5 ms·

Smelling (weed) is no longer probable cause to search a vehicle, Supreme Court said so. [1] [1] http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-not-s

Smelling (weed) is no longer probable cause to search a vehicle, Supreme Court said so. [1] [1] http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-not-sufficient-for-cops-to-have-probable-cause/ http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/court-rules-odor-is-no...

bobwaycott 11y ago
Jesus christ. Thanks for a link with browser-takeover, ad-spam crap. Loaded the page, and the window's taken over by a popover from MacKeeper or whatever the hell it is. Click the dismiss button, and it opens a fucking new page to their site to download shit. Close that window. Think maybe I mis-clicked. Do it again--because it's still taking up the whole damn screen--same result. How do you read such a shitty site with such user-hostile practices? And even if you can, why would you post such a link to HN? Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. Anyway, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on smelling marijuana and probable cause as far as I can tell. That was, to my knowledge, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
- Kliment 11y ago
  Very likely the person who posted it was unaware due to using an ad blocker or script blocker.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    And now they are aware. Not everyone runs an ad/script blocker.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Well, at least now you too have at least one good reason to run one.
      - bobwaycott 11y ago
        Good grief. Do you seriously think I am, unlike all the other HN users who wear their adblockers on their sleeves, likely to be unaware of reasons for using adblockers? Having reasons for using an adblocker are entirely orthogonal to what happened when I clicked on a link shared by another HN user—a link I have an inherently higher expectation of trust for because it's from a fellow HN user. The user needed to know the site they shared is a piece of shit source that shouldn't be posted to HN.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        The point is that to them that wasn't a piece of shit source. It's the ad tag that your browser downloaded that made it so and the content provider might not even be aware of this.
    - 9935c101ab17a66 11y ago
      I just want to make sure you're aware that you completely and totally overreacted, and, if the tone you employed in your comment is your normal way of communicating online, I suggest you wait a day before replying to comments.
    - wernercd 11y ago
      Which is more reason to be aware of reasons to get one: security, Annoyances, security, mental effort to pay attention to ads (Takes effort/training to block/ignore/click X/etc), security, bandwidth (more for mobile), Oh... did I mention security (lots of attacks through ad networks)?
      - bobwaycott 11y ago
        Good grief. Do you seriously think I am, unlike all the other HN users, likely to be unaware of reasons for using adblockers? The reasons for using an adblocker are entirely orthogonal to what happened when I clicked on a link shared by another HN user—a link I have an inherently higher expectation of trust for because it's from a fellow HN user. The user needed to know the site they shared is a piece of shit source that shouldn't be posted to HN.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I've done this before. Posted a link to a place with a tonne of vaguely NSFW ads that I personally couldn't see.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  Seriously, if you're that offended about these kinds of sites, get an adblocker. > Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. I'd say it's been time for you to do that.
  - bobwaycott 11y ago
    What I'm offended by is an HN user posting shitty sites like that into the comments. I expect more from HN users, and think the community should be aware of sites that do shitty things to users. Getting an adblocker isn't a solution for an HN user ignorantly posting a source that does shitty things to its users. Informing the user about their garbage link is the correct response.

bobwaycott 11y ago

Jesus christ. Thanks for a link with browser-takeover, ad-spam crap. Loaded the page, and the window's taken over by a popover from MacKeeper or whatever the hell it is. Click the dismiss button, and it opens a fucking new page to their site to download shit. Close that window. Think maybe I mis-clicked. Do it again--because it's still taking up the whole damn screen--same result. How do you read such a shitty site with such user-hostile practices? And even if you can, why would you post such a link to HN? Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. Anyway, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on smelling marijuana and probable cause as far as I can tell. That was, to my knowledge, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Kliment 11y ago
Very likely the person who posted it was unaware due to using an ad blocker or script blocker.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  And now they are aware. Not everyone runs an ad/script blocker.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Well, at least now you too have at least one good reason to run one.
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      Good grief. Do you seriously think I am, unlike all the other HN users who wear their adblockers on their sleeves, likely to be unaware of reasons for using adblockers? Having reasons for using an adblocker are entirely orthogonal to what happened when I clicked on a link shared by another HN user—a link I have an inherently higher expectation of trust for because it's from a fellow HN user. The user needed to know the site they shared is a piece of shit source that shouldn't be posted to HN.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        The point is that to them that wasn't a piece of shit source. It's the ad tag that your browser downloaded that made it so and the content provider might not even be aware of this.
  - 9935c101ab17a66 11y ago
    I just want to make sure you're aware that you completely and totally overreacted, and, if the tone you employed in your comment is your normal way of communicating online, I suggest you wait a day before replying to comments.
  - wernercd 11y ago
    Which is more reason to be aware of reasons to get one: security, Annoyances, security, mental effort to pay attention to ads (Takes effort/training to block/ignore/click X/etc), security, bandwidth (more for mobile), Oh... did I mention security (lots of attacks through ad networks)?
    - bobwaycott 11y ago
      Good grief. Do you seriously think I am, unlike all the other HN users, likely to be unaware of reasons for using adblockers? The reasons for using an adblocker are entirely orthogonal to what happened when I clicked on a link shared by another HN user—a link I have an inherently higher expectation of trust for because it's from a fellow HN user. The user needed to know the site they shared is a piece of shit source that shouldn't be posted to HN.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  I've done this before. Posted a link to a place with a tonne of vaguely NSFW ads that I personally couldn't see.
jnbiche 11y ago
Seriously, if you're that offended about these kinds of sites, get an adblocker. > Gah. Time to get an adblocker, I guess. I'd say it's been time for you to do that.
- bobwaycott 11y ago
  What I'm offended by is an HN user posting shitty sites like that into the comments. I expect more from HN users, and think the community should be aware of sites that do shitty things to users. Getting an adblocker isn't a solution for an HN user ignorantly posting a source that does shitty things to its users. Informing the user about their garbage link is the correct response.