[QUOTE=DogGunn;29925220]they can't enter without a warrant though, unless they believe evidence is being destroyed. 4th amendment is still there and intact.[/QUOTE]
yes, BUT a cop can say anything.
'umm yes mr judge, i smelled weed so i booted down the door'
doesn't matter whether he did or not, who can say? especially if they do find anything else, his lie is completely justified.
happen to be taking a shit when they knock? you've just destroyed all the 'evidence'
Lots of people get off their charges from illegal searches, this just gives them a reason to search anyone or break in anywhere without getting a warrant.
A lawyers post on another site...
[quote]Warrants for drugs are incredibly lax in America, it's very easy to get one, but it still takes time. You're going to have to accumulate some probable cause of some kind - like you smelled weed distinctly coming from this one door - and then go swear to that before a judge.
That places the burden on the judge and their interpretation of the officer's veracity. A judge is an elected person, a cop is not, and even in states where judges are very friendly with cops those same judges will refuse to defer to cops who have routinely lied to them in the past. So while many officers could just claim to smell weed, get a warrant, and the bust the door down to find that there was indeed weed - the cop who did that, but was lying, would be known to the judge. The judge would refuse to defer to that cop anymore when it came to providing a sworn testimony.
Now a cop can just walk up to a door with his partner.
Officer A Rank - Sergeant: "You smell that?"
Officer B Rank - Patrolman: "Maybe...wait...yeah I smell something."
Officer A: "So you smell weed like I do?"
Officer B: "Yeah that's probably weed."
Officer A clears throat, and bangs on the door as loudly as possible while yelling "This is the police - open the door!" Both officers immediately put their ears to the door and hear things like "Oh shit" or "what do we do" or perhaps even "I read a thing online that says to never answer the door - just be quiet."
Officer A: "Did you hear them talking about being afraid to answer the door?"
Officer B: "Yeah one said he read something about not answering the door for cops."
Officer A bangs on the door again "I know you're in there - open this door immediately!"
Listening through the door again they hear sounds of a glass being knocked over, and things being moved about.
Officer A: "Alright their clearing it out - get ready to kick in the door."
And that's how it will go down from herein. In the past they'd have to go before a judge and say that they thought they smelled weed, and when they knocked, they heard voices inside saying to not answer the door as well as some glasses being knocked around. Maybe they even go so far as to say that the glass was likely a bong and they know this based on their "expert experience." The judge is now on the line to interpret the officers and whether that's grounds enough.
Instead the cops get to decide whether it is grounds enough. There is no way to "falsify" what the officers subjectively experienced - maybe what they thought was the smell of weed was not weed at all, and maybe the glass they heard get knocked over was someone being startled by the sudden banging and yelling coming from the front door. You might argue that cops banging on your door and yelling through it would startle anyone, and that's exactly what the defendant's attorneys were arguing at the US Supreme Court - but SCOTUS thought such talk was utter rubbish. Now, with cops being able to obtain the ability to search a home based on their own subjective and unfalsifiable experience, they can get a search warrant whenever they want it. They just claim to smell weed, and claim to have heard a toilet - and that's all they'll need - each and every time.
So now instead of a judge weighing the officer's testimony you get officers who can decide themselves. Instead of a judge that can be thrown out of office at the next election you get officers who are virtually immune from prosecution and protected by a vast network of other officers and attorneys via the Fraternal Order of Police. When it comes to drugs and search warrants - police officers have become their own issuers of search warrants.
This is why Justice Ginsberg said this ruling had, effectively, for any case where an officer wanted to involve drugs, entirely invalidated the 4th Amendment. For all intents and purposes the 4th Amendment is almost entirely dead now. Read the OP and learn how to protect yourself.
People said my advice was over the top - but there's a reason I wrote what I did. I've been expecting this to come down for some time now exactly as it did - and I knew people would have to reevaluate how they exercised their civil liberties with regard to drugs. People have to start being more careful than they've ever been before in the history of the US drug war.
I'm not being hyperbolic - this changes everything. [/quote]
[QUOTE=joe588;29925245]yes, BUT a cop can say anything.[/quote]
no doubt.
