5 ms·

I'd question why rolling a stop sign allows them to get a warrant to search a car as well. Stop and ticket, absolutely but a search seems too far.

heartsucker 10y ago
I'm pretty sure a cop claiming to smell weed is enough to search. Or it happens to be a K9 unit that stops them.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I'm moving to the opinion that whenever K-9 or human cop noses are used to generate probable cause, three mylar balloons must be filled, using a pump, with the air alleged to contain the illegal odor, and sealed with chain-of-evidence stickers. One balloon is later fed to an "electronic nose" machine, in a double-blind fashion, to create an arguably impartial report. Then one is for the use of the prosecutor, and one is for the use of the defense. If the balloon does not contain marijuana odor molecules, all evidence collected in the subsequent search is inadmissible. One cannot cross-examine a dog, and human cops are no more trustworthy than any other witness that has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. What people can see and hear can be recorded by cameras and microphones, and examined after the fact by both sides in the adversarial process. Allowing smell, touch, and taste "evidence" for determination of probable cause seems to be an end-run around due process. "I smell weed" or "the dog alerted [because I signaled it to alert]" should not be a substitute for judicial oversight of police activity.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  So basically, cops can search whenever they please.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  I was once told that if you're ever pulled over by a cop in my home town that the only thing you could do was to comply with everything, including warrantless searches even if innocent. That, if nothing illegal was found as a reason to get pulled over, a light would be busted. On top of that, it was argued that since false charges led to enough jailtime throughout the years that compliance was the only choice. At the time, it was stupidly hard to believe that it was good advice, especially after watching the "Don't Talk to Police" video [1]. About a year later, I saw [2] from the Chicago Tribune from my hometown which pretty much completely confirmed what I was told. I apologized to him after reading that. The conversation seriously, seriously raised doubt towards the "don't talk to the police" advice, since it minimizes a very, very turbulent legal landscape. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-police-problems-met-20151028-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-poli... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
tonyarkles 10y ago
"The suspect was acting suspicious, and the vehicle smelled like marijuana." In Canada, some recent trials have dramatically increased the threshold for what constitutes reasonable grounds for a search [0], but from what I understand, the rules are different in the US (e.g. that a drug dog can sniff the exterior of a vehicle, and in many circumstances drugs have been trained to alert on command from the handler). [0] http://blueline.ca/articles/reasonable_suspicion_requires_objective_facts http://blueline.ca/articles/reasonable_suspicion_requires_ob...
1_2__3 10y ago
"He gave consent, and it's my word against his." "He smelled of marijuana." "In my expert opinion he appeared intoxicated." "I saw residue that I believed to be an illegal substance." "Suspect was in a neighborhood known for illegal activity." "A drug dog signaled on the vehicle." "While performing a safety check on one of the occupants I found a weapon, leading me to believe there may be more weapons in the vehicle." Please, please, please, can we at least all get on the same page when it comes to what constraints there actually are on police in the real world. We can't possibly have a serious conversation about policing so long as there's naive comments like this in the discussion, that make sense only in a fantasy world that we have ample evidence does not exist, at least not in the US.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I'm asking why they are allowed, as in, why does it makes sense that they are allowed.
  - lisper 10y ago
    Because some people believe that the ends justify the means. They would rather see innocent people punished than guilty ones go free. They especially don't like seeing guilty people go free on "technicalities." Furthermore, many people are prejudiced or bigoted. They see people different from themselves (which in today's world generally means people with dark skin or people who wear non-Western clothing) doing bad things, and they conclude that most or all people who are different from themselves do bad things. On that worldview, due process is an impediment to seeing justice done. That mindset, together with democracy, leads to abuse.
    - pfooti 10y ago
      There's also this false narrative - the police search TONS of people without finding drugs or anything actionable. They happen to also search people who have drugs. But the only people who go in front of judges are (for the most part) criminals. So judges (and the press) only see the actual positives, not the 19 false positives for each actual positive. 0: http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/ (sourced from the book, chapter ... I think 3?)
pfooti 10y ago
If you're interested in how law enforcement (in the US) has really evolved toward this (including so-called "consent" searches where the courts have ruled things like stop-and-frisk are legal because people are hypothetically allowed to decline to be searched), I recommend reading "The New Jim Crow" - it's excellent, if depressing, reading. 0: http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/

heartsucker 10y ago

I'm pretty sure a cop claiming to smell weed is enough to search. Or it happens to be a K9 unit that stops them.

