More Fourth Amendment Madness - Cops Smell Drugs? They can march right in, no warrant

[TechBoyJK]

http://blog.norml.org/2011/05/17/supreme-court-eviscerates-4th-amendment-over-marijuana-smell/

This is insane. This basically puts cops at their word about what they thought they smelled.

1. This is going to get cops killed. Cops get power hungry, and giving some of them this ticket is asking for them to run up in the wrong guys house.

2. WTF. What if I'm not smoking pot? What if I'm in the middle of sex, have my headphones on, etc. and I'm totally not suspecting cops to be running up in my house?

Only ONE judge dissented and basically said 'seriously wtf' the rest were like 'no its cool WAR ON DRUGS ALL THE WAY BABY'

 

[Brigandier]

How many types of drugs could a cop smell from outside of your house?


The answer is about one, if you had a window open, and the wind was just right.

 

[TechBoyJK]

How many types of drugs could a cop smell from outside of your house?


The answer is about one, if you had a window open, and the wind was just right.

no doubt this is about pot. but it doesn't matter, since it gives cops the ability to make the judgement. they can say they smelled pot! even if they dont find anything they can say 'well we didnt find anything but I know i smelled it'.

 

[xj0hnx]

no doubt this is about pot. but it doesn't matter, since it gives cops the ability to make the judgement. they can say they smelled pot! even if they dont find anything they can say 'well we didnt find anything but I know i smelled it'.

Pretty much. This is a disgusting ruling, and the SCOTUS should be ashamed of themselves for it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Fry them all.

 

[wuliheron]

More of the same. They'll fine the shit out people and claim the war on drugs is paying for itself.

 

[Lithium381]

this is weak.......

 

[NoStateofMind]

double you tee eff

 

[lupi]

this is a fairly old and standard practice that applies to many things other than just some dumbasses doing dope.

 

[bradley]

Middle Tennessee Police Profiting Off Drug Trade?
Posted: May 13, 2011 5:14 PM EDT Updated: May 16, 2011 10:33 PM CDT
By Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter
NewsChannel5.com

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A major NewsChannel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee's war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?

At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.

It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee.

Case in point: a 2009 stop where a tractor trailer was stopped for a traffic violation, leading to a search and the discovery of large blocks containing almost $200,000 cash -- cash that officers keep on the suspicion that it's drug money.

"What's wrong with having a large amount of cash?" asked Karen Petrosyan, a California businessman who owned the truck.

Petrosyan refuses to admit there's anything suspicious about the stash that police discovered. Officers later released his father, who was driving the truck, without filing a single charge -- and authorities cut a deal that let Petrosyan come to Tennessee to get his big rig back.

"If I am a criminal, if they allege me to be a criminal," Petrosyan told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "why would they settle? They do not just let criminals go."

District Attorney General Kim Helper said that "in general, it was seized because -- based upon our evidence and probable cause -- it's illegal drug proceeds."


Read the rest of the story, and watch the full news report here:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14643085/police-profiting-off-drug-trade

 

[wuliheron]

District Attorney General Kim Helper said that "in general, it was seized because -- based upon our evidence and probable cause -- it's illegal drug proceeds."

Sounds about right to me. Its war and war is nasty, but sometimes profitable! Its the all American way.

 

[Triumph]

this is great news, it saves the cops the trouble of having to actually plant evidence. anything that makes a cops job easier is good for us.

</sarcasm>

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So the government doesn't have to obey the constitution but we are expected to obey their law? No sorry I don't think so.

If we aren't allowed to defend our homes (castles) then they are treating us like animals. Animals do not have property rights.

'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. "

whole line being ignored.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

God's Law is above the law the of the government.

 

[Binarycow]

install sturdy-enough doors and windows at your house so they would make enough ruckus alerting you if anyone's trying to break in. That will allow you time to aim squarely at their chests before pulling the trigger.

 

[Jimmah]

Disappointing ruling, seriously you guys are starting to look like you need a revolution to clear things out.

 

[ch33zw1z]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/04/sjc_odor_of_mar.html

a recent massachusetts ruling...

