PDA

View Full Version : I have a big problem with this - gives too much power to cops



Doc_Holiday
01-13-2011, 09:09 PM
This is just utter bull. Nice work of our activist judges on The US Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110113,0,5698294.story

T&B fan
01-13-2011, 09:57 PM
and another one down another one bites the dust ... your rights are going away and their not coming back ...

Craic
01-13-2011, 10:28 PM
I'm split on this one. If they have reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being committed (marijuana is still criminal), then why do they need a warrant to stop the crime? If they hear a women screaming she's being raped, that is also a crime, but no one in their right mind would argue that the police need a search warrant to go through the door.

Yet, I am ALWAYS afraid of the police getting more authority. More authority means more ability abuse the system.

Doc_Holiday
01-14-2011, 12:07 AM
I'm split on this one. If they have reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being committed (marijuana is still criminal), then why do they need a warrant to stop the crime? If they hear a women screaming she's being raped, that is also a crime, but no one in their right mind would argue that the police need a search warrant to go through the door.

Yet, I am ALWAYS afraid of the police getting more authority. More authority means more ability abuse the system.

I get that certain circumstances should be granted; but the smell test doesn't fit here in my opinion. That's where I'm weary. Thankfully in Cali, if you have a medical card you can smoke it and even grow it.

Craic
01-14-2011, 01:38 AM
I get that certain circumstances should be granted; but the smell test doesn't fit here in my opinion. That's where I'm weary. Thankfully in Cali, if you have a medical card you can smoke it and even grow it.

That's actually not true. And yes, I live here too. The law is only that the local police and sheriff, as well as the BII are not able to arrest or prosecute since state law is not violated. However, any federal law enforcement officer, including a next door neighbor that happens to work for the post office as a postal inspector, TSA as a Marshall, or numerous department of Interior positions, such as Ranger, not to mention the FBI, BATF, ICE, etc... can arrest you for violating federal law.

T&B fan
01-14-2011, 08:59 AM
I'm split on this one. If they have reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being committed (marijuana is still criminal), then why do they need a warrant to stop the crime? If they hear a women screaming she's being raped, that is also a crime, but no one in their right mind would argue that the police need a search warrant to go through the door.

Yet, I am ALWAYS afraid of the police getting more authority. More authority means more ability abuse the system.

in this case you have the the right to protect the women from bodily harm .

Hindes204
01-14-2011, 09:27 AM
This is just utter bull. Nice work of our activist judges on The US Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110113,0,5698294.story

So, if there is a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of somebodies door (which is illegal!!), you are saying the cops have no right to go in there and see what is going on without first obtaining a search warrant? That sounds like an unreasonable argument to me

smokin3000gt
01-14-2011, 12:01 PM
I'm split on this one. If they have reasonable cause to believe that a crime is being committed (marijuana is still criminal), then why do they need a warrant to stop the crime? If they hear a women screaming she's being raped, that is also a crime, but no one in their right mind would argue that the police need a search warrant to go through the door.

Yet, I am ALWAYS afraid of the police getting more authority. More authority means more ability abuse the system.

Are you really comparing someone smoking pot quietly in their own home (misdemeanor) and a woman being raped??

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 02:05 PM
So, if there is a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of somebodies door (which is illegal!!), you are saying the cops have no right to go in there and see what is going on without first obtaining a search warrant? That sounds like an unreasonable argument to me

Let's not let anything like the Constitution get in the way of busting a pot head right? Come on guys, seriously, how in the hell could anyone condone this, especially someone who has enlisted to PROTECT AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!

steelpride12
01-14-2011, 02:09 PM
Well after this semester I will be applying to the State Police and I truly love this! Police are here to protect and serve and only to do that. As the reason's stated above are enough proof how important this will be!

smokin3000gt
01-14-2011, 02:20 PM
So, if there is a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of somebodies door (which is illegal!!), you are saying the cops have no right to go in there and see what is going on without first obtaining a search warrant? That sounds like an unreasonable argument to me

A cop kicking in a door without a warrant then claiming that he 'thought he smelt smoke' seems more un-reasonable to me.

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 02:30 PM
Well after this semester I will be applying to the State Police and I truly love this! Police are here to protect and serve and only to do that. As the reason's stated above are enough proof how important this will be!

So you love the fact that you'll be able to bust down someone's door? What if they are just smoking Clove cigarettes and you make a mistake? What happens if there is a baby playing behind that door when you shove your boot through it to bust someone smoking a clove cigarette? You see having probable cause and a SEARCH WARRANT covers shit like that. Otherwise is the police department going to be held liable when they screw it up, cause they sure as hell will at some point. All it takes is some rookie cop trying to make a name for himself making a huge mistake and getting himself or someone else killed. All for a joint.

