Examining our 4th Amendment rights. Ok I'm going to get right to the picture, here is the text of our Constitutional 4th Amendment. [FONT="]Constitutional Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.â€[/FONT] Now lets break this down line for line. "The right of the people" Hey that's us, fancy that this right directly belongs to us. "To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" I believe they are talking about things we own, basically property, either on hand or on owned land. "against unreasonable searches and seizures" Now this is the line that get's a lot of debate when does it become reasonable? If you look at the next fragment it reads: "[FONT="]and no warrants shall issue"[/FONT] If we look at the definition of "warrant" it is defined as "[FONT="]a writ from a court commanding police to perform specified acts.[/FONT]" This right here tells us that a police officer cannot legally search anyone with out consent or without a signed document by a judge. (Writ: [FONT="]a legal document issued by a court or judicial officer.)[/FONT] "but upon probable cause" This clearly states they must have compelling reason to believe activity that infringes on another persons rights is taking place. "[FONT="]supported by Oath or affirmation" This basically means a law that was passed in conformity to The Constitution supported the cause to issue the warrant. "[/FONT][FONT="]and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Meaning the writ that gets signed by a judge must clearly tell police officers what they are obtaining, they can not just bust into your house and rob you like they have been doing for years. Please discuss this topic. We literally have a right to possess anything we want and the government has been literally stealing from us for the past century. The reason I would like to discuss these topics is it is something I feel that we all need to understand in order to achieve this goal, I think if you can ignore it because you don't understand it your part of the problem. PS: Saying failure to comply is probable cause, is a violation of Constitutional Amendment V. [/FONT]
Did most people not learn this in high school, police need a warrant to search you unless they have probable cause, if they dont then the case will be dismissed in court even if you had something illegal. Same goes with your car and your home. Also if the court has a warrant to search for a person in your home and they see a bag of weed they cant do shit about it. Every stoner should learn these laws because it could help you someday.
Cops (at least where I live) will lie as much as they can to make an arrest. All a cop needs to say is "I smell marijuana," and he's got his cause to search your car. It would be nice if these laws work, but they don't. If a cop needs a cause, he'll find one. If he can't, he will lie. That's the way it works.
Smelling marijuana is a not probable cause, meaning what they are doing is illegal, so if you try to prove that in court it can be dismissed. Most people are stupid and believe everything they tell you, they even get you to confess to it before they find it.
Wish australia had a bill of rights.. in my experience most cops have been top blokes though provided you are respectful to them Cops can search vehicles without your consent, they are about to pss a bill allowing police to search anyone, anywhere without consent or necessarily proof/suspicion.
This too should be added. If a cop comes to your house because he suspects illegal activity and you let him come in your house you just allowed him to search. Do not let him in your house without a warrant!!
Here is one article I found on the subject that seems to be founded on facts, such as they are: What Are My Rights When a Police Officer Wants to Search My Vehicle? I also have verbiage on my MMJ Card that tells me what I can and shouldn't say, if I am ever searched, or they want to search me or my house. I try never to take anyone person or source's word for these types of things...they are just too important, and if messed up, could really make things bad.
That's not what the cops think. Cops will do whatever they can to manipulate you into probable cause. Check out this cop forum, crazy tricks to get inside a vehicle - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com
Cops can't search a person's car because of a recent supreme court case. here's the opinions http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
In Ohio, the smell of marijuana in a car is probable cause to search and any cop can lie and say they smell it when they really don't.
What you guys are falling to understand is it's NOT PROBABLE CAUSE, if it was probable cause they still need to obtain a warrent from a judge, and the warrent can't be broad, it has to say exactly what they need to be taking from you, the laws today are UNCONSTITUTIONAL I'm going to sit here and force is into everyone of your heads until you can understand it. Until you finally realize it and stand up to your government like the constitution tells you you are allowed to do without fear of procecution.
