• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

yet another: is this legal?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sounds like a jerk of a cop.


How does that sound like a jerk cop, he smelled the guys friend had just smoked some pot!
Im glad he got a stoner off the road, and made it a little safer for others.


I say pat the cop on the back for doing a good job.


didn't say my friend wasn't in the wrong, obviously, he's breaking the law. I have a simple question: was the cop breaking the law as well?

No the cop was not breaking the law! Dude how old are you???
 
There are several legal issues in play here that could go either way in court, especially depending on the judge involved. First off, your friend is a bad boy for doing it, but if it were up to me and many other police officers, pot would be legalized and controlled much like alcohol, only your friend broke the "driving while toking" rule. Second, there are many ways to circumvent the whole consent to search thing, the first being reasonable suspicion, which the cop established upon detecting the odor of marijuana. Also, if even part of the pipe or elements of the drug were in "plain view" that is even more ammunition for the officer to do what he did. Cars add anothe element to not requiring a warrant because the evidence can literally "drive off" and disappear, in effect destroying the case and letting an offender go free. Another tactic most departments with K-9 units use is to put a drug dog downwind of the vehicle on a routine stop and if the dog smells it and reacts, then it's a legal search because a dog is "impartial" to the offender. If the pipe and/or marijuana were enclosed in the trunk, this would be a different case completely and he'd be looking at only possession at best, but now he's looking at both possession and DUI. Did they do field sobriety testing or HGN tests to establish his level of impairment at any point? Or did they assume he was impaired and used that as the foundation for their search? As I stated, there are many issues here that could get this thing thrown out and it really comes down to how the local DA and/or judge are going to rule on it at the end of the day. I know a state trooper or two here that simply dump their remaining pot out on the side of the road and give them a monetary citation for it as it's not worth the court time for such small amounts, as I'm sure you friend possessed in this incident.

What I'm really trying to say is that if the judge/DA doesn't buy off on the officer's intent and actions in the incident, your friend could get off with a slap on the wrist or a minor violation of some kind, rather than the full punishment that could be handed down. It's all in how the officer writes his report and how he presents the case should it see the DA's office or court. Believe it or not, most of the time, the law favors the citizen because cops have to function nearly flawlessly to get anything to stick now days.
 
Let me attempt to make this clearer: he was not driving under the influence. If he was "baked" or whatever you want to call it,


Let me attempt to make this clearer: your friend was breaking the law, how is it you cant see what is right in front of you??
 
Originally posted by: Renob
sounds like a jerk of a cop.


How does that sound like a jerk cop, he smelled the guys friend had just smoked some pot!
Im glad he got a stoner off the road, and made it a littel safer for other.


I say pat the cop on the back for doing a good job.


didn't say my friend wasn't in the wrong, obviously, he's breaking the law. I have a simple question: was the cop breaking the law as well?

No the cop was not breaking the law! Dude how old are you???
Click to expand...


The cop was a jerk because for 1. He issued an obstructed view ticket. No cop ever issues that unless it's really really obvious and causing a danger. The second instance that cemented in my head that this cop was a jerk is that he produced a document and threatened to tow the guys car in order to get a search. Anyone who knows his rights or knows how procedures are supposed to work knows this isn't right. Can a cop search for a smell? Maybe...it's a little fuzzy. Will most reasonable cops do so without more evidence? no. They know the repercussions of doing so if they find nothing is much worse. I've been on ridealongs, I've been in trouble with the law as a kid for alcohol violations, curfew, egging houses, traffic violations. I've sat in court waiting for my sentence with a courtroom full of people for hours at a time and seen how all these things work. Oh yeah, the only time I've ever seen an obstructed view used is as a plea bargain🙂 You were speeding 15 over, we'll give you obstructed view and no points in exchange for a guilty plea.