Hindes204
01-14-2011, 03:19 PM
Let's not let anything like the Constitution get in the way of busting a pot head right? Come on guys, seriously, how in the hell could anyone condone this, especially someone who has enlisted to PROTECT AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!

ouch


I spoke with doing absolutely no research, give me a day to go over everything involved and I will post again. Im not saying this will change my mind at all, just saying that I may have spoken too quckly and need more time to study.

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 03:27 PM
Look Hindes, I didn't mean any disrespect and my post may have come across a bit harsh, for that I apologize, that was not my intent. I truly respect your service, but this is a very slippery slope and I'm not sure if everyone has considered the consequences and where this could go. What happens if they outlaw transfat or salt because its causes health problems hence causing more people to go to doctors with out insurance. And if they are on Govt. insurance then surely it would be okay to go into their house because a police officer smells fried chicken cooking, right. Can't have someone breaking the law now right? I mean as tax payers we have to pay the doctor bills of the uninsured if they have a heart attack from the banned transfat and salt. So surely its justified. Right? Because once they start doing crap like this it just opens the door for them to do something else. For the betterment of the people of course. They are just keeping us safe.

Hindes204
01-14-2011, 03:57 PM
Look Hindes, I didn't mean any disrespect and my post may have come across a bit harsh, for that I apologize, that was not my intent. I truly respect your service, but this is a very slippery slope and I'm not sure if everyone has considered the consequences and where this could go. What happens if they outlaw transfat or salt because its causes health problems hence causing more people to go to doctors with out insurance. And if they are on Govt. insurance then surely it would be okay to go into their house because a police officer smells fried chicken cooking, right. Can't have someone breaking the law now right? I mean as tax payers we have to pay the doctor bills of the uninsured if they have a heart attack from the banned transfat and salt. So surely its justified. Right? Because once they start doing crap like this it just opens the door for them to do something else. For the betterment of the people of course. They are just keeping us safe.

No offense taken, this is a very sensitive issue. I do think you are reaching a little bit with the fried chicken though, lol.
Here’s the thing…its not like the Supreme Court is going to deem that all evidence collected whether unconstitutional or not will be admissible in court, the officers will still have to prove that there was enough probable cause to break the door down. Are there dishonest police officers out there, of course, are there dishonest criminals out there, definitely.
I think this case is ruffling feathers because it is a marijuana issue. A drug that many believe should be legalized because “its not that big of a deal.” Like smokin said “smoking pot quietly in their own home.” I am not one of those people. I think pot is more dangerous than people think. And Im not one of those assholes who has never been around it who bases their decisions on nothing. Due to my military status, I will not go into how involved I was in the drug scene, but I have seen many friends over the years die of overdoses due to drugs. Was it an overdose of weed, of course not. But sooner or later the pot high is just not enough anymore. Is it a gateway drug – no doubt about it.
So if there is smoke pouring out of my neighbors house, while me and my children are sitting on the porch and they ask what it is, youre damn right Im calling the cops. And if my neighbor refuses to answer the door when the cops get there, Ill kick the damn door in for em.

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 05:05 PM
My point is that once its pot, it can be anything deemed illegal. I'm sure the people of Germany had no problems with other peoples rights disappearing in the late 30's and early 40's, until it was a right they cherished of course. Regardless, this is a Slippery Slope, that can't be refuted.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up"

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Craic
01-14-2011, 05:12 PM
Are you really comparing someone smoking pot quietly in their own home (misdemeanor) and a woman being raped??

No, I am comparing what is reasonable suspicion. If you say that using one set senses cannot constitute reasonable suspicion, then how you say using another set of senses constitutes reasonable suspicion? What if they smelled burning flesh? Is that reasonable suspicion?

Or is it just reasonable suspicion on certain laws? If you smell this smell, you may enter, but if you smell that smell, you may not enter.

Sorry, that too me is much more unreasonable.

In the end, I don't think this is at all about the constitution, this is once again, about the issue of being to smoke an illegal substance-and then getting upset about facing the consequences for breaking the law.

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 05:14 PM
No offense taken, this is a very sensitive issue. I do think you are reaching a little bit with the fried chicken though, lol.
Here’s the thing…its not like the Supreme Court is going to deem that all evidence collected whether unconstitutional or not will be admissible in court, the officers will still have to prove that there was enough probable cause to break the door down. Are there dishonest police officers out there, of course, are there dishonest criminals out there, definitely.
I think this case is ruffling feathers because it is a marijuana issue. A drug that many believe should be legalized because “its not that big of a deal.” Like smokin said “smoking pot quietly in their own home.” I am not one of those people. I think pot is more dangerous than people think. And Im not one of those assholes who has never been around it who bases their decisions on nothing. Due to my military status, I will not go into how involved I was in the drug scene, but I have seen many friends over the years die of overdoses due to drugs. Was it an overdose of weed, of course not. But sooner or later the pot high is just not enough anymore. Is it a gateway drug – no doubt about it.
So if there is smoke pouring out of my neighbors house, while me and my children are sitting on the porch and they ask what it is, youre damn right Im calling the cops. And if my neighbor refuses to answer the door when the cops get there, Ill kick the damn door in for em.

