Judge rules that AK trooper could not have sniffed out drugs hundreds of feet away

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Judge rules that Alaska trooper could not have sniffed out drugs from hundreds of feet away


ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A federal judge ruled that an Alaska State Trooper could not have sniffed out a marijuana grow operation from hundreds of feet away in a ruling that could have implications for similar cases.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick ruled Friday that the pot-smelling power of investigator Kyle Young wasn't supported by the facts in the marijuana case and should not have been used as justification for a search warrant.

Sedwick rejected evidence because of his ruling, including some 500 marijuana plants that troopers say they seized from Trace Rae Thoms and Jennifer Anne Thoms' property in Wasilla.

cont at
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/123794aa186045ee84323e4005eea723/AK--Trooper-Sniff-Test/
 
Cops that lie, what else is new. I hate stories like this cause I'm sure in many cases, the police get away with bullshit just because they are the police. This is a good instance where the judge called bs on them. They probably hardly cared about the fact that they were lying cause they were so excited about the 500 plant bust.
 
So what happens in a scenario like this?
They already found and confiscated the 500 plants but then the plants get ruled out as evidence in the case. So... they can't give the person the plants back... If the case gets thrown out as there was no grounds for a warrant can the person sue for damages incurred from the search?
 
mgrady3 said:
So what happens in a scenario like this?
They already found and confiscated the 500 plants but then the plants get ruled out as evidence in the case. So... they can't give the person the plants back... If the case gets thrown out as there was no grounds for a warrant can the person sue for damages incurred from the search?
Click to expand...

Ideally they would get a settlement for the value of the crop.
 
^ lol damages to cover many lost munchy sessions.

in australia we recently had a kind of similar story where the court found a man running from police not guilty of resisting police as he was not placed under arrest until the police caught up with him - meaning he had no legal obligation to stop until arrested. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/15/3192927.htm)

this marijuana case is very strange and will be interesting to see the outcome.
the positives of these kind of cases is they can be used as a reference for future cases for certain defences.
the more of these cases that pop up may also have an effect on some future laws, unfortunately it could be for better, or worse and may allow the police to bend (more-so break) certain procedures to get their way.

interesting times...
 
"But your Honor, I was planning on selling this crop in Florida, 4,500 miles away. This seriously needs to be considered in the settlement for damages. You see, I would have made a lot of money selling that weed in Florida..."

"Sir, do you realize you are pleading guilty to conspiracy to traffic controlled substances?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top