U.S. Supreme Court sides with police in warrantless search

[Caligari]

Makes you go WTF
Court sides with police in warrantless search
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_suprem...rantless_entry
"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment."

[phasic]

Unbelievable

[nation-x]

Kentucky = Republican State
Republican = Authoritarian

[Robbie]

I guess they've been heading towards this in baby steps for a while.
I remember back in the 1970's and early 1980's when it was still unconstitutional for them to search your car.
Then the Supreme Court said it was okay.

And in 1983 we were in a car smoking a joint and a cop walked up on us. My then-wife was in the car with all of us smoking and had the pot in her purse. But they couldn't search her purse.

Little by little they have changed that...and it's all in the name of the failed drug war.

So now they have got it where they search us from top to bottom at the airport.

And now they can just come into your house.

[Tom_PM]

So I guess police are trained to know what the sound of attempting to destroy evidence is? What the heck does it sound like? A garbage disposal? A toilet flush? Wooden drawers being slammed shut? Papers crinkling? Or just the sounds of people moving around but not answering the door?

This current majority is so full of state authority being able to do no harm it's actually frightening.

Lets be real, you could be pooping and they could burst in and simply claim they heard something that sounded like you were attempting to destroy evidence. Evidence you didnt know they were looking for. Evidence THEY didnt know they were looking for until 2 minutes earlier. Basically today in America, the police can break down your door and put hand cuffs on you. And this supreme court says "it's your own fault". Ok then. Bravo.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by nation-x

Kentucky = Republican State
Republican = Authoritarian

but dude the kentucky supreme court THREW OUT the evidence and sided with the accused!

it took the supreme court to go authoritarian and reverse their decision.

That is mind boggling.

[Rochard]

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but don't the police only need "cause" to enter a residence or conduct a search? I mean, if they smell pot coming from a window they don't need a search warrant - they smelled the drug, knew a crime was taking place, and investigated.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by Caligari

it took the supreme court to go authoritarian and reverse their decision.

I stand corrected... my partisan liberal was showing

[D Ghost]

Unbelievable. Everyone is always hating on the police, but it's not just them... of course the police are going to do their job. They basically have to invent shit to keep their jobs, which means using dirty tactics. Even though we could probably cut the police force in most cities.

It's also these people with high positions in government that allow this bs to go on.

[Nikki_Licks]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I guess they've been heading towards this in baby steps for a while.
I remember back in the 1970's and early 1980's when it was still unconstitutional for them to search your car.
Then the Supreme Court said it was okay.

And in 1983 we were in a car smoking a joint and a cop walked up on us. My then-wife was in the car with all of us smoking and had the pot in her purse. But they couldn't search her purse.

Little by little they have changed that...and it's all in the name of the failed drug war.

So now they have got it where they search us from top to bottom at the airport.

And now they can just come into your house.

It makes you wonder what is next, after all, we are losing our rights slowly but surely.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

My own personal experiences with cops tell me to put nothing past them, but to see it upheld by the SCOTUS is pretty scary.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by DJ The Kid

Unbelievable. Everyone is always hating on the police, but it's not just them... of course the police are going to do their job. They basically have to invent shit to keep their jobs, which means using dirty tactics. Even though we could probably cut the police force in most cities.

It's also these people with high positions in government that allow this bs to go on.

Yes absolutely because historically when large population centers don't have the rule of law, things generally turn out well.

[WarChild]

This isn't exactly new. Police have always been able to enter a dwelling, without a warrant, if they have probably cause. The smell of Marijuana is probable cause. I don't see why you're all up in arms?

[Captain Kawaii]

US is a police state and we are becoming its inmates with mcjobs...
Go capitalism, er, I mean free enterprise...

[Phoenix]

if you are smoking weed in your house or growing it....it smells...dont be surprised if the cops come knocking because of the smell.

have some common sense and mask the smell, or better yet clean it with an ozone machine

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Yes absolutely because historically when large population centers don't have the rule of law, things generally turn out well.

exactly what i was thinking...


what cities would you say have 'too much police'?

