4 ms·

Only the feds enforce federal crimes, so it's not relevant to most traffic stops. The residue is enough for the dog to alert. "If additional crimes are uncove

Only the feds enforce federal crimes, so it's not relevant to most traffic stops. The residue is enough for the dog to alert. "If additional crimes are uncovered during a legitimate search, they absolutely can charge you with it and use the evidence they found." Any examples of that? Usually with warrants they have to specify what they are looking for. Probable cause searches are supposed to do the same.

wakawaka28 2y ago
I said an example. If you're found with a dead body in your trunk for example, that will not be thrown out on a technicality, especially if it was found during an otherwise legal search. I don't have the case law memorized but I've heard lawyers discuss it before. If you do some research you will find exceptions to 4th amendment protections, such as the ones in this article: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-... Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol
- psd1 2y ago
  > Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol Instant downvote.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    This is exactly why I don't comment on Reddit, because a bunch of jerks who have nothing to say just downvote me.
    - psd1 2y ago
      If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe you've got shit on your shoe.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Or maybe there actually are jerks everywhere, especially on sites with similar roots and mechanics.
- giantg2 2y ago
  I meant actual case law examples. If it's a body in plain view during the other search, then that falls under the plain view exception. If it's somehow concealed in a way that they can't tell what it is, then they shouldn't be able to use it. Of course judges would use every avenue possible to side with the police on an issue of murder (assuming it was murder and not just a corpse from some other reason).
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Here is one, that was a pain in the ass to find: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted. This one might be interesting too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans Even an error in a warrant might not save you. You'd just be an idiot to think that your dead body in the trunk would be excluded as evidence during any search, much less a lawful search. Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant, only probable cause like "I smelled something" or "The suspect was acting erratic/intoxicated" which is your word vs. theirs. If you find a case where a murderer was uncovered during a lawful search and that evidence was thrown out due to it being off topic, please let me know.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      "In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted." Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. "Even an error in a warrant might not save you." Yeah, depends on the error and the good faith excpetion. "Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant," Yes, I mentioned that in other comments. But that probable cause is supposed to follow the same standards. It's just expedited by cutting out the judge. That example would be hard to find because anything they find could be potentially covered under the independent source avenue. But that has to come from a separate warrant. Since murders don't have a statute of limitations, that's open ended and would almost always result in a secondary search even if the first search evidence was thrown out.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  Algorithmic downvote. Maybe “gag factor”. Just guessing.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Is that a thing here? I have felt like I was being stalked and/or downvoted systematically by some BS algorithm.
    - spacebacon 2y ago
      It’s a really good algorithm imo designed to reduce the flame war we see everywhere else but here online. As we stumble in hacker news half beat and fully traumatized from the rest of the internet it’s nice to know I can’t even start a flame war here if I wanted to. Contro-factor maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 What’s more interesting is how easy hacker news can detect a boiled egg. Only the most refined version of a red head can make it here on hacker news. One must veil their agitations in deep plausible deniability to get past the gate. Embrace the vanilla and refine your penmanship.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        People post similar comments with opposite views as mine. So there must be something else going on. Maybe if a few people downvote you, HN downvotes you everywhere else. Or else, the site prefers a few viewpoints and has a way to detect negative responses to those views. Either way, it is very offputting. I don't appreciate someone putting their thumb on the scales. I can't even downvote at this point due to not enough points, and at the rate it's going I might be able to do it like next year. Then there's the "You're posting too fast" thing. I think fast and people respond with predictable stuff to my comments. I can only respond to like 2 of them at once or I won't be able to comment on anything else for hours. I don't think there's anything wrong with spirited discussions. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Simple argument does not make it a flame war.
        2y ago
throwaway2037 2y ago
> Only the feds enforce federal crimes Real question: Who counts as "the feds"? I assume at least the FBI and Secret Service. Are there others? Maybe some Postal or Immigration police? How about Department of Homeland Security?
- giantg2 2y ago
  Not sure what your point is here. Even the feds aren't enforcing marijuana laws.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Can you take a domestic flight carrying marijuana? I doubt it.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Medical marijuana - yes. Recreational - no, but you also won't get arrested by the Feds. TSA will report it to law enforcement. If it's legal in that state, nothing will happen orher than forfeiture if you plan to fly. Basically the same deal as if you left a knife in your bag.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      Absolutely, as long as both states have it legalized. I do it frequently.
JAlexoid 2y ago
> Only the feds enforce federal crimes, so it's not relevant to most traffic stops. You're unlikely to be arrested by any federal LEO, as there are not many of them. Your local LEO do the arrest and then transfer to the relevant agency. Law enforcement can, and do, cooperate to arrest individuals. Imagine if a suspect could get away from being arrested just by crossing into another state.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Yes and no. Depends on what you consider an arrest. Colloquially, yes, any law enforcement can arrest you for any level of offense. Technically, the arrest is made by the officer with jurisdiction that you end up being transferred into their custody and putting their name on the paperwork. The big bottleneck here is that the Feds decline to have many people held because they don't have enough people to take the transfer. They perfer to let the state level law do their work for them (as on many topics they're basically the same). In the case we're talking about, the Feds generally don't care about marijuana in a traffic stop since their policy is to basically ignore it in states where it's legal.
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    You can call it detention as well, but colloquially arrest is when you're taken into police custody. Enforcement begins whenever someone is detained and federal LEOs routinely request assistance from local LEOs... and they get that collaboration.

