It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court Rules Burning Pot Smell Does Not Justify Police Entry

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by souls
this is a good post. as for the topic at hand, it is a step in the right direction. as many here had pointed out, the smell of bud is not enough to justify search.

the smell can easily be mistaken with anything else.



and this incidental is just the tiny wedge needed for the police state to broaden and solidify more control over the population....

here's how, why,

the pivotal point is "the smell can easily be mistaken with anything else"

i think this will lead to electronic sensors to be the 'court approved' devices which will 'sniff' out the offenders location and even identify the substance,

and when a positive reading is signaled, the data gathered & monitored becomes 'evidence' ....and a 'search warrent' is immediately issued.!
[see how the trained cops and/or drug sniffing canines will no longer be a variable, nor will there any question that personally motivated agents initiated the 'Bust'... ]
... here again the masses are under the thumb of technology, and forced to accept these new 'dope sensor devices', just like we've accepted
Speed Radar & Electronic Voting machines...

a confusion is pointed out (pot smell?),
a solution is proposed (Sensors),
as the Police expand their scope then meth labs, bomb factories, brothels, bootleg whisky, cult meetings, will be natural targets of a new concerted searching
rather than finding out the perps of society by accident or chance,



in the long run & broader view, both freedom and liberty are reduced




posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
queenannie38 it is obvious you are pro pot sobeit.

Why do you think it is obvious? Do i have a joint in my hand?
NO.
Do i have marijuana in my residence?
NO.

Why do you assume?


That will not change the fact we have laws that make its use illegal,, that you have to live with. Where and why those laws were enacted is not relevant simply because the laws are now in place and have to be enforced.


Yes it IS relevant. You are dodging the question.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ignorance is no excuse for the law.


Greed is not a justified reason to make laws.
If hemp had not been made illegal then we would not have suffered the great depression so acutely. If hemp were legal we would have our rain forests now. What is gone is gone. Let's not lose it all. I speak of both trees and freedoms.




posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pesky george
My point is that the law is ridiculous. Our forefathers were all about personal choice and the ability to live our lives without government intrusion paramount.


Exactly. That is why THEY came HERE from another country. That is why they EMIGRATED here.

From The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus


"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"



My opinions on illegal immigration regard it as an invasion.

Are you a native American, George? What IS your heritage? Were your forefathers here BEFORE 1492?


The enforcement of marijuana consumption is a waste of crucial manpower and money.


The enforcement of marijuana consumption? Or do you mean the enforcement of the law that declares hemp and its byproducts illegal?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
With no intent to take the thread off-topic I think the racial/social aspects the topic holds are important to the issue.

Even when the sensor technique, as outlined above by Udio, comes in use, they wouldn't applied it on any quarter of the town. But a future scenario could very likely be sniffer drones buzzing around on the other side of the track.

What I'm saying, like racial issues were a dominant factor in the original anti-drug legislation as they were pressed by the legendary and infamous drug-czar Harry J. Anslinger, social issues are now. You wouldn't want people to get the ability to actually THINK. Would be a hazard to social stability [sarcasm intended].

Somewhere I've read (probably on ATS) a reason to outlaw weed, was because "it gave the black man the ability to look straight into the eyes of white folks". Something like that. Ad they didn't like it.

For shots, have you ever heard of civilian disobedience? That's what changes law.

Only need one example, laws of racial segregation. They wouldn't have changed if it wasn't for people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.

In the case of cannabis I think, whether you're a smoker or not, it is your civil duty to object those laws, because the herb itself is through millenniums sacred and revered for its --now scientifically proved-- medical properties.

And like queenannie points out, today not least for its environmental ones, as well.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Does apply across all states or just for Ohio?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Somewhere I've read (probably on ATS) a reason to outlaw weed, was because "it gave the black man the ability to look straight into the eyes of white folks". Something like that. Ad they didn't like it.


i don't think so. that sounds kind of dumb. just watch GRASS if you would like to know the history of marijuana. the rest of your post makes sense though.

edit=for the record, girls do get naked and run around like that when they smoke in real life.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by souls]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I feel it is crucial for Americans, ney, for HUMANS, to realize that rights arent 'given' to us by any piece of paper.
They are spelled out in the 4th ammendment, but even without that piece of paper you would still have the right to be secure in your home/person.

I am not being a stickler, but it is clear to me after reading some posts on here that some people have no idea what rights are or where they really come from.


Of course...I used the word "given", when in fact the 4th ammendment simply serves as a guarantee that our right to be secure in person/property will not be violated. The founding fathers didn't realize though that laws would be changed and altered in any way possible in the future in order to take these rights away.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   


I think cops have bigger fish to fry than some harmless stoners in the privacy of their own home!!!!

I plead the 4th!

Big steps forward here in Minnesota too!


