alostlittlebird
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,554
oh, cop fucks over everyone in his way?
what else is new...
what else is new...
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
Supreme Court rules on car drug searches
- Thread starter BA
- Start date
nickthecheese
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,551
YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU
YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!
8(
YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!
8(
TheGreenPhantom
Bluelighter
All the more reason to just BLAST your way out.
silverwheel
Bluelighter
See if I ever give a cop a high-five again. 
magicalmythman
Bluelighter
Vote Dean!
SigmaSis03
Bluelighter
What's this world coming to? Next thing you know the President will support amending the constitution to ensure that a relationship between two loving adults will never be legally recognized, thereby denying them many many rights afforded to straight, married american citizens.
The way I see it, that's the only way this country is not going straight to hell.magicalmythman said:
SigmaSis, didn't you know that gays are not PEOPLE and thus should not be afforded the rights of human beings? 8) i fuckin hate this administration. The fact that the Supreme Court just handed down this decision makes me have even less faith in the system - in the past it has been the Court that has been the voice of reason. Now they're being fucktards. Wonderful.
See you guys in hell.
Mahan Atma
Bluelighter
ibizakat said:
That, or Canada.
SilverFeniks
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,541
Thank god news doesn't travel so fast, or I'd be in jail tonight because of this very ruling.
Shit, I even had a bong in front of me, but somehow I was told to walk off ... they took my info though
Maybe in a week as I casually stroll outside to get the mail, police and SWAT will come out of nowhere and bust me for having been in a vehicle that contained small amounts of evil mairjuana.
Shit, I even had a bong in front of me, but somehow I was told to walk off ... they took my info though
Maybe in a week as I casually stroll outside to get the mail, police and SWAT will come out of nowhere and bust me for having been in a vehicle that contained small amounts of evil mairjuana.
alostlittlebird
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,554
^ Just curious, what state you live in?
Comments like these make me thankful that in my little foothills town, if cops find under an ounce and you aren't trying to lie your way out of it, everyone goes free.
Even smoking and driving almost never leads to driving intoxicated.
I've personally had a pipe, brownie, bag of weed and a beer on me all at the same time, and I straight up told the cop yeah this is what I have with me. These are mine, here you take them. It still stands against my principles that personal and non violent drug crimes shouldn't even exist in the first place, but it is a little refreshing.
Comments like these make me thankful that in my little foothills town, if cops find under an ounce and you aren't trying to lie your way out of it, everyone goes free.
Even smoking and driving almost never leads to driving intoxicated.
I've personally had a pipe, brownie, bag of weed and a beer on me all at the same time, and I straight up told the cop yeah this is what I have with me. These are mine, here you take them. It still stands against my principles that personal and non violent drug crimes shouldn't even exist in the first place, but it is a little refreshing.
SilverFeniks
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,541
This happened in California .. so apparantely this state isn't as liberal as many believe.
The Sherriffs were predictably total asses about it, basking in their own glory and feeling high and mighty for weilding their power. Two of them told me to 'have a nice night' on my way out. Thanks, guys.
The Sherriffs were predictably total asses about it, basking in their own glory and feeling high and mighty for weilding their power. Two of them told me to 'have a nice night' on my way out. Thanks, guys.
alostlittlebird
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,554
funny, im in cali too - these inconsistent bastards. 
As far as the whole power trip thing, cops around here still get off like 40 year old men in an asian peep show when they bust you. They just don't do anything about it.
As far as the whole power trip thing, cops around here still get off like 40 year old men in an asian peep show when they bust you. They just don't do anything about it.
ChemicalBeauty
Bluelighter
Re: Supreme Court Rules Drug Cases Can Stand On Improbable Cause
Sounds like NWA :D
I think Mahan, Craig & Dr J all have valid points. I'm torn, I really don't know who to agree with.
Can someone please make my mind up for me? Thank you.
BlueAdonis said:
Sounds like NWA :D
I think Mahan, Craig & Dr J all have valid points. I'm torn, I really don't know who to agree with.
Can someone please make my mind up for me? Thank you.
gugglebum
Ex-Bluelighter
You should just follow gugglebum's opinion, he's always right 
The 11th circuit case, while (as noted above) the ruling is not binding outside Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, it will be very persuasive to other judges. Plus, based on my own application of the cases that came before it, I believe it to be the correct ruling. (Actually had a similar fact pattern on a law school exam which I aced). Disclaimer: That was 5 years ago, and do civil law now.