Also, you calling the police because you smell pot coming out of your neighbor's house is completely different from that police officer coming on someone's property because "HE" says he smelled pot. There is a bit of conflict of interest there, that's what probable cause and a warrant is for. How do we know that cop just isn't pissed off at the guy because he boinked his wife?

43Hitman
01-14-2011, 05:21 PM
No offense taken, this is a very sensitive issue. I do think you are reaching a little bit with the fried chicken though, lol.


Why is that reaching? If transfat and salt are outlawed, like being proposed in New York (we won't even go into prohibition), and we have national health care, isn't that a drain on the society? After all, you and I have to pay into that insurance and we don't eat the dreaded transfat and would NEVER consider eating salt. So why should we have to pay for the fat ass next door that is breaking the law and eating whatever he wants. Shouldn't that be stopped too? Where does this end?

Craic
01-14-2011, 05:21 PM
My point is that once its pot, it can be anything deemed illegal. I'm sure the people of Germany had no problems with other peoples rights disappearing in the late 30's and early 40's, until it was a right they cherished of course. Regardless, this is a Slippery Slope, that can't be refuted.

That is an awfully large leap for a number of reasons.

1. Pot has ALREADY been deemed illegal. It has been for many years, as well as many other drugs, type of alcohol, guns, explosives, not paying taxes, etc.

2. Reductio ad Hitler arguments tend to negate the point being made. Those who didn't care about the Jews in Germany or their rights, never had their rights taken away. The persecution of the Jews went right along side of the persecution of the homosexual, the Gypsies, and the communists. Furthermore, those who did speak out, where the ones that got their rights taken away as well. Please do a little study of the confessing church of Germany.

3. There is no right being taken away here. A crime is being committed. Smoking pot is a federal crime. There was reasonable suspicion that the crime WAS being committed, which enables law enforcement to enter into a home. Furthermore, after knocking on a door, to hear the flushing of toilets... gives much more suspicion.


No, if they didn't smell anything, if they just walked up to a door and knocked, and then heard toilets flushing, that is not reasonable suspicion. Once they smell the pot, that it is. At least, IMO. Seems like it is in the opinion of the SC as well.

smokin3000gt
01-14-2011, 06:10 PM
At what point do we do away with warrants all together then? I mean if a cop or someone has 'reasonable doubt' that you're doing something illegal then you must be and to hell with your rights and privacy. If cops can kick your door in at their discretion, why do we even need warrants?

Your rights < one 'bad guy' getting away with burning a joint

What happens if a cop 'smells weed' and is trying to get through my front door (in a big hurry because God forbid I flush my misdemeanor amount) and I answer with 5 or 6 rounds through the door? Who's fault is it? I thought it was someone breaking in my house. His word against mine and I'M fucked either way.

Doc_Holiday
01-14-2011, 07:27 PM
At what point do we do away with warrants all together then? I mean if a cop or someone has 'reasonable doubt' that you're doing something illegal then you must be and to hell with your rights and privacy. If cops can kick your door in at their discretion, why do we even need warrants?

Your rights < one 'bad guy' getting away with burning a joint

What happens if a cop 'smells weed' and is trying to get through my front door (in a big hurry because God forbid I flush my misdemeanor amount) and I answer with 5 or 6 rounds through the door? Who's fault is it? I thought it was someone breaking in my house. His word against mine and I'M fucked either way.

What I find fascinating is that I could be building a bomb and if the cops kick the door down based on 'suspecting', my lawyer would throw it out.

And to compare someone screaming during a rape to smoking a joint is utter nonsense in my opinion. If someone is screaming for help, there's your clue; but since the rape analogy was used, what if it's really rough sex?

I get that in the vast majority of states it's illegal to smoke a joint. I also feel that the "Slippery Slope" argument is almost always a weak one. But what next?!?

What other 'thought' could a police officer use to kick down your door? Get a warrant and play it safe.

Craic
01-14-2011, 07:31 PM
At what point do we do away with warrants all together then? I mean if a cop or someone has 'reasonable doubt' that you're doing something illegal then you must be and to hell with your rights and privacy. If cops can kick your door in at their discretion, why do we even need warrants?