Medical marijuana bills introduced in the Minnesota Legislature
Last update: February 19, 2007
The Minnesota Legislature is back in session, and with your help we can make Minnesota the 12th state to protect sick and dying medical marijuana patients! Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-Duluth) is leading a bipartisan coalition of 18 co-sponsors -- including former speaker of the House, Rep. Steve Sviggum (R-Kenyon) -- on H.F. 655, a bill that will allow seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it. Sen. Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, S.F. 345, which also has bipartisan sponsorship.

On February 14, the Minnesota Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee -- in an overwhelming, bipartisan voice vote -- passed S.F. 345. It now heads to the Judiciary Committee. Committee hearings on H.F. 655 will be scheduled soon.

Media outlets across the state are already covering these medical marijuana bills, including the ABC affiliate in St. Paul/Minneapolis and the Minnesota News Network. Click here to read the press release about the introduction of H.F. 655 and S.F. 345. Then, check out the newspaper articles about the bills from the Winona Daily News and the Pioneer Press.

An excellent way to keep medical marijuana in the news is by writing a letter to the editor of your local papers. Please take a moment now to write a letter to the editor of your local papers in support of these medical marijuana bills. We've provided you some basic talking points that you can use in your letter, but a personally crafted letter is much more likely to get published. It's vital for state legislators to see examples of the widespread, statewide support this sensible legislation enjoys. Please click here to take action now.

After you've written a letter to the editor, please contact your state legislators to urge them to support these bills and to move quickly to pass them this session. For this legislation to move forward, you need to let your legislators know that you care about protecting sick and dying patients. Please click here to take action by writing your state legislators, asking them to end Minnesota's cruel policy of criminalizing the seriously ill.

If you are a medical professional, a law enforcement officer, or a patient who could benefit from the medical use of marijuana, please e-mail zane@mpp.org to find out more about what you can do to move this legislation forward.

A statewide poll conducted by Zogby International in February 2005 showed that Minnesotans support medical marijuana by a 2-1 margin. Last session, with the help of activists across the state, medical marijuana legislation moved through the Senate. The bipartisan medical marijuana bill passed four Senate committees before it died on the Minnesota Senate floor without a vote. The momentum is clearly in our favor. Please help maintain it by taking action today.

Thank you for supporting the Marijuana Policy Project. Please pass this information along to your friends and family in Minnesota, and then subscribe to our free legislative alert service if you haven't already done so.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I just jumped back into this thread, and this response seems, imo, to sum it up quite nicely:



Originally posted by Lexion
Ok, this is my view of the OP's points.
Can an odor be probable cause ? IMO, yes. They are trained to know the
smell of cannibas burning.
On another point. They smell it from your home.

Either they are at your front door for a reason ( I don't think the police
randomly walk up to private residences ), or the home in question has
a pound burning in the fire-place.

Using Occam's Razor, the former seems more valid.

So, if they are at your door for a reason, the odor more than justifies
probable cause.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

It's probable cause, reasonable suspicion. It doesn't have to be proof positive. It's reason enough for them to wait at your (open) door while a warrant and a dog are obtained, if they want to push it that far. And as has been pointed out, they are at your door for a reason.

Think about it. They can enter your home if they, or an RP, hear screams or noises that make them suspect domestic violence. This really isn't any different.

Nice summary, Lexion.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Shots, no offence intended, but your stance is anti-american.
Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

That's not fair to shots.
He's not proposing or upholding any laws which are against the Constitution. He is upholding laws which are currently on the books.

Now, it's true that not all laws are good laws, but that is a different topic, for a different thread. This thread is about gathering evidence.


Im glad to see the SCOTUS make this decision.
Its atleast a small step in the right direction, considering all the privacy issues they have turned a blind eye to.

Except that it wasn't the SCOTUS who made this decision. It was the Utah Supreme Court.

And, as I said earlier, I'd bet that if this went before the SCOTUS, they would rule for the cops.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'd bet that if this went before the SCOTUS, they would rule for the cops.


That would suck.

I meant nothing personal to shots, its just that I have very firm beliefs on personal freedoms.
I hate seatbelt laws as well, and consider supporters of such laws 'unamerican'.
To me America means freedom, where I should be able to do whatever I want as long as I dont hurt others.
Im not hurting anybody by not wearing my seatbelt, and Im not hurting anyone sitting in my home smoking pot.
Again, I dont mean that Shots is not a good American, just that his view is contrary to the freedom America is suppose to stand for.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


Apples and oranges JSO.

Pot has a pleasent odor, so Im told, and Meth labs reak of chemicals, so Im told.
Is that how you spell reak? its getting late.......

