v. Chambers, 395 F. 3d 563, 565 (CA6 2005) ("Officers must seek a warrant based on probable cause when they believe in advance they will find contraband or evidence of a crime."). "Wasting a clear opportunity to obtain a warrant," therefore, "disentitles the officer from relying on subsequent exigent circumstances." S. Saltzburg & D. Capra, American Criminal Procedure 376 (8th ed. 2007).
Under an appropriately reined-in "emergency" or "exigent circumstances" exception, the result in this case should not be in doubt. The target of the investigation's entry into the building, and the smell of marijuana seeping under the apartment door into the hallway, the Kentucky Supreme Court rightly determined, gave the police "probable cause ... sufficient ... to obtain a warrant to search the ... apartment." 302 S. W. 3d 649, 653 (2010). As that court observed, nothing made it impracticable for the police to post officers on the premises while proceeding to obtain a warrant authorizing their entry. Id., at 654. Before this Court, Kentucky does not urge otherwise. See Brief for Petitioner 35, n. 13 (asserting "It should be of no importance whether police could have obtained a warrant").
In Johnson, the Court confronted this scenario: standing outside a hotel room, the police smelled burning opium and heard "some shuffling or noise" coming from the room. 333 U. S., at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Could the police enter the room without a warrant? The Court answered no. Explaining why, the Court said:
Quote:
"The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is ... a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not a policeman ... .
Quote:
. . . . .
"If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of [any] case in which [a warrant] should be required." Id., at 14-15.
I agree, and would not allow an expedient knock to override the warrant requirement.* Instead, I would accord that core requirement of the Fourth Amendment full respect. When possible, "a warrant must generally be secured," the Court acknowledges. Ante, at 5. There is every reason to conclude that securing a warrant was entirely feasible in this case, and no reason to contract the Fourth Amendment's dominion.
--------------------

Edited by citricacidx (05/18/11 12:56 PM)
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14473153 - 05/18/11 12:52 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds to me that the cops may have had reasonable cause to enter the apartment in the first pace.
They performed a controlled, undercover buy, then followed the guy there.
Edited by badchad (05/18/11 12:53 PM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Supreme Court endorses warrantless search based on marijuana smell [Re: citricacidx]
#14473158 - 05/18/11 12:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ginsburg is an appointed official, understand that the current supreme court was stacked with liberals by the president that promised transparency and change, I guess erosion of the 4th is the change he delivers
|
|