Your rights < one 'bad guy' getting away with burning a joint

What happens if a cop 'smells weed' and is trying to get through my front door (in a big hurry because God forbid I flush my misdemeanor amount) and I answer with 5 or 6 rounds through the door? Who's fault is it? I thought it was someone breaking in my house. His word against mine and I'M fucked either way.

Well, first, the policeman knocked, since the stuff was being flushed, we can assume therefore, that he also announced himself. At this point, you are now aware that it IS or at least seems to be a police officer at the door.

Furthermore, to shoot THROUGH the door is illegal in most if not all the states. The perp. MUST be IN your house, presenting a viable threat to you. In other words, the ONLY thing between you and the perp, is the gun when you fire it. Otherwise, you are charged with murder/manslaughter. Furthermore, if the perp. turns his back to you and starts to leave, you are in no man's land. You could ALSO be charged with murder/manslaughter-EVEN IF he has fired at you already.

So, what happens to you? The same thing that happens to you if a rapist is coming through your door and you pull a gun and fire 5 or 6 rounds and kill him. You go to jail for murder because you did not wait for him to come into the house. Do I like that law? No. Not at all. But it is the law. He has to CLEARLY be inside the house (had a cop tell my grandma that if she shot someone and he fell outside the house, to drag him back INTO the house so she wouldn't get charged).

BTW, search warrants are for situations were there is NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION by a cop just walking up to the house. In short, this fall under the same laws as a policeman walking up to your car to give you a ticket. He looks in the backseat and sees a dimebag. He is fully and completely within the law to arrest you for that. He doesn't need a search warrant, because it was IN THE OPEN. In the same way, the smell of pot is IN THE OPEN. Search warrants are when there is reason to suspect, but there nothing is IN THE OPEN to create reasonable suspicion.

In the end however, What I find quite humorous however, is the premise that the cops are wrong for violating a persons rights, WHILE that person is violating the law. Sure, I am sitting here breaking the law, but damnit! Don't violate my rights! that just seems hypocritical to me. (Smo3000- Notice I put it in first person, I am not directing this comment to you in particular, but to the general argument from that position, FYI- not trying to get personal or call you names)

Craic
01-14-2011, 07:38 PM
And to compare someone screaming during a rape to smoking a joint is utter nonsense in my opinion. If someone is screaming for help, there's your clue; but since the rape analogy was used, what if it's really rough sex?


No, the analogy is not the heinousness of the crime, but rather, at what point does the use of senses allow a policeman to enter into private property without a warrant? Is there different levels? As I said before, do we accept the sense of hearing, and not the sense of smell? What if it smells like burnt flesh? What if they heard "Pass the blunt" or "make sure the 8 balls are diluted, we already have them hooked". Is that enough? Is it just the "real bad" crimes that get stopped? What about "well, I thought I heard someone screaming rape, so I broke the door down and saw them smoke pot."

The scenario isn't so far fetched- nor is my original post.

Doc_Holiday
01-14-2011, 07:46 PM
Well, first, the policeman knocked, since the stuff was being flushed, we can assume therefore, that he also announced himself. At this point, you are now aware that it IS or at least seems to be a police officer at the door.

Furthermore, to shoot THROUGH the door is illegal in most if not all the states. The perp. MUST be IN your house, presenting a viable threat to you. In other words, the ONLY thing between you and the perp, is the gun when you fire it. Otherwise, you are charged with murder/manslaughter. Furthermore, if the perp. turns his back to you and starts to leave, you are in no man's land. You could ALSO be charged with murder/manslaughter-EVEN IF he has fired at you already.

So, what happens to you? The same thing that happens to you if a rapist is coming through your door and you pull a gun and fire 5 or 6 rounds and kill him. You go to jail for murder because you did not wait for him to come into the house. Do I like that law? No. Not at all. But it is the law. He has to CLEARLY be inside the house (had a cop tell my grandma that if she shot someone and he fell outside the house, to drag him back INTO the house so she wouldn't get charged).

BTW, search warrants are for situations were there is NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION by a cop just walking up to the house. In short, this fall under the same laws as a policeman walking up to your car to give you a ticket. He looks in the backseat and sees a dimebag. He is fully and completely within the law to arrest you for that. He doesn't need a search warrant, because it was IN THE OPEN. In the same way, the smell of pot is IN THE OPEN. Search warrants are when there is reason to suspect, but there nothing is IN THE OPEN to create reasonable suspicion.

In the end however, What I find quite humorous however, is the premise that the cops are wrong for violating a persons rights, WHILE that person is violating the law. Sure, I am sitting here breaking the law, but damnit! Don't violate my rights! that just seems hypocritical to me. (Smo3000- Notice I put it in first person, I am not directing this comment to you in particular, but to the general argument from that position, FYI- not trying to get personal or call you names)

Actually, you don't need to wait for them to enter your home depending on the circumstances. If you're running away from your attacker, enter your home and slam the door. If they kick the door and you instinctively shoot them, you may be in the clear.