Most people also don't know that a cop must first visually estimate your speed before radaring you. So if he radared you at too far a distance, it's invalid. People are all concerned about laser having this huge range, but really, you have to get within a range where the cop can visually estimate your speed. I personally have a radar detector so when I get pulled over becuase if laser I ask him at what range he caught me. Had countless tickets in court thrown out because of this. Had one thrown out because the cop checked the heavy traffic box on the back and said he caught me going 70 in a 45. I told the DA, if there was heavy traffic, how could I have exceeded the speed limit and by that much? Ticket dismissed...
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
There are several legal issues in play here that could go either way in court, especially depending on the judge involved. First off, your friend is a bad boy for doing it, but if it were up to me and many other police officers, pot would be legalized and controlled much like alcohol, only your friend broke the "driving while toking" rule. Second, there are many ways to circumvent the whole consent to search thing, the first being reasonable suspicion, which the cop established upon detecting the odor of marijuana. Also, if even part of the pipe or elements of the drug were in "plain view" that is even more ammunition for the officer to do what he did. Cars add anothe element to not requiring a warrant because the evidence can literally "drive off" and disappear, in effect destroying the case and letting an offender go free. Another tactic most departments with K-9 units use is to put a drug dog downwind of the vehicle on a routine stop and if the dog smells it and reacts, then it's a legal search because a dog is "impartial" to the offender. If the pipe and/or marijuana were enclosed in the trunk, this would be a different case completely and he'd be looking at only possession at best, but now he's looking at both possession and DUI. Did they do field sobriety testing or HGN tests to establish his level of impairment at any point? Or did they assume he was impaired and used that as the foundation for their search? As I stated, there are many issues here that could get this thing thrown out and it really comes down to how the local DA and/or judge are going to rule on it at the end of the day. I know a state trooper or two here that simply dump their remaining pot out on the side of the road and give them a monetary citation for it as it's not worth the court time for such small amounts, as I'm sure you friend possessed in this incident.

What I'm really trying to say is that if the judge/DA doesn't buy off on the officer's intent and actions in the incident, your friend could get off with a slap on the wrist or a minor violation of some kind, rather than the full punishment that could be handed down. It's all in how the officer writes his report and how he presents the case should it see the DA's office or court. Believe it or not, most of the time, the law favors the citizen because cops have to function nearly flawlessly to get anything to stick now days.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It might be legal, but you can easily get it thrown out in court. Which is why, in most cases, a reasonable cop won't search for just smelling marijuana in the car because they know that. They're going to try to obtain other evidence. For example, you don't consent to a search, say you dont' have anything, they don't find anything. The cop says I searched cause I smelled weed, that doesn't reflect very well on him in court. Now, if he had gotten you to say something or scared you into consenting to a search, or actually seen a pipe, then he's perfectly justified in the search. A reasonable cop wont' search on just smell. Again, it becomes kind of hazy. Just like, a reasonable cop won't give you a breathalizer for smelling alcohol in your car if people are in your car and you say you're the sober driver becuase he knows that could be the case, assuming you're not visibly drunk or slurring or you're not smelling like alcohol. Now, if he smells it on you, you're definitely gettin a sobriety test. Keep in mind, that if he smells alcohol he'll probably try to scare you into taking a sobriety test..
 
Uh, CrazyDe1, the fact that you've had "countless tickets in court thrown out" makes me think that you're not a very good judge of a cop's character.

Stop being partial to the law breaker, and start driving the speed limit. It's there for a reason.

As for the OP's friend, I'm not sure of the issues regarding the document produced by the officer, but my OFFICIAL viewpoint on this situation is that if your friend took a hit from his pipe in the car, he should be prepared to face consequences. As for not consenting to the search, that's his personal right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but in my eyes, I see resistance to a search as an admission of guilt considering the smell of the weed in the car. And I'm sure the cop saw it the same way.

Simple as that - you break the law, you pay the fine/do the time.
 
The cop was a jerk because for 1. He issued an obstructed view ticket. No cop ever issues that unless it's really really obvious and causing a danger. The second instance that cemented in my head that this cop was a jerk is that he produced a document and threatened to tow the guys car in order to get a search


I think your wrong, tkotitan2 said In VT, there is so little real crime that I think means its like a small town, and in small towns the cops for the most part know who the stoners are. So again I think he did a good job.

The people who break the rules are the ones that cry the loudest in these cases, if he had not been breaking the law he could have told the cop to search the car and been on his way in about 5 minutes.