Yes, No, and Sort of. You are both sort of right and sort of wrong here. Probable Cause, as regards to how the majority of people think of it, relates not to a search of the vehicle but to the "implied consent" to a breathalyzer or drug test. Probable cause, as it relates to a vehicle search does require a signed judicial Warrant. Most states have a "Implied consent" law written into the driver licensing laws. This law requires drivers who are licensed to consent to a drug test given Probable Cause. Probable Cause here is almost always very loosely written and it is determined on a case by case basis. You are right in that this law does not require you to allow an officer to search the vehicle. You are right that you should ALWAYS tell the officer that you do not consent to a search if he asks or begins a search without your consent. Do keep in mind though that if that same officer asks you to take a breathalyzer or to piss in a cup, they probably are within their bounds. You can refuse to take one, but it can result in you losing your driver license if the court determines that there was Probable Cause, and because probable cause is a case by case basis I would not recommend betting on it. So on that note, it is never a good idea to be smoking in the car as a officer CAN ask you to take a drug test in most states and if you fail can arrest you as "driving impaired" after which he can search the vehicle. I am not sure what specifically will and will not hold up as probable cause for a test, but I would not be surprised at all if smell would and I am sure that they are able to require a field sobriety test regardless. On that note, I do not believe that current Breathalyzers test for MJ so if asked to take one and you haven't been drinking, it is probably a good idea as they almost definitely wont ask for anything else, and you can show a judge that you did not "refuse" to take a test.
Are Government is psychopathic, Persecuting innocent people and allowing crime and violence to occur for their own benefit. Like I said, they take your weed and your money. Thats their main goal.
+ rep man This is a great link and if you read it all it will give you a great idea of when and how a officer can Legally search your vehicle without your consent. While the 4th Amendment does protect you in most cases, there are times when officers can search without a warrant. Keep in mind too my other post and the fact that most of us implied consent to a drug test. If they arrest you on drug charges, it looks to me like case law supports a search of the vehicle. Make sure they expressly tell you what charges they arrest you on though.
I think your failing to understand something, how does violation of unconstitutional laws give police the right to steal from someone. I ask everyone to look at the Constitution and ask the two following questions on all derivatives of the laws. "Who or what gave the government the right to pass said laws?", and, "What laws are right?" I don't mean right in a sense of what's right or wrong, I mean right as what laws are going to literally impose on our rights as United States Citizens. When you can answer me that that's when you'll be able to learn how to solve the problem. Right: in accordance with what is good, proper, or just EDIT: Rights: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. (Much better I knew the proper definition was there.)
What I am trying to say is that your outlook of your "rights" will not always hold up in court. I understand that some thing seem to be against the bill of rights. The problem is that, the law as the court recognizes it will be what sends you to prison. As far as who gave the government the right to pass said laws, that question has a simple answer. We the people. Yes we disagree with the government from time to time and that is where reform and change comes from. We have a representative democracy so that the people have the power to chose the representatives we think will best make decisions. The problem I have with the Libertarian view is that while I agree that there are basic "rights" that everyone should be entitled to, I believe that there is a big difference between saying we need those rights and actually protecting them. Example of that, while I am fine with and support the right to bear arms, I support college sports stadiums not allowing them inside.
You seriously need to take a look at cannabis history dude before you can even think of making claims like that. I advocate Cannabis because it is the most clear cut sign of laws passed in greed. Seriously do the research, better yet, read the research: History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States Cannabis was literally made illegal out of racism! Is that constitutional? We have been lied to in thinking this is prohibitied to do health yet no one has died from it based on usage, is that constitutional? You really need to start educating yourself and asserting your rights. The Constitution is the law above all laws. Learn that then you can help in change.
As for that part that is completely Constitutional if you consider proper arguments. It is to the discretion of the land owner whether or not to allow the risk of weapons onto his land, not the law, and in turn if something where to happen it is the responsibility of the persons that committed an act against human rights to be held responsible. We need to quit with this illusion that we can predict crimes, this is not Minority Report, this is the real world. We are all subject to it, no by choice, but by right.
i understand this very well. but as far as i know, in colorado at least, the smell of marijuana is probable cause to search a vehicle. you're saying it isn't? im pretty sure i read somewhere that it is.
To my understanding they have to follow federal conduct IF they want funding. So an area with the means can change it. Also the tenth amendment is very usefull. For example, in states that do not have a law requiring you to identify yourself, you can invoke the tenth if you have not commited any crime. So I used to use this when I was underage and out past curfew. They had the right to jail me if I was under eighteen, but when they rode up on my asking my age, I was able to say I plead the tenth. Then after a brief argument with the cop, and/or him calling it in, I was let go un-molested. They changed the township law regarding that after it caught on among the kids. So now people apearing under the age of twenty are required to indentify when asked. So now days the kids in my old township cannot invoke the 10th, because the act is prohibited by the state, even though it is not afforded by the constituion.