Your Grandma would be in serious trouble for moving the body than she would just leaving it there as she's disturbing a crime scene, tainting the evidence and so on.

I learned it in the brief time I took law, moving the body is the dumbest thing you can do. All that's required is that you firmly believe your life or the life of a loved one in mortal danger - fear of life.

It'd work the same if you're strolling down the street and someone tries to mug you with a weapon - you feel your life in danger, you can kill him provided you don't empty your clip.

Craic
01-14-2011, 09:23 PM
Actually, you don't need to wait for them to enter your home depending on the circumstances. If you're running away from your attacker, enter your home and slam the door. If they kick the door and you instinctively shoot them, you may be in the clear.

Your Grandma would be in serious trouble for moving the body than she would just leaving it there as she's disturbing a crime scene, tainting the evidence and so on.

I learned it in the brief time I took law, moving the body is the dumbest thing you can do. All that's required is that you firmly believe your life or the life of a loved one in mortal danger - fear of life.

It'd work the same if you're strolling down the street and someone tries to mug you with a weapon - you feel your life in danger, you can kill him provided you don't empty your clip.

LOL, you gotta remember this was Virginia in the early 80's. Also, after thinking about it and reading your post, I do believe the cop was talking about someone that was shot, but not killed.

On the side, I am speaking specifically about Home Invasion. You are right in the scenarios you constructed. But in a case of home invasion, you cannot shoot through a door at someone-that is, an exterior door.

Doc_Holiday
01-15-2011, 12:17 AM
LOL, you gotta remember this was Virginia in the early 80's. Also, after thinking about it and reading your post, I do believe the cop was talking about someone that was shot, but not killed.

On the side, I am speaking specifically about Home Invasion. You are right in the scenarios you constructed. But in a case of home invasion, you cannot shoot through a door at someone-that is, an exterior door.

That's true; it's kind of a pain to get the door replaced before the rest of the police arrive. ;-p

Craic
01-15-2011, 01:01 AM
That's true; it's kind of a pain to get the door replaced before the rest of the police arrive. ;-p


Really? I have a couple extra in my garage for just that purpose....



:chuckle:

Just George
01-15-2011, 06:22 AM
FOURTH AMENDMENT

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'


Ok here are my two cents (for what they are worth) first by way of the constitution there MUST be probable cause to obtain a warrent, an officer must have reasonable suspicion to obtain a warrant, with cause so a judge will agree to sign it. it is called the probable cause affidavit


An affidavit of probable cause is a sworn statement, typically made by a police officer, that outlines the factual justification for why a judge should consent to an arrest or search warrant or [U]why an arrest made during a crime-in-progress was based on solid evidence that the person in custody is the person who is likely to have committed the crime. "Probable cause" is the reasonable belief, based on credible facts or situations, that a crime is (or has been) committed; "probable cause" is also a good-faith belief that some material evidence to a crime (a person or object) will be found in a particular location at a particular time.


Read more: Affidavit of Probable Cause | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5445177_affidavit-probable-cause.html#ixzz1B6UHJjt4) http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5445177_affidavit-probable-cause.html#ixzz1B6UHJjt4

does the smelling of Marijauna constitute a "reasonable belief, based on credible facts or situations, that a crime is (or has been) committed"

the arguement seems to be what is reasonable. bad cops abusing their power, shooting intruders, slippery slopes and rape are arguements that just seem to junk up the real arguement

issues around the rights of citizens unde the Fourth amendment. (this is not comphrehensive, but just a short search to inform the discussion)


Non-consensual extraction of blood implicates Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 16 ('89) ('this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes [a reasonable] expectation of privacy'); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 67 ('66) (compulsory blood test 'plainly involves the broadly conceived reach of a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment').' '[f]or the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619; accord Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, No. 95-590, 1995 WL 373274, at *3 (June 26,'95) ('the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is `reasonableness''). A search's reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued upon probable cause. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83).

Even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes. E.g., Michigan State Police Dept v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 ('90); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68).

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.' Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2

Fourth Amendment protects the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The essence of that protection is a prohibition against some modes of law enforcement because the cost of police intrusion into personal liberty is too high, even though the intrusion undoubtedly would result in an enormous boon to the public if the efficient apprehension of criminals were the sole criterion to be considered. 'The easiest course for [law enforcement] officials is not always one that our Constitution allows them to take.' Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 595 (Stevens, dissenting)."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

we have this right under the consititution to ensure the protection of individual citizens against the tyranny and oppression of governmental abuse of power. I take that VERY seriously, however in this proposed scenario if law enforcment acting on "reasonable belief, based on credible facts or situations, that a crime is (or has been) committed" I can't see that the rights afforded us under the consititution were violated.