Note though that an important factor was that the dog sniff could not be done within the time that a reasonable traffic stop would take. Usually, a dog sniff is NOT considered a search protected by the 4th amendment. Therefore, if the dogs can get there fast enough, your screwed. What the Cops cannot do, is detain you to wait for the dog (this is an unreasonable detention and it was the detention and not the search that violated the fourth amendment).
Note though that an important factor was that the dog sniff could not be done within the time that a reasonable traffic stop would take. Usually, a dog sniff is NOT considered a search protected by the 4th amendment. Therefore, if the dogs can get there fast enough, your screwed. What the Cops cannot do, is detain you to wait for the dog (this is an unreasonable detention and it was the detention and not the search that violated the fourth amendment).
Oh and as far as the Pringle case (which is discussed in this thread although off topic) the supreme court found probable cause to arrest all occupants of the car where each one was within reach of the contrabanand and there was other evidence that suggested everyone was involved in the crimes was a no-brainer.
For g-d sakes, it was a 9-0 opinion which obvioulsy includes all the court's liberals. I cant remember the last time the supr ct issued a 9-0 opinion dealing with the 4th amendment. The facts of that case were unique and egregious and I dont expect it to have any far reaching effects.
For g-d sakes, it was a 9-0 opinion which obvioulsy includes all the court's liberals. I cant remember the last time the supr ct issued a 9-0 opinion dealing with the 4th amendment. The facts of that case were unique and egregious and I dont expect it to have any far reaching effects.
Wow, in looking up the above cases, I just found this case.
Matheson v. State
2003 WL 21766489
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2003.
Aug. 1, 2003. (Approx. 7 pages)
It is binding only in Florida state courts but it holds that a dog with standard police training tipping off the cop, without more, is NOT sufficient to justify a search because (among other reasons) the dog may be smelling old drugs.
The cops have to show (which most police dogs dont) that the dog can distinguish between a scent of once present drugs, and drugs actually in the car.
Remember, that as I discussed above, the dog sniff can be done without consent or suspicion, if you are unlucky enough to be pulled over by a cop with a dog in his car or if they can get the dog there quickly within the time it usually takes to write a ticket. (that was the key factor in the recent 11th circuit case, it took them way too long to bring the dog so the detention was unreasonable).
This case is huge, although the state could still appeal, because it states that even if the dog smells drugs, that alone cant be enough unless the dog has been trained to disregard old odors.
Note that Florida's Constitution provides that our search and seizure provision exactly mirrors the federal constitution, and is intended to provide no more, and no less, then the federal constitution. Therefore, technically this Florida decision is based on the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(Notwithstanding the provision in our constitution, Florida judges (due to years of democratic governors pre-bush) tend to be much more liberal and activist than the average (see the 2 bush v. gore cases) so their interpretations are often not followed by other more conservative courts, i.e the u.s supr ct, where all Florida cases on search and seizure could end up because technically every decision on search and seizure in Florida is a decision on the federal constitution.
Matheson v. State
2003 WL 21766489
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2003.
Aug. 1, 2003. (Approx. 7 pages)
It is binding only in Florida state courts but it holds that a dog with standard police training tipping off the cop, without more, is NOT sufficient to justify a search because (among other reasons) the dog may be smelling old drugs.
The cops have to show (which most police dogs dont) that the dog can distinguish between a scent of once present drugs, and drugs actually in the car.
Remember, that as I discussed above, the dog sniff can be done without consent or suspicion, if you are unlucky enough to be pulled over by a cop with a dog in his car or if they can get the dog there quickly within the time it usually takes to write a ticket. (that was the key factor in the recent 11th circuit case, it took them way too long to bring the dog so the detention was unreasonable).
This case is huge, although the state could still appeal, because it states that even if the dog smells drugs, that alone cant be enough unless the dog has been trained to disregard old odors.
Note that Florida's Constitution provides that our search and seizure provision exactly mirrors the federal constitution, and is intended to provide no more, and no less, then the federal constitution. Therefore, technically this Florida decision is based on the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(Notwithstanding the provision in our constitution, Florida judges (due to years of democratic governors pre-bush) tend to be much more liberal and activist than the average (see the 2 bush v. gore cases) so their interpretations are often not followed by other more conservative courts, i.e the u.s supr ct, where all Florida cases on search and seizure could end up because technically every decision on search and seizure in Florida is a decision on the federal constitution.
Last edited: