Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild
This has always been the case, this is nothing new. If the police are outside your door, and they hear someone inside yelling for help, or they hear gunshots, or fighting, or or or .. You better damn well be sure they're coming through that door. If they didn't, you'd be all up in arms about the police not protecting you.
As it has already been pointed out to you, probable cause is taken on a case by case basis. "I heard something". is not probable cause. "I heard somebody yelling for help." probably is.
It's not like police officers, in this case, are saying they entered the residence because they heard something. They smelled Marijuana, a distinctive odour, then heard something they claim to have construed as the destruction of evidence. Upon entering the residence, they found Marijuana. How is it not reasonable to assume they had probable cause here?
|
because you have 2 things which can be completely fabricated with no evidence whatsoever. Any cop now can simply say, "i smelled weed and heard what sounded like the guy destroying the evidence so i broke his door down."
now really, how does that sound to you? does that sound like a solid case of probable cause?
in the first place they weren't even after the guy, it was another guy in the complex, so apparently that guy who is inside his own apartment smoking weed (committing a non violent offense, harming no one) has his fucking door broken down and is hauled off to jail?
You are telling me you are fine with paying tax dollars for this?
And lets be clear about one thing- the kentucky supreme court originally THREW OUT the evidence citing lack of probable cause.