NOW if police were randomly entering residences saying "I smelled pot so I knocked, announced and made entry" no pot was found but evidence of some other crime was found I would argue that all evidence of another crime would be inadmissable because the reasons the police made entry were invalid. So I guess it would probably fall under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Also I would wonder if the arguement could be made that the owner of a home subjected to such a search that turned up no evidence of criminal behavior would be eligible to recieve damages of some kind and this would help ensure that police did not use this power to perform "fishing expeditions" and make it an unstated policy to enter residences. (just a thought, have not thought it through completly)

So the real question is does someone have the right to expect privacy to commit a crime even if it is in their own home?

thusly If you are smoking pot, even in your home and are unfortunate enough to have an officer walk by and smell it and get pinched, COME ON you do the crime and you suffer the consequences. I am not sure if arguing that your rights were violated holds water.

If your fear is more about not wanting Law Enforcement to abuse that power, I totally understand and agree that a close eye will need to be kept on this. I am just not sure if this ruling automatically means a loss of constitutional rights for us. I am aware that even if this allows law enforcement to respond in a quicker more efficant manner it does not necessarly mean it is great for us as a whole. don't mean to sound two minded about this, but it is a complicated issue that I am not totally resolved on yet.

sorry to ramble but thanks for the great discussion

as always all things stated are only my opinion. :)

beSteelmyheart
01-18-2011, 05:26 PM
What I find fascinating is that I could be building a bomb and if the cops kick the door down based on 'suspecting', my lawyer would throw it out.

And to compare someone screaming during a rape to smoking a joint is utter nonsense in my opinion. If someone is screaming for help, there's your clue; but since the rape analogy was used, what if it's really rough sex?

I get that in the vast majority of states it's illegal to smoke a joint. I also feel that the "Slippery Slope" argument is almost always a weak one. But what next?!?

What other 'thought' could a police officer use to kick down your door? Get a warrant and play it safe.
What hit me first when reading the first line of your post is the amount of taxpayer money that would be spent prosecuting a guy over smoking a frigging joint!! How silly is that?
And what if the woman is screaming because she's being beaten by her DRUNK husband? But how many people openly debate about the dangers of alcohol besides the obvious danger of driving drunk? But it's justified because alcohol is legal? Are you kidding me?
I don't buy into the argument that pot is a gateway drug-that's bullshit. You either have the mentality to find other drugs, or you don't. My fiancee is a regular pot smoker but gee, I haven't heard him mention wanting to find any heroin or coke lately & probably never will.
What about the drugs that are now regularly administered to kids who used to just be considered "hyperactive". Wouldn't that be a gateway drug? that's right, start em out early, to hell with any good parenting techniques, just give the brat a pill!! What about the bogus pain clinics? What about the shy guy who is made to think that his "social anxiety" can be made all better with a prescription to Paxil & it turns him into a creep that destroys friendships because he starts scaring people & beating up his mother? Is that okay because it's LEGAL??????
And don't you think it's sickening when a regular working guy has to go to jail for pot while sexual predators are released EARLY back out into our communities to continue to rape children?? Is that how much we value children in this country? Really?
Give me a friggin break.
The only reason that pot is NOT legal is because Big Pharm-Tobacco-Alcohol hasn't figured out a surefire way to grow it & exclusively profit from it while lining the pockets of politicians & that's all there is to it.
I could care less if my neighbor is smoking pot, & if you are then try minding your own Goddamned business & take another Zanax.
(not against you Doc, just my feelings in general)

43Hitman
01-18-2011, 05:32 PM
I could care less if my neighbor is smoking pot, & if you are then try minding your own Goddamned business & take another Zanax.


I feel exactly the same way. In fact, I would rather have my neighbor smoking a joint and being chill rather than him drinking a case and being rowdy. I dunno, I would think a rowdy guy would have more affect on my child than some dude staring at the clouds.

