Court Rules Burning Pot Smell Does Not Justify Police Entry

This all they got..."The children" The real reason is the lack of parenting to educate their children about pot or beer or anything for that matter. Rather than parent they want the courts to inject the rule of law so they can shift their parenting to yoga or Golds gym or other non parental life skills.

Tell the recipients of drug war dollars in Central America your fairy tale. I am sure they will agree with you as they stash the cash their pockets while snickering behind your back.

Just imagine the tax revenue from weed that could be applied? BILLIONS>>>(BILLIONS)! I would love to go to work and not need to worry about payroll taxes ect...Ha....the thought

You guys are sidetracking the issue. This is not about whether marijuana use should be legal in the US.

It is an issue of evidence.

I was in no way shape or form advocating taking away individual rights. I was asking where the line was to be drawn.

This worthless human being set the presidence for herself.



Again, asking where the line is drawn.

In many states nationwide, there's only so much that people like myself can do in the instance when they are divorced. I do my best to educate my children on the pros and cons of drugs/alcohol. It's a choice to do, when you're old enough to make that choice. Therefore, being a child (especially in their situation) you have one that utterly defies any notion of the wellbeing of the kid, and the other does everything under the sun to protect them... where do they draw the line as far as this ruling is concerned?

I feel that to be a legitimate question. I'm not hiding from parental responsibilities. I'm not divulging hogwash to take away individual rights.

I feel the elaboration on this ruling is a must.

It's not an issue any more in Utah...? Problem solved

well it is nice to see you are now back to where it should have been originally. I knew they would or could be influenced but not the whole world as you implied.

---

Thanks JS for trying to get the topic back on track

elaboration....For the rule is simple. The courts don't see just cause to enter a house based on the "burning smell" that pot omits? Its common sense. You can apply too many things to burning smell? It's not articulate tangable evidence that pot is being used in the home?

[edit on 10-3-2007 by tsloan]

I agree... This thread is not about whether marijuana should be legalized. Personally, I've never met a stoner I didn't like. I prefer them to most drunks and... and... well... People with no obvious vice's tend to make me wonder sometimes... But anyways.

No, smelling burning pot is no justification to bust in my front door and tear my house apart! I personally had a situation similar to this way back when I was in High School. They smelled "Incense" and determined this was enough evidence to search my house! What am I, a dumb-ass teenager supposed to do? They knew I wouldn't fight in court. Couldn't afford to fight in court more like it.

Amazing how fast some people feel the need to protect others and violate peoples personal freedoms. I'm in my house... Leave me the hell alone! Bust me if I'm smoking in my car... Bust me if I'm smoking in a public place... Bust me smoking at a rock concert. But stay out of my damn house!

Peace

I provided the South American countries an example. Ask Canadians on this board how the US influences drug policy in their country if you want to go north. The DEA has offices in a multitude of countries, so you can play what ever semantical word games you like.

The topic is:

The court rightly upheld 4th Amendment.

Kudos to the court.

The court rightly upheld 4th Amendment.

Imagine that...

The only reason authorities should ever be worried about marijuana is if large-scale distribution is involved. And smell has nothing to do with distribution.

If the cops try to get in my house for pot smell I will laugh in their face.

All we're doing is listening to Pink Floyd and eating chips, SEND US TO JAIL.

Quote..... originally posted by shots.
The smell is not subjective. From what I understand there is no mistaking its smell according to police officials that is. Are you implying they are lying when they smell it or when a dog smells it is the dog lying? The answer is no in the dogs case they are trained to smell it and their accuracy rate is something above 99% as I understand. Now knowing this and given the possibility that officers know the smell and animals as well I say yes that is sufficient reason.

shots, by this statement youve made it appears you should not make comments about something you state, you know nothing about.
with all the flavored tabbacos around,clove cigarettes, not to mention the sweet smell of cigars, this ruling is correct. ........ not that i would know, but different types of ganja smell differently when burned.

"I smoke 2 joints before i smoke 2 joints and then I smoke 2 more"

How much pot does one need to be smoking so that cops can smell it outside your house?

You are entitled to your Opinion and I am entitled to mine. You may feel it was right while I and others feel it was not. I think it was stupid court ruling


Think probable cause here like in Thorton V United states where SCOTUS ruled the officers were right. Car or home makes no difference both are a private area normally off limits w/o a search warrant, but not always.

Also allow me to point out that Airport customs and police used drug sniffing dogs long before 911 and if a dog smelled drugs that was sufficient cause to search the bags.

But in this case we are not talking about Flavored Cigars or Cigarettes we are talking about Mary Jane or what ever you care to call it. When I hear friends who are police officers tell me they can smell it I believe them, I mean why would they want to lie to me?

Oh yes, the war on drugs has been a very successful war - gradually destroying our courts, our cities, our budgets, our morals, and other countries. It has failed in one respect only: it has had no inhibiting effect upon the traffic in drugs. Indeed, that traffic, as a direct result of our criminal laws, has increased. It is time to consider some form of legalization.

Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the 4th Amendment was made to guard the people against the DANGERS OF GOOD INTENTIONS. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

BTW,
The question George Bush, along with Clinton, Gingrich, Gore and all the other boomer politicians who have admitted to a walk on the wild side but saw the error of their ways and support the drug laws now more than ever should be required to answer is simple. "At what point in your drug-using career would it have been a good thing for you to get arrested and go to prison?

An article recently published in The Journal of Law & Medicine detailed a study of the ability of so-called trained individuals to detect the odor of pot. Every test subject failed to detect the smell of actual pot, and gave numerous false positives.

So, this is a step in the right direction.

Any number of other substances can smell like drugs, and drugs can smell like a whole bunch of other substances - so what's the point in giving credence to a LEO's nose when it comes time to issue a search warrant?

The police should never be able to enter a private residence without a damn good reason.

I feel a little differently about cars...

If someone is behind the wheel of an automobile, and the strong odor of drugs or alcohol is coming from the vehicle, then that should be considered probable cause. Drivers under the influence are simply too great a threat to let such things slide.

I had my car searched once because the officer smelled pacholi (sp?) oil. The reasoning was that alot of "hippies" use pacholi oil. Reason why my car smelled like it was because I had just bought some and spilled a little in my car. Where does the line get drawn about this smell thing?

Cops are trying to do their job, I lived in college dorms last year and the campus police would take kids downtown (happened to my buddy) for misdemenor possesion. I think most of them get a rise out of it. "we gotta get these pot-smoking bastards" so they bust in your room and hassle you like you just killed somebody. Yeah, I know it's against the law, but it's a ridiculous law. They want to bust you. They think they are doing something good for the community.
Meanwhile the drunk kids are out yelling and breaking stuff and pissing all over the place.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Saucerful_of_Secrets]

No offense man, but you really have alot to learn. We are the worlds policemen. Whatever laws and standards we follow, mostly everyone else follows and we are the model to how the world should be. How many countries have a democracy/constitution modeled after ours? I can name 2, Iraq by force and Russia. One example I can bring up is when Mexico was about to legalize all drugs, the US Government shook its finger at Mexico and told them NO, NO, NO and so what does Mexico do? It went along with what the US government wanted them to do and shot down the measure immediately.

Also, before The world of Islam had any laws outlawing marijuana, they used to smoke hashish religiously.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Tyranny]