 

[piasabird]

This makes sense because a lot of people set up math labs in houses, and leave them unattended while the meth cooks and the fumes accumulate. Then, Boom! The house blows up and half the negborhood goes up in flames in the middle of the day/night.

Unless it is something like meth or Marijuana, I dont know how they detect drugs by smelling. However, I wonder what would happen if they start patrolling areas with drug sniffing dogs, that would give them the excuse to bust people's doors down???

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This makes sense because a lot of people set up math labs in houses, and leave them unattended while the meth cooks and the fumes accumulate. Then, Boom! The house blows up and half the negborhood goes up in flames in the middle of the day/night.

People are cooking meth in MATH labs? My god! the children!


seriously though....No that makes even less sense. if there was probable cause and evidence of a meth lab they should secure a warrant and send in the proper explosives team to investigate.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This makes sense because a lot of people set up math labs in houses, and leave them unattended while the meth cooks and the fumes accumulate. Then, Boom! The house blows up and half the negborhood goes up in flames in the middle of the day/night.

Post back after your invaded by LEO's under the ruling. BTW, they smelled something, they'll swear to it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Post back after your invaded by LEO's under the ruling. BTW, they smelled something, they'll swear to it.

This is going to set an incredibly dangerous precedent in Tennessee (as shown in the article above) since cops can not only 'claim' they smelled marijuana, but then confiscate any of your cash while they are in there.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is going to set an incredibly dangerous precedent in Tennessee (as shown in the article above) since cops can not only 'claim' they smelled marijuana, but then confiscate any of your cash while they are in there.

I don't get how even if they march right in they can seize anything without a warrant. It says so explicitly they need a warrant for seizure that describes the items to be seized.

 

[xj0hnx]

I don't get how even if they march right in they can seize anything without a warrant. It says so explicitly they need a warrant for seizure that describes the items to be seized.

Because they have been working for decades to demonize drugs and drug users to the point that they can completely skirt the law to enforce it. All they have to do is throw out a few key phrases on the local news and Soccer mom Sally will be so scared that little Jimmy is going to be double fisting a crack pipe and a cock that she will ignore the fact that they are breaking the law themselves.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I don't get how even if they march right in they can seize anything without a warrant. It says so explicitly they need a warrant for seizure that describes the items to be seized.

Read the article posted about halfway up about Tennessee's seizure laws. All they need to do is 'think' your cash is drug trafficing related to confiscate it, and you have to legally challenge and prove it's not to get it back. There's been instances of people taking their life savings to the bank, only to have it confiscated because the cop thought "they had $20k in cash on them, it was probably for drugs". There was one instance, wish I could find the article, that someone lost their house because cops took their savings on the way to the bank.. they were going to pay off their house since they were losing their job and weren't going to have dependanble income. so rather than stress over paying their mortgage, they pulled together their savings, pawned some stuff, etc. so they could pay the final amount off. Instead they were left with nothing, and no way to keep paying their mortgage. They only got their money back several months after getting kicked out of their house.

 

[Venix]

Cops Smell Drugs? They can march right in, no warrant

This ruling says nothing of the sort. The police were already allowed to enter a home without a warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence. This decision changes nothing about the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement or the exigent circumstances in which a warrant is not required.

The case is about what qualifies as an illegal police-created exigency. The appelle claims that the exigent circumstance (destruction of evidence) was an inevitable and forseeable response to the police knocking on the door, and therefore was illegally manufactured by the police. The Court's decision simply says that exigent circumstances that arise as a result of the police announcing their presence are still valid.

The Court intentionally avoided the question of whether valid exigent circumstances actually existed in this case, so "the smell of a burning flower and the sound of &#8220;scurrying&#8221; are now the &#8220;exigent circumstances&#8221;" and similar claims are complete falsehoods:

We, too, assume for purposes of argument that an exigency existed. We decide only the question on which the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled and on which we granted certiorari: Under what circumstances do police impermissibly create an exigency? Any question about whether an exigency actually existed is better addressed by the Kentucky Supreme Court on remand.

Of course I think that the exigent cirumstances exception is complete bullshit and shouldn't even exist, but that's completely unrelated to this case. This decision is sensible and not particularly controversial, which is why it was nearly unanimous.

 

[her209]

Interesting. My BIL is a cop in TN.