43Hitman
01-18-2011, 06:47 PM
@Preacher - Although the transfat/salt analogy may not have been feasible, let us explore some of the other laws that are broken each and every day, with no legal consequence. In most states, there are certain laws restricting co-habitation between individuals of the opposite sex who are not legally married-Virginia being one of them. However, every single day, landlords rent, and finance companies give loans, to unwed couples. Therefore, they are breaking the law. I don't see any cops busting down their doors. Not to be vulgar or anything, but many states also have laws that make it illegal to commit adultery or to "get busy" with your spouse in any position other than missionary. Yet, once again, every day people are breaking those laws. Again, no police in sight. This is due to the public's acceptance of these things. It is called the progression of civilization. In order for a civilization to not only survive, but also to thrive, we must adapt to our environment. In today's environment there is more and more cause for adaptation. Every day it's something new, from the degradation of the ozone, to the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the genocide in the Sudan, and the kids shooting schools, the teachers who are pedophiles. The list goes on and on. The stressers are everywhere. If there is a person alive that has found a way to deal with all of the crap going on in the world without using some type of outside help, please, share the secret. Some use exercise (I'm too lazy for that). Others use caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, food, sex, and so on. Others turn to therapy, and if they can land themselves that certain kind of doctor, they get a pill? Why are mental stabilizers like Prozac, Xanex, Valium, and a myriad of others legal. However, something that grows naturally on the Earth, and if used as I believe God intended, is illegal. I agree with beSteelmyheart - it is because the government cannot figure out to exclusively profit from it. The do however profit from the big drug companies that provide those legal prescriptions for drugs that have a myriad of dangerous, and sometimes, deadly side affects. As far as I know, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdoes itself. Can it be a gateway drug-possibly. It isn't the drug itself that is the gateway. It is more a matter of the weak mind who is smoking it - Oh wait, there's a legal pill for that. However, I'm sure there are some pretty significant side affects.

BTW - In the spirit of full disclosure, this is Hitman's wife. I haven't joined the forum yet, but Hitman asked me to read the thread and I felt the need to respond. Hope I didn't offend anyone, as that is not my intention. :wave::behindsofa:

beSteelmyheart
01-18-2011, 09:17 PM
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]So if there is smoke pouring out of my neighbors house, while me and my children are sitting on the porch and they ask what it is, youre damn right Im calling the cops. And if my neighbor refuses to answer the door when the cops get there, Ill kick the damn door in for em.
Well instead of teaching your children to be little ratfinks, why not take the PERFECT opportunity to teach them your beliefs on using drugs & build that foundation from the get go? You could set one of 2 examples:
1. A Dad who can have an open honest discussion about drugs with his kids, be up front about the smell, tell them what it is & that yes (gasp) some people do smoke it, much like adults at parties that drink beer when they are of age, etc..
2. Teach him/her to be a goody two shoe pussy & tattle on people while alienating people that you probably have to live next to for years, whether you like it or not.
Do you want your kids to be realists or tattling do gooders? You decide.
Oh, & by the way, if you would happen to "kick my door in for em", you'd probably be as good as dead.

Just George
01-18-2011, 09:39 PM
Just saying that the issue stated here was the ruling of the courts authorizing Police to gain entry in to a residence for suspision of breaking the law. Your personal feelings about the morality of smoking pot is a secondary issue. I wonder what people think about this drastic change in the stance of the courts about police gaining entry to a home without a warrant.

it kind of goes with some of the more recent rulings softening the courts stance on Miranda rights. Do people see these changes as appropriate and with in the bounds of the Constitution or over reaching on the part of the Supreme Court?

Doc_Holiday
01-18-2011, 10:14 PM
Just saying that the issue stated here was the ruling of the courts authorizing Police to gain entry in to a residence for suspision of breaking the law. Your personal feelings about the morality of smoking pot is a secondary issue. I wonder what people think about this drastic change in the stance of the courts about police gaining entry to a home without a warrant.

it kind of goes with some of the more recent rulings softening the courts stance on Miranda rights. Do people see these changes as appropriate and with in the bounds of the Constitution or over reaching on the part of the Supreme Court?

Maybe they're suspicious that you're illegally copying DVDs, using your neighbor's WiFi (Yes, this is illegal), or your just drunk (yes you can be arrested for being drunk in your home if a child is present). If all the cop has to do is assume, we're all in trouble.

Just George
01-18-2011, 10:27 PM
Is the smelling of Pot by an officer an assumption or deductive reasoning based on facts and evidence? I am not sure this ruling gives police the authority to gain entry based on an assumption or best guess, but instead is based on actual evidence. NOW is the idea of using the "smell" of pot as the reason for an entry and search might be offensive to some people, but is it reasonable to say I have actual evidence of a crime. During traffic stops police are allowed to use their observations (things they see, smell or hear) to investigate beyond the scope of the initial reason for the stop. IE pull someone over for rolling through a stop sign and "smelling" alcohol. Not saying I am a big fan of this ruling, but I am trying to analyze it based on actual consitutional law, did the court have the actual authority to make this ruling, does that make sense?

