3 ms·

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

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