[dyna mo]

The Supreme Court and the Sense of Smell
The Supreme Court has long recognized the value of an officer's sense of smell in detecting the possible commission of a crime or identifying evidence of a crime. In 1932 the Court held that "prohibition officers may rely on distinctive odors as a physical fact indicative of a possible crime."17 Likewise, the distinctive odor of burning opium detected by an affiant qualified to recognize it was a sufficient basis on which a magistrate could issue a warrant.18 And a qualified officer's detection of the smell of fermenting mash in a location was a "very strong" factor in establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.19

The Supreme Court has said that the standard for probable cause cannot, and should not be, defined with precision or quantification. Whether it exists depends on the specific facts and variables of each circumstance. Officers must rely on each of their five senses, plus a good dose of common sense and knowledge that comes from experience, in determining when probable cause exists. Likewise, they must be able to articulate and explain each of the facts they took into account, and why each fact or circumstance contributed to their conclusion that probable cause existed so as to justify a search or seizure. And it helps if they have a good sense of smell.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by WarChild

This isn't exactly new. Police have always been able to enter a dwelling, without a warrant, if they have probably cause. The smell of Marijuana is probable cause. I don't see why you're all up in arms?

Please prove you smelt something. Without proof of the cause there is no cause. This is where the SC is wrong.

[D Ghost]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Yes absolutely because historically when large population centers don't have the rule of law, things generally turn out well.

Well, haha, I didn't mean cutting the force drastically. But there is a lot of unnecessary spending (Example: busting some Joe Schmo for smoking pot in his apartment that doesn't do the general public any good).

In order for police departments to get the same budget they got for the year before, they have to keep the spending up. Let's say a police department's budget was $1,000,000 last year, so they got $1,000,000 this year, but only spent $450,000 the entire period. They aren't going to get $1,000,000 again the next year, unless the reach around the same level of spending as the previous.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by WarChild

This isn't exactly new. Police have always been able to enter a dwelling, without a warrant, if they have probably cause. The smell of Marijuana is probable cause. I don't see why you're all up in arms?

if a cop can claim he "heard" something in your apartment which allows him to break your door down, i hope you can extrapolate the rammifications of that idea. If probable cause enters the realm of "i heard something" then things are seriously screwed up. This gives the police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want and know they have SCOTUS behind them.

warrantless search becomes the new norm.

[ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I guess some of you do not know what the Supreme Court is.

Well this case set's a precedent and that will be used nation wide for future government home invasion cases.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Please prove you smelt something. Without proof of the cause there is no cause. This is where the SC is wrong.

Does that go for hearing too? If police hear somebody yelling for help, should they also be forced to get a warrant because hey that can't prove what they heard?

You're being ridiculous here. Marijuana has a distinctive odour. Probable cause is also evaulted as a whole. Police officers who smell Marijuana, then enter a residence and find Marijuana, is a pretty good case for probable cause. Clearly the Supreme Court agrees.

On the same hand, Police Officers that claimed they smelled Marijuana, enter a residence and found no Marijuana but a stash of guns instead, would be a pretty good example of where they did in fact NOT have probable cause.

[dyna mo]

for those who didn't read the article

n odd set of facts led to Monday's ruling.

Police were only at King's apartment building because they were chasing a man who sold cocaine to a police informant. The man entered King's building and ducked into an apartment. The officers heard a door slam in a hallway, but by the time they were able to look down it, they saw only two closed doors.

They didn't know which one the suspect had gone through, but, smelling burnt pot, chose the apartment on the left.

In fact, the suspect had gone into the apartment on the right. Police eventually arrested him, too, but prosecutors later dropped charges against him for reasons that were not explained in court papers.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Caligari

if a cop can claim he "heard" something in your apartment which allows him to break your door down, i hope you can extrapolate the rammifications of that idea. If probable cause enters the realm of "i heard something" then things are seriously screwed up. This gives the police carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want and know they have SCOTUS behind them.

warrantless search becomes the new norm.

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?

[dyna mo]

weed laws in kentucky


Possession
Less than 8 oz (first offense) misdemeanor 1 year $500
Less than 8 oz (subsequent offense) felony 1 - 5 years $1,000 - $10,000
8 oz or more see Sale or Trafficking
Cultivation
Less than 5 plants (first offense) misdemeanor 1 year $500
Less than 5 plants (subsequent offense) felony 1 - 5 years $1,000 - $10,000

[Caligari]

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.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Caligari

a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Ok who gets rid of pot evidence by SMOKING it?