BTW Im also a big fan of allowing the cops to use profiling to catch the bad guys
 
Originally posted by: tkotitan2
I have a friend who smokes weed. I know that is illegal. A few weeks ago, he was driving home from work and hit his pipe once in the car, and was in the process of driving to a back-woods dirt road to smoke in peace (I live in a rural state). Anyway, as he's turning onto an empty dirt road, he doesn't signal and a cop whips out from behind a corner and pulls him over for not signalling and for my favorite: obstruction of view from an air freshener. Why don't they just make air fresheners illegal, or better yet, I should get a ticket and sue the air freshener company for making such a dangerous item.

Back to the story, the cop asks my friend why he smells Marijuana, which was obvuious because he lit up 5 minutes ago. My firend hides the pipe and weed under a magazine on his passenger seat. My friend denies that there is pot in the car. The cop does what they always do, pester the fvck out of people, doing this whole routine of "are you sure, I can look in your car for you" and other lame reasons. My friend plays it cool and doesn't want him to search the car, explaining that he doesn't want a search because ti takes a while. My freind is out of the car because the cop can and does search him. Just when it looks like the cop has to let him go, he pulls this routine:

"Bring in the tow truck" he says over his radio. And a local wrecker shows up to tow my friend's car. "Either sign this consent form for me to search your car, or it will be towed to the impound where it will wait for me to see if i can get a warrant to search the car." My friend gives in, and signs the form, and the cop finds the weed, etc.

My question is: is it legal to tow someone's car on Probable cause alone? The 4th amendment gives protection against unlawful search and seizure, and towing someone's car is definitely seizure. The cop did have probable cause from the smell, but is that enough?

I know my friend is screwed either way because he signed the consent form and the cop can say whatever he wants. I'm just curious to know what is legal and what isn't. I know that cops can lie to get you to do whatever they want as well.
Click to expand...



Do the crime do the time. And he was driving while on drugs, your FRIEND is a idiot and I hope they through the book at him.

 
Originally posted by: jumpr
Uh, CrazyDe1, the fact that you've had "countless tickets in court thrown out" makes me think that you're not a very good judge of a cop's character.

Stop being partial to the law breaker, and start driving the speed limit. It's there for a reason.

As for the OP's friend, I'm not sure of the issues regarding the document produced by the officer, but my OFFICIAL viewpoint on this situation is that if your friend took a hit from his pipe in the car, he should be prepared to face consequences. As for not consenting to the search, that's his personal right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but in my eyes, I see resistance to a search as an admission of guilt considering the smell of the weed in the car. And I'm sure the cop saw it the same way.

Simple as that - you break the law, you pay the fine/do the time.
Click to expand...

I am a very good judge of a cop's character. When I go on ridealongs I ask questions about how a situation is handled, what are the procedures and why they do it and how it effects what happens in court. I also took a defensive driving course given by a cop and learned all sorts of cool stuff like about 10 years ago if you threw your keys out the window you couldn't get a DUI. That's changed now.

That's why I would never allow a search even if I was innocent. Because it is assumed that if you're innocent you're going to comply and if you don't allow a search you're automatically guilty. I don't like this. By being innocent and not allowing a search I'm preserving my freedoms and my right to not be assumed guilty just because I don't trust an officer's intent.

I remember back when I was 16 we were at a drive in movie and this movie was next to a pretty major road. Anyways, we were all lying on top of our cars and some stupid lady reports that 10 kids are lying dead after a drive by shooting on top of their cars. So anyways, 10 cops come, sorround us, frisk all of us, we had our hadns up the entire time and ask to search our car because some lady reported there were guns. Anyways, tehy asked to search, I declined, they got a warrant, searched the cars anyways finding nothing even though we said we were just watching a drive in movie. Afterwards, the cop was like why didn't you just let us search your car and I was like because I'm completely innocent and I don't want to be searched and allow a cop to search my car on some BS that some lady reports. If I'm completely innocent, why should i have to go through the trouble of you searching my car. The cop liked how I actually thought for myself instead of being all intimidated by authority and being their b1tch like most people are. I also said something like I also don't like how you assume we're guilty and search our cars when we're obviously all not dead on our cars.

By the way, I'm not a fan of profiling. I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail. I have a friend and I didn't believe that black people were pulled over more but he's been pulled over so many times for BS and let off that it's crap. I speed everyhwere I go and almost never get pulled over. He drives the speedlimit and has been pulled over 8 or 9 times in the past year with 1 ticket issued. I dont' like making people go through the hassle just because they "might" be guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top