Police breaking into cars for *suspicion* of marijuana

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
I wish i could triple star your post..soooo true.
They just pick the lowest hanging fruit available.

edit on 6-6-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

A K9 could easily smell pot coming from that truck even though it is 3ft off the ground. A dogs sense of smell is better than your eyesight.



Um... apparently NOT since there was no marijuana in the truck, and Matt has never been a user.

A quick google on the subject shows that over half of drug dog "hits" are false and over 80% of hits are influenced by the handler signalling the dog to do so.
edit on 6-6-2014 by 8675309jenny because: tpyo



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I would never want to know or associate with anyone who supports this kind of crap, there always seems to be people who think this is acceptable..live in your own little world stay far away from me.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

It's pretty obvious, isn't it. They know where to draw the line in their work.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel
Well it doesnt get more "low hanging" than an empty car does it..lol, real heros at work eh.
Cheers



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I do not believe an odor gives probable cause. At least, not in your house. And I cannot imagine an unoccupied truck would be any different.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
A spliffy sniffy coming from your car is grounds for probable cause.

As long as i can remember this has been the case.


In Massachusetts, even if an officer searches you and finds marijuana, that is not probable cause for further search. Let alone searching an unoccupied vehicle. Of course, none of this actually protects anybody. It is evident that if an officer wants to search you they're going to search you. If this happens to you and believe it to be unlawful, your only recourse is to spend your time and money hashing it out in court after the fact. Officers know this and that's why, unfortunately, the law does not offer any real protection against unreasonable search.


An officer smelling freshly burnt marijuana inside a stopped vehicle, and an occupant surrendering a noncriminal amount of marijuana, did not, without more, support probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of marijuana would be found in the vehicle.

Ferreting out decriminalized conduct with the same fervor associated with the pursuit of serious criminal conduct is neither desired by the public nor in accord with the plain language of the law. Our analysis must give effect to the clear intent of the people of the Commonwealth in accord with article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We conclude that, to order a passenger in a stopped vehicle to exit based merely on suspicion of an offense, that offense must be criminal. Here, no facts were articulated to support probable cause to believe that a criminal amount of contraband was present in the car. We conclude, therefore, that in this set of circumstances a magistrate would not, and could not, issue a search warrant. Because the standard for obtaining a search warrant to search the car could not be met, we conclude that it was unreasonable for the police to order the defendant out of the car in order to facilitate a warrantless search of the car for criminal contraband under the automobile exception.


-Chief Justice Roderick Ireland, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts v. Cruz 4/19/2011



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Yet another example of cops abusing their authority. I still insist the only way to curb the cowboys will require some kind of action from Washington. This crap is taking place all over the country.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The cops saw a nice truck and wanted to steal it. If they had thought to bring a little with them to plant they would have.

Nobody driving a Yugo or Pinto will ever get one of these notes.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
Yet another example of cops abusing their authority. I still insist the only way to curb the cowboys will require some kind of action from Washington. This crap is taking place all over the country.


No one in power in this country wants to end the tyranny that's going on, it was their agenda from the start.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I find it odd the police didn't have a more official calling card than that piece of paper.
How do we know it was legit.....even if the number and name were real.

No business card?
Did I miss something?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: buster2010

A K9 could easily smell pot coming from that truck even though it is 3ft off the ground. A dogs sense of smell is better than your eyesight.



Um... apparently NOT since there was no marijuana in the truck, and Matt has never been a user.

A quick google on the subject shows that over half of drug dog "hits" are false and over 80% of hits are influenced by the handler signalling the dog to do so.

The dog could have just picked up the sent of pot having been smoked in the truck. Do you know this Matt personally?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
I find it odd the police didn't have a more official calling card than that piece of paper.
How do we know it was legit.....even if the number and name were real.

No business card?
Did I miss something?


Every time I have seen the police search a vehicle or house like in the OP a card with the policeman's name is always left. A friend of mine's fathers house was raided because somebody was growing pot on his land. When he got home he found the card.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hell, who needed that pesky 4th amendment anyway? It's just a number in the bunch and not like it's I or II or anything, right?

They're just following their nose...nothing wrong with that if we lose that old dusty document prohibiting it.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
I find it odd the police didn't have a more official calling card than that piece of paper.
How do we know it was legit.....even if the number and name were real.

No business card?
Did I miss something?



That's a good point. A new method for criminals to use.

He should report it as vandalism.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Or the K9 picked up on the scent of mary jane and the officer signaled the dog to "hit" on the truck. If that truck was parked anywhere near a bar, the scent could have come from anywhere. Without witnesses or some kind of evidence, the "search" was illegal. Even more so since apparently they didn't find anything.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: 8675309jenny


originally posted by: buster2010



A K9 could easily smell pot coming from that truck even though it is 3ft off the ground. A dogs sense of smell is better than your eyesight.






Um... apparently NOT since there was no marijuana in the truck, and Matt has never been a user.



A quick google on the subject shows that over half of drug dog "hits" are false and over 80% of hits are influenced by the handler signalling the dog to do so.


The dog could have just picked up the sent of pot having been smoked in the truck.

And?? what would the point be in searching an unoccupied vehicle regardless..If they really though they had a hit why wouldnt they wait for the driver to they could "get him" in possesion..no way to prove the chain of custody..of the imaginary mj
edit on 6-6-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

And?? what would the point be in searching an unoccupied vehicle regardless.


They'd get to confiscate a truck that's easily worth $60K or more with little to no resistance.

Then they could repaint it in their department colors and logos and drive it around to schools acting all bad-ass.

Then they could go to their cop buddies house, get drunk as hell, instigate a fight over wife-swapping, pull their guns on each other and have their cop buddies drive them home. drunk ass swinger cops

War on drugs! Ooh Rah!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Here in Canada, a PC search that produces nothing goes on the officer's permanent file. Unless you have related arrests prior, it is likely the officer is not going risk his record on someone smoking pot. They might be a little heavier about it now that i am hearing more adds about kids driving high awareness but in the past I have been caught red handed, Sargent on the scene and still, my "no" kept them out of the vehicle. They need you to admit something, so don't.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: vonclod



And?? what would the point be in searching an unoccupied vehicle regardless.




They'd get to confiscate a truck that's easily worth $60K or more with little to no resistance.



Then they could repaint it in their department colors and logos and drive it around to schools acting all bad-ass.



Then they could go to their cop buddies house, get drunk as hell, instigate a fight over wife-swapping, pull their guns on each other and have their cop buddies drive them home. drunk ass swinger cops



War on drugs! Ooh Rah!!!

Im pretty sure up here it wouldnt even make the courtroom as in no charges laid, if the owner had a fed licence to posses mj they would even get that back, im aware there are much different rules in the U.S...good point on the confiscation aspect..maybee really what this boils down to. I wonder what amount warrants seizure?





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join