[Lassitor]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

So I guess police are trained to know what the sound of attempting to destroy evidence is? What the heck does it sound like? A garbage disposal? A toilet flush? Wooden drawers being slammed shut? Papers crinkling? Or just the sounds of people moving around but not answering the door?

This current majority is so full of state authority being able to do no harm it's actually frightening.

Lets be real, you could be pooping and they could burst in and simply claim they heard something that sounded like you were attempting to destroy evidence. Evidence you didnt know they were looking for. Evidence THEY didnt know they were looking for until 2 minutes earlier. Basically today in America, the police can break down your door and put hand cuffs on you. And this supreme court says "it's your own fault". Ok then. Bravo.

Any smell and any noise you make is now probable cause that a crime MAY be committed. Notice there is no recourse if the police enter your home and there actually was no crime committed, though unlikely now since there are something like 400,000 laws and you are probably violating one of them right now! I also know cops that can follow anyone and within 15 minutes spot some sort of moving violation or vehicular violation and pull them over.

It is only going to get worse, so you best start preparing for what is to come.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok who gets rid of pot evidence by SMOKING it?

I believe that would be Cheech And Chong;)

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Caligari

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?

I'm telling you this is no fucking surprise. It's been this way for more than 80 years. Not just in the USA, but here in Canada where I live too.

Smelling pot, and later finding pot, seems like a pretty good case of probable cause. It's not like the police said they smelled "a musky gardening smell". You'll notice the Supreme Court seems to agree.

It seems like the real issue is you're upset over marijuana being illegal. Hey, I fucking agree with you on that one. It's absurd and ridiculous. However, like I said, this isn't anything new. An officer's sense can absolutely be taken in to account for probable cause. Smell, sight, hearing, etc.

[Fletch XXX]

around here cops know they better knock three times LOL

this aint hippieland. people will shoot through their door before asking who is it. LOL

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Lassitor

Any smell and any noise you make is now probable cause that a crime MAY be committed. Notice there is no recourse if the police enter your home and there actually was no crime committed, though unlikely now since there are something like 400,000 laws and you are probably violating one of them right now! I also know cops that can follow anyone and within 15 minutes spot some sort of moving violation or vehicular violation and pull them over.

It is only going to get worse, so you best start preparing for what is to come.

What is wrong with you fucking lunatics?

Possesion of Marijuana is illegal. Smelling Marijuana is a pretty strong fucking indicator that you possess it. So no, that's not the same thing as "Any smell and any noise you make is now probable cause that a crime MAY be committed.". The fact that you think it is amazes me.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by WarChild

What is wrong with you fucking lunatics?

Possesion of Marijuana is illegal. Smelling Marijuana is a pretty strong fucking indicator that you possess it. So no, that's not the same thing as "Any smell and any noise you make is now probable cause that a crime MAY be committed.". The fact that you think it is amazes me.

I have no issue of the cops busting in if they smelled pot. HOWEVER if they claim they busted in because the smell led them to think he was destroying evidence they are either fucking stupid or lying.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Ok who gets rid of pot evidence by SMOKING it?

i'm getting rid of evidence this way right now.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm telling you this is no fucking surprise. It's been this way for more than 80 years. Not just in the USA, but here in Canada where I live too.

Smelling pot, and later finding pot, seems like a pretty good case of probable cause. It's not like the police said they smelled "a musky gardening smell". You'll notice the Supreme Court seems to agree.

It seems like the real issue is you're upset over marijuana being illegal. Hey, I fucking agree with you on that one. It's absurd and ridiculous. However, like I said, this isn't anything new. An officer's sense can absolutely be taken in to account for probable cause. Smell, sight, hearing, etc.

I am not surprised by this at all, but that is not the point. The point would be whether you agree with this or not. I personally think it is complete bullshit and once again weakens the rights of the individual.

I will put it this way, why did the Kentucky supreme court side with the defendant? These are supreme court judges who looked at the case and realized there was no probable cause and threw the case out.