wakawaka28 2y ago

I said an example. If you're found with a dead body in your trunk for example, that will not be thrown out on a technicality, especially if it was found during an otherwise legal search. I don't have the case law memorized but I've heard lawyers discuss it before. If you do some research you will find exceptions to 4th amendment protections, such as the ones in this article: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-... Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol

psd1 2y ago
> Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol Instant downvote.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  This is exactly why I don't comment on Reddit, because a bunch of jerks who have nothing to say just downvote me.
  - psd1 2y ago
    If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe you've got shit on your shoe.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Or maybe there actually are jerks everywhere, especially on sites with similar roots and mechanics.
giantg2 2y ago
I meant actual case law examples. If it's a body in plain view during the other search, then that falls under the plain view exception. If it's somehow concealed in a way that they can't tell what it is, then they shouldn't be able to use it. Of course judges would use every avenue possible to side with the police on an issue of murder (assuming it was murder and not just a corpse from some other reason).
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Here is one, that was a pain in the ass to find: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted. This one might be interesting too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans Even an error in a warrant might not save you. You'd just be an idiot to think that your dead body in the trunk would be excluded as evidence during any search, much less a lawful search. Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant, only probable cause like "I smelled something" or "The suspect was acting erratic/intoxicated" which is your word vs. theirs. If you find a case where a murderer was uncovered during a lawful search and that evidence was thrown out due to it being off topic, please let me know.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted." Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. "Even an error in a warrant might not save you." Yeah, depends on the error and the good faith excpetion. "Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant," Yes, I mentioned that in other comments. But that probable cause is supposed to follow the same standards. It's just expedited by cutting out the judge. That example would be hard to find because anything they find could be potentially covered under the independent source avenue. But that has to come from a separate warrant. Since murders don't have a statute of limitations, that's open ended and would almost always result in a secondary search even if the first search evidence was thrown out.
spacebacon 2y ago
Algorithmic downvote. Maybe “gag factor”. Just guessing.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Is that a thing here? I have felt like I was being stalked and/or downvoted systematically by some BS algorithm.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    It’s a really good algorithm imo designed to reduce the flame war we see everywhere else but here online. As we stumble in hacker news half beat and fully traumatized from the rest of the internet it’s nice to know I can’t even start a flame war here if I wanted to. Contro-factor maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 What’s more interesting is how easy hacker news can detect a boiled egg. Only the most refined version of a red head can make it here on hacker news. One must veil their agitations in deep plausible deniability to get past the gate. Embrace the vanilla and refine your penmanship.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      People post similar comments with opposite views as mine. So there must be something else going on. Maybe if a few people downvote you, HN downvotes you everywhere else. Or else, the site