[QUOTE=joe588;29925245]'umm yes mr judge, i smelled weed so i booted down the door'
doesn't matter whether he did or not, who can say? especially if they do find anything else, his lie is completely justified.
happen to be taking a shit when they knock? you've just destroyed all the 'evidence'[/QUOTE]
there's reliance on cop's decision to enter being truthful like there is with them being truthful when implying intent required for certain types of search warrants.
i don't believe it's a good change, but it's not null and void as many people make it out to be.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;29924964]A lot of people cry and moan about the police how bad or hypocritical they are, then they get robbed and kiss their asses for hours straight when they plead to find their stolen shit.[/QUOTE]
and then they realize that the cops aren't gonna get them their shit back, most likely WONT find the person who stole it and they end up having to rely on insurance.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;29925427]and then they realize that the cops aren't gonna get them their shit back, most likely WONT find the person who stole it and they end up having to rely on insurance.[/QUOTE]
that reminds me of the time that my friend stole my ipod. I told the cop and he said he couldn't do anything
One time my mom got pulled over. The cop came over and looked at her, looked at me and walked away.. It was odd.
I smoked a joint in the street with two friends, one is albanian and the other is kenyan. A cop car saw us and they called me and my friends. We gave identity cards and replied to some shitty questions like 'did you smoke pot?' (they kindly saw we were high lol)... Then, they put my friends against the wall, but not me. I had the weed.
What the fuck? Segregationist cops.
[img]http://61.img.v4.skyrock.net/612/smirka4000/pics/2412503455_small_1.jpg[/img]
(Picture related)
I don't see the problem.
It's not the late 60's, police brutality actually has consequences now and a metric fuckton of reports in the media. If they search you without consent you can easily win a suit with a good lawyer.
There is a blazing spot near our school and so a bunch of students from my school went, and then they went to their usual spot, and someone came and said that they needed to leave and find somewhere else to go. They walked 5 minutes through a field and there were like 15 cops waiting for them.
Article: [url]http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/534481--guelph-students-puffing-party-plagued-by-police[/url]
[quote]As officers approached the area, [b]they saw 10 young men acting suspiciously[/b] and found seven in possession of 50 grams of marijuana, worth $500.[/quote]
How is "acting suspicious" grounds to search kids.
[QUOTE=SmashBrosFan11;30032594]that reminds me of the time that my friend stole my ipod. I told the cop and he said he couldn't do anything[/QUOTE]
He wasn't your friend.
One of my friends actually joined police academy just because he wanted to be able to say
[img]http://www.teesforall.com/images/South_Park_Respect_Authority_Gray_Shirt.jpg[/img]
I don't think he will end up becoming a good policeman.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;30034587]There is a blazing spot near our school and so a bunch of students from my school went, and then they went to their usual spot, and someone came and said that they needed to leave and find somewhere else to go. They walked 5 minutes through a field and there were like 15 cops waiting for them.
Article: [url]http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/534481--guelph-students-puffing-party-plagued-by-police[/url]
How is "acting suspicious" grounds to search kids.[/QUOTE]
Um, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell. It was a well known spot, and the people there were probably obviously smoking something. They found marijuana. I mean I'm all for the legalization of the stuff but the cops don't make the law they just enforce it.
[QUOTE=Keegs;29876266]I win, my village is 97% White, 0.27% African American.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why people are comparing the % of African Americans in their town, but I think I win.
97.57% White, 0.07% African American
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
Many police in my town are just officers to meet people and hand out candy from their cars on Halloween.
We all need police officers. Like moderators on forums. But there is a little difference between mods and cops... Moderators aren't friendly.
We're just doing our job, sir.
People often forget that cops are people too.
[QUOTE=Kaios;30037426]People often forget that cops are people too.[/QUOTE]
Don't make me cry you sonuvabitch.
[QUOTE=Kaios;30037426]People often forget that cops are people too.[/QUOTE]
I'll remember it when they do.
[QUOTE=mogul20478;29859483]Well I mean, it kind of sucks they banned guns, but the way I see it, no one should own a gun. There is no reason to, unless you hunt.[/QUOTE]
i don't know if you have noticed but firing a weapon is a huge stress reliever and a fantastic hobby
[QUOTE=Evil Policeman;29852876]I live in a city with very little crime. So I never really see the cops.
Fun fact, my city's population is only 8% Black according to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Cucamonga,_California#Demographics]census.[/url][/QUOTE]
Only? God I'm a redneck.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