logfromblammo 10y ago
I'm moving to the opinion that whenever K-9 or human cop noses are used to generate probable cause, three mylar balloons must be filled, using a pump, with the air alleged to contain the illegal odor, and sealed with chain-of-evidence stickers. One balloon is later fed to an "electronic nose" machine, in a double-blind fashion, to create an arguably impartial report. Then one is for the use of the prosecutor, and one is for the use of the defense. If the balloon does not contain marijuana odor molecules, all evidence collected in the subsequent search is inadmissible. One cannot cross-examine a dog, and human cops are no more trustworthy than any other witness that has a personal stake in the outcome of the case. What people can see and hear can be recorded by cameras and microphones, and examined after the fact by both sides in the adversarial process. Allowing smell, touch, and taste "evidence" for determination of probable cause seems to be an end-run around due process. "I smell weed" or "the dog alerted [because I signaled it to alert]" should not be a substitute for judicial oversight of police activity.
cmdrfred 10y ago
So basically, cops can search whenever they please.
bpchaps 10y ago
I was once told that if you're ever pulled over by a cop in my home town that the only thing you could do was to comply with everything, including warrantless searches even if innocent. That, if nothing illegal was found as a reason to get pulled over, a light would be busted. On top of that, it was argued that since false charges led to enough jailtime throughout the years that compliance was the only choice. At the time, it was stupidly hard to believe that it was good advice, especially after watching the "Don't Talk to Police" video [1]. About a year later, I saw [2] from the Chicago Tribune from my hometown which pretty much completely confirmed what I was told. I apologized to him after reading that. The conversation seriously, seriously raised doubt towards the "don't talk to the police" advice, since it minimizes a very, very turbulent legal landscape. [1] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-police-problems-met-20151028-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-waukegan-poli... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

tonyarkles 10y ago

"The suspect was acting suspicious, and the vehicle smelled like marijuana." In Canada, some recent trials have dramatically increased the threshold for what constitutes reasonable grounds for a search [0], but from what I understand, the rules are different in the US (e.g. that a drug dog can sniff the exterior of a vehicle, and in many circumstances drugs have been trained to alert on command from the handler). [0] http://blueline.ca/articles/reasonable_suspicion_requires_objective_facts http://blueline.ca/articles/reasonable_suspicion_requires_ob...

1_2__3 10y ago

"He gave consent, and it's my word against his." "He smelled of marijuana." "In my expert opinion he appeared intoxicated." "I saw residue that I believed to be an illegal substance." "Suspect was in a neighborhood known for illegal activity." "A drug dog signaled on the vehicle." "While performing a safety check on one of the occupants I found a weapon, leading me to believe there may be more weapons in the vehicle." Please, please, please, can we at least all get on the same page when it comes to what constraints there actually are on police in the real world. We can't possibly have a serious conversation about policing so long as there's naive comments like this in the discussion, that make sense only in a fantasy world that we have ample evidence does not exist, at least not in the US.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I'm asking why they are allowed, as in, why does it makes sense that they are allowed.
- lisper 10y ago
  Because some people believe that the ends justify the means. They would rather see innocent people punished than guilty ones go free. They especially don't like seeing guilty people go free on "technicalities." Furthermore, many people are prejudiced or bigoted. They see people different from themselves (which in today's world generally means people with dark skin or people who wear non-Western clothing) doing bad things, and they conclude that most or all people who are different from themselves do bad things. On that worldview, due process is an impediment to seeing justice done. That mindset, together with democracy, leads to abuse.
  - pfooti 10y ago
    There's also this false narrative - the police search TONS of people without finding drugs or anything actionable. They happen to also search people who have drugs. But the only people who go in front of judges are (for the most part) criminals. So judges (and the press) only see the actual positives, not the 19 false positives for each actual positive. 0: http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/ (sourced from the book, chapter ... I think 3?)

pfooti 10y ago

If you're interested in how law enforcement (in the US) has really evolved toward this (including so-called "consent" searches where the courts have ruled things like stop-and-frisk are legal because people are hypothetically allowed to decline to be searched), I recommend reading "The New Jim Crow" - it's excellent, if depressing, reading. 0: http://newjimcrow.com/ http://newjimcrow.com/