I



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


Yes, because surely the police can do some real police work, get some real evidence, and build a real case on the REAL bad guys, which doesn't need to rely on something as flimsy as one person's capability for sniffing out drugs. The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is very serious, and we don't need cops to have the ABILITY to go into our homes if they decide they want to. It is easy for them to do this by claiming that they smell drugs. It is quite another thing entirely to hear someone screaming, hear a gunshot, suspicious activity reports, etc. That's because all of these things can be corroborated by other witnesses, as opposed to just made up on the spot by one police officer.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I meant nothing personal to shots, its just that I have very firm beliefs on personal freedoms.

I know you didn't mean to be vicious, but calling someone like Shots anti-American is wrong. We need just as many people to uphold the current laws as we need people to challenge silly laws.


I hate seatbelt laws as well, and consider supporters of such laws 'unamerican'.
To me America means freedom, where I should be able to do whatever I want as long as I dont hurt others.
Im not hurting anybody by not wearing my seatbelt, and Im not hurting anyone sitting in my home smoking pot.

Well, that's why I live in NH, where there are no seatbelt or helmet laws, and the state motto is Live Free Or Die.


Again, I dont mean that Shots is not a good American, just that his view is contrary to the freedom America is suppose to stand for.

And once again, I disagree. We need the Shots of the world as much as we need the 11Bravo's. Otherwise, we would live in chaos.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


it's about a little of both. mainly the marijuana. believe me im not confused, i just look that way. the ruling is about specifically marijuana which is known to have an incorrect reputation and categorization. meth on the other hand, is different, you do get violent, you do kill people, you do declare wars (hitler). it is just a whole other category. laws/rules seem to be designed to be bent and stretched, and they were meant for the people that need them, who can't function in society, by that i mean those who dont take into consideration the rights of other human beings.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion
Again, this isn't about the legality of smoking cannabis.
It's about the ability to search a residence due to the odor of burning pot.



O.K.
So. say it is a beautiful, warm evening and there is a nice breeze blowing.

There is the smell of pot in the air. You happen to be standing in the commons area of an apartment complex which is bordered by 5 different apartments.

Now, each apartment has it's windows open in order to enjoy the breeze. So which one do you suspect is guilty? Which one will you go kick down the door on? Can you even tell which apartment the smell is coming from?

And what if you pick the wrong one but someone happens to be injured or killed because the person living there decided to protect their HOME from someone kicking in their door?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


Yes, because surely the police can do some real police work, get some real evidence, and build a real case on the REAL bad guys, which doesn't need to rely on something as flimsy as one person's capability for sniffing out drugs. The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is very serious, and we don't need cops to have the ABILITY to go into our homes if they decide they want to. It is easy for them to do this by claiming that they smell drugs. It is quite another thing entirely to hear someone screaming, hear a gunshot, suspicious activity reports, etc. That's because all of these things can be corroborated by other witnesses, as opposed to just made up on the spot by one police officer.

No it isn't any different. I'm your neighbor. I smelled pot coming from your apartment.

How is that any different than, I'm your neighbor, I heard violent screams?

As was earlier posted, the cops are at your door for a reason.

This isn't about pot. It's about reasonable suspicion. Probable cause.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by souls

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that many here are confused about this case. It is not about pot. It is about the 4th Amendment.

Pot just happens to be the trigger in this case.

It could just as easily been about the distinctive smells given off from a meth lab.

Would you all be cheering it on so loudly in that case?


it's about a little of both. mainly the marijuana. believe me im not confused, i just look that way. the ruling is about specifically marijuana which is known to have an incorrect reputation and categorization. meth on the other hand, is different, you do get violent, you do kill people, you do declare wars (hitler). it is just a whole other category.

For you folks to understand, you need to appreciate the beauty of the Constitution, and the thinking of the men who wrote it.

They did not limit the 1st Amendment to what is "ink-printed or spoken". they said Freedom of Expression. That's because they knew they could not foresee the future.

They didn't limit the 2nd Amendment to "freedom to possess a cannon or musket loader". That's because they knew they could not predict what "arms" would look like in the future.

The same principle applies here. The 4th Amendment. Today it's the smell of pot, in your eyes. BUT that is not the issue!

I've seen a hundred of these types of threads on ATS, where pot is somehow involved. People immediately confuse the issue and start a "Let's legalize pot today!" sidetrack. And then all the same old stuff comes out about how it is less dangerous, how much money we could make by taxing it, etc., etc.

Very few people stick with the issue being discussed.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
probable cause is still not warranted because of smell. like it was stated before, the bud can have a variety of smells, depending on the strain, and depending on the way it is smoked (i.e. using tobacco products). the other thing is that there are products out there that replicate the smell, and if a copper thinks he smells pot, it is not enough to permit warrant less searches because of probable cause. he doesn't know it is incense, he doesn't know it is cigars. same goes to the friendly neighbor calling the copper because she thinks she smells pot. she doesn't know if it is bud. in fact how would she know? she knows what the screams for help sound like, but does she or the cop really know what bud smells like, and if it really is pot that they smell. the 4th amendment is correctly upheld. "unreasonable search and seizure"




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join