Doc_Holiday
01-18-2011, 11:42 PM
Is the smelling of Pot by an officer an assumption or deductive reasoning based on facts and evidence? I am not sure this ruling gives police the authority to gain entry based on an assumption or best guess, but instead is based on actual evidence. NOW is the idea of using the "smell" of pot as the reason for an entry and search might be offensive to some people, but is it reasonable to say I have actual evidence of a crime. During traffic stops police are allowed to use their observations (things they see, smell or hear) to investigate beyond the scope of the initial reason for the stop. IE pull someone over for rolling through a stop sign and "smelling" alcohol. Not saying I am a big fan of this ruling, but I am trying to analyze it based on actual consitutional law, did the court have the actual authority to make this ruling, does that make sense?

The courts do have the authority to make this ruling. Congress would need to rewrite the law or we need to have another case with a similar situation to overturn their ruling.

I just think this is taking it one step too far.

Just George
01-19-2011, 07:17 AM
The courts do have the authority to make this ruling. Congress would need to rewrite the law or we need to have another case with a similar situation to overturn their ruling.

I just think this is taking it one step too far.

Well I have been thinking way to much about this :) and I will say it does seem strange to me that the Supreme Court seems to have substantially changed the landscape of interpretation of consitutional law as I understood it (however poorly)

LLT
01-19-2011, 08:00 AM
So you love the fact that you'll be able to bust down someone's door? What if they are just smoking Clove cigarettes and you make a mistake? What happens if there is a baby playing behind that door when you shove your boot through it to bust someone smoking a clove cigarette? You see having probable cause and a SEARCH WARRANT covers shit like that. Otherwise is the police department going to be held liable when they screw it up, cause they sure as hell will at some point. All it takes is some rookie cop trying to make a name for himself making a huge mistake and getting himself or someone else killed. All for a joint.

Your are using some pretty extreme examples here....but as someone who works in law enforcement and was an officer for several years let me give you my take on this.

Regardless of WHAT decision is passed down by a judge....there is no officer in their right mind that would knock a door down based on a possible misdemeanor arrest/ticket for pot.

Never going to happen. There is way too much liability and I can promise your that ALL police department heads will be amending their department policies to put this type of situation into the big no-no category.

For instance...Jamming your music to a point that it can be heard from a certain distance from your residence is against the law...but no officer has EVER knocked down a door to enforce that kind offence. That would be stupid and money recieved from the ticket that you issue wouldnt cover the court costs or the damage to the door if you end up having to pay for it.

That being said...I have made arrests at apartments because I was walking to by and saw people smoking pot through the window (and had a set of scales setting on the table). Visual confirmation of a crime in progress is most definately probable cause to enter a residence without a search warrant....also keep in mind that if a suspect enters a residence or business, an officer has the right to pursue and search without a warrant.

The only time that I can see an officer using the "smell test"...is when he is confident "BEYOND ANY DOUBT" that something big is going on in the residence....for example, its a known "Get off house", "One on one house", or "Speed Shop".

Your average college kid has nothing to worry about...the reward for an officer isnt worth the risk just to lissue an O.V. or misdemeanor.

T&B fan
01-19-2011, 08:23 AM
LLT let us hope you are right

LLT
01-19-2011, 08:33 AM
LLT let us hope you are right

Beyond a doubt.

I live in a college town...and I know better than most people the mindsets of officers. 100% of those that I work with, or have worked with, would weigh the crime against the amount of paperwork that a forced entry involves.

College kids smoke pot. Unless they are stupid enough to do it in public...or in front of an open window...I would much rather catch the guy who sold it then the kid who is smoking it.

T&B fan
01-19-2011, 08:39 AM
I was told one time that a cop has about 6hrs of paperwork for a dui ??

LLT
01-19-2011, 09:12 AM
I was told one time that a cop has about 6hrs of paperwork for a dui ??

Ugh....The paperwork is terrible. You have to make sure that every "i" is dotted and every "t'" is crossed. Otherwise you are going to get torn apart int a court of law. Of course...The more you do it,the faster you get.

The problem is that you have to document EXACTLy how you did each test. If I did a "Walk and Turn Test" I knew that a good DUI attorney is going to ask...Was it performed on a hard, dry, level, non-slippery surface? Did the suspect have sufficient room to complete the required heel-to-toe steps? Was the suspect more than sixty five years of age or over fifty pounds overweight? Did the suspect show any physical injury or defect that would affect their ability to balance? Did you ask the suspect to remove their shoes?

If I administered the "DUI horizontal gaze nystagmus test" I knew I was going to be asked...Did you explain to the supect was was required for this test? Did you remove the suspect from the vehicle and have him face forward and towards you? How many inches from the supsects face did you administer the test? At what degree? For how long? Did you repeat the test? How do you score the test to reach your results?

I actually appreciated good DUI attorneys...they keep officers on their toes....even if it does mean we have to be exact in our record keeping.