Whether or not pot should be legalized is not the point either.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by nation-x

Kentucky = Republican State
Republican = Authoritarian

How many Democratic states have decriminalized drug use so far?
Republicans = Democrats... same shit, different flavor.

[dyna mo]

does it matter they were chasing a suspected COCAINE dealer and concluded he was hiding in the apartment that smelled of weed? they weren't going after the weed guy, the probable cause in this case is *cocaine dealer would more than likely be in the apartment that smells of drugs*

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

How many Democratic states have decriminalized drug use so far?
.

how many?

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

does it matter they were chasing a suspected COCAINE dealer

well its simple, cocaine should be legal too

americans LOOOOOVE cocaine and pot

"A survey of 17 countries has found that despite its punitive drug policies the United States has the highest levels of illegal cocaine and cannabis use."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630201007.htm

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

does it matter they were chasing a suspected COCAINE dealer and concluded he was hiding in the apartment that smelled of weed? they weren't going after the weed guy, the probable cause in this case is *cocaine dealer would more than likely be in the apartment that smells of drugs*

and in a sane society the police might have confiscated the guys weed and left to go catch the cocaine dealer they were chasing.

but in reality it sounds like they thought "hey at least we caught us a pothead, we can catch the coke dealer later"

i gotta laugh, its so insane i have to laugh even though it is truly fucked up.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

well its simple, cocaine should be legal too

americans LOOOOOVE cocaine and pot

"A survey of 17 countries has found that despite its punitive drug policies the United States has the highest levels of illegal cocaine and cannabis use."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630201007.htm

i'm surprised by some of those #s although i've never rly thought about it. i do know we do like our drugs, despite outward appearances, like the war on drugs and people saying they don't.

i wonder how much of that resulted from the war on drugs eh. the you told me i can't so i am going to anyway thing.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Caligari

and in a sane society the police might have confiscated the guys weed and left to go catch the cocaine dealer they were chasing.

but in reality it sounds like they thought "hey at least we caught us a pothead, we can catch the coke dealer later"

i gotta laugh, its so insane i have to laugh even though it is truly fucked up.

well, that's the part that doesn't make sense right, why did they chose to make a big deal outta this guy smoking weed in his own apartment? and why did they ultimately not prosecute the suspected cocaine dealer if he was inititially so bad a dude they had to go busting down doors to get him? those 2 things don't jibe eh.

[Tom_PM]

Back when I was a kid/teen/young adult (pre-Reagan era), nobody would hardly EVER go to jail over weed. You had to be growing a farm of it, or dealing pounds of it before anyone gave a shit. I've told the story many times of being an altar boy and father mike firing up a bowl in the church rectory basement. It wasn't even illegal then. Nobody gave a shit because it made you hungry and sleepy. It is a totally different thing now.

[dyna mo]

i agree that cops should and need to be able to use all 5 senses while serving their communities but it's pretty sucky to think all of our rights have been lessened now because some dude was smoking a bowl in his apartment at the wrong time and the cops guessed wrong.

FAIL!

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Back when I was a kid/teen/young adult (pre-Reagan era), nobody would hardly EVER go to jail over weed. You had to be growing a farm of it, or dealing pounds of it before anyone gave a shit. I've told the story many times of being an altar boy and father mike firing up a bowl in the church rectory basement. It wasn't even illegal then. Nobody gave a shit because it made you hungry and sleepy. It is a totally different thing now.

even louisiana was going forward with legal weed in 70s, they even set up Marijuana Board and created the tax stamp for it, but quickly changed it to mandatory sentencing, craaaazy

[u-Bob]

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
-- Louis Brandeis, in Olmstead v. United States (1928)

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

even louisiana was going forward with legal weed in 70s, they even set up Marijuana Board and created the tax stamp for it, but quickly changed it to mandatory sentencing, craaaazy

how is the weed in louisiana? can y'all grow the dank there?

[dyna mo]

at least arnold did something right & decriminalized it here.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but don't the police only need "cause" to enter a residence or conduct a search? I mean, if they smell pot coming from a window they don't need a search warrant - they smelled the drug, knew a crime was taking place, and investigated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Eric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Yep, the way the constitution reads is that they have to have "probable cause" to even ASK for a search warrant.

Our founding fathers never wanted cops busting into people's homes without a search warrant (or even searching our person)