Know your search rights!!!

I have found that most people are not up on thier rights, or just do not use them, because they dont know fully, or are intimidated. Let it be known, that you should NEVER consent to a search, always make them get a warrant, even if you have nothing, actually especially if you have nothing, make them waste their time.

PLEASE DO NOT BECOME AN UNLAWFUL P.O.W. IN THE WAR OF DRUGS!

NOW! The Cases

THE SMELL OF SMOKE IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A CAR OR HOME!!! Do not fall victim to an ignorant cop: here is the case law precedents (sp)

FOR CARS

The Washington Supreme Court ruled July 17 that police cannot arrest passengers simply for being in a car that smells of marijuana. The unanimous decision overturned a 29-year-old precedent allowing police to search or arrest passengers if they smelled pot near a car.


The case, State v. Grande, began with a 2006 traffic stop in Skagit County. Driver Lacee Hurley and passenger Jeremy Grande were arrested by a state trooper during a traffic stop after he smelled pot coming from their car. The trooper searched the pair, finding a pipe and a small amount of pot on Grande. Both were charged with drug offenses. At a pretrial hearing, Grande's judge ruled there was no specific probable cause for his arrest and suppressed the evidence. But the Skagit County Superior Court overturned that ruling, citing a 1979 appellate court ruling saying the smell of pot smoke coming from a car was probable cause to arrest all the occupants.

But the state Supreme Court said federal case law since 1979 has eroded the legal footing of that decision. Officers need additional evidence that each passenger broke the law, the court held.
"Our cases have strongly and rightfully protected our constitution's protection of individual privacy. The protections... do not fade away or disappear within the confines of an automobile," Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the court.
"We hold that the smell of marijuana in the general area where an individual is located is insufficient, without more, to support probable cause for arrest. Where no other evidence exists linking the passenger to any criminal activity, an arrest of the passenger on the suspicion of possession of illegal substances, and any subsequent searches, is invalid and an unconstitutional invasion of that individual's right to privacy," the opinion concluded.
The ruling won quick praise from drug reformers and civil libertarians. "As a general statement, it's a step back from the direction that our government has been going as we're veering into a sort of surveillance society," Alison Holcomb of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington chapter told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "It strikes me as refreshing that the court has reaffirmed the values that our constitution calls for."
Seattle Hempfest organizer Vivian McPeak told the newspaper it was not uncommon for people to be arrested, jailed, stigmatized, and have their property seized simply for being in a vehicle with someone carrying or smoking pot. "A lot of people have gone down because of these vehicle offenses," he said. "Being in a car used to be one of those wrong-place, wrong-time kind of situations."
Grande's attorney, David Zuckerman, cheered the ruling, but added it was "unfortunate" it took so long to overturn previous state case law on drug-smell arrests. "I think it's led to an awful lot of innocent people getting handcuffed by the side of the road just because they happened to be in a car that smells of marijuana," Zuckerman said.

FOR HOMES:

Search and Seizure: Utah Supreme Court Holds Mere Odor of Marijuana Not Enough for a Warrantless Home Search

• view
• translation

Printer Friendly VersionEmail this Article
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #477, 3/16/07
In a ruling last Friday, the Utah Supreme Court held that the odor of burning marijuana is not sufficient to allow police to enter a residence without a warrant. The ruling in Utah v. Duran means that in Utah, police will no longer be able to use the old "I think I smell marijuana" routine as a pretext for conducting warrantless searches of homes.
The case began in Price, Utah, in 2003, when police were called to a residence by relatives who claimed people were smoking marijuana inside. When police arrived, they reported that "marijuana smoke was leaking out the cracks of the trailer," thus giving them probable cause to seek a search warrant. But police feared the suspects were "in the process of smokin' up all the evidence," so they entered without taking the time to get a warrant.
Inside, they found three people, as well as marijuana. The three were arrested, and one of them, Bernadette Duran, sought to have the evidence against thrown out as the result of an unlawful search. Duran lost at the trial court level, but won in the state appeals court, and now that victory has been ratified by the state Supreme Court.
In its 4-1 decision, the high court said that while there are exceptions to the search warrant requirement, such as preventing the imminent destruction of evidence, smelling pot smoke is not one of them. "We decline to grant the aroma of burning marijuana a place on an exclusive, limited roster of exceptions to the requirement that a warrant be secured before a lawful search can occur," Justice Ronald Nehring wrote for the majority. "The aroma of marijuana must be accompanied by some evidence that the suspects are disposing of the evidence, as opposed to casually consuming it."
That was a step too far for the lone dissenter in the case, Associate Chief Justice Michael Willkins, who argued that the odor of pot smoke could at times justify a warrantless search. "In a case where illegal drugs are being burned out of sight but not out of smell, and where the quantity of drugs is unknown to the officers, a presumption that the drugs are being destroyed rather than merely consumed is not unreasonable," Wilkins wrote.
But thankfully, his was the dissenting opinion.

 

they can not take your car. they have 2 choices when you say no. they can bring the drug dog to sniff, even if thye say the dog alerts say you do not consent, you know dogs can be trained to alert on command, and you also did not see any alert. they are still going to search,since the dog gives them cause, but it gives your lawyer ammo. or the popos on the scence must decide wether or not to go to a judge and get a warrant or not. which will have you and them at the side of the road for a few hours. in all reality they will bring a dog by to sniff! I once had the dog out, he did not alert of course, and i said i would be happy to cooperate and wait for a warrant with you, but no you can not search, especially since the dog did not alert. i was sent along my way

 

Yes thats true, but since it was state supreme courts, there is case law to go by. by all means YEs reasearch the state your in. I was just making peeps aware that they could have grounds to win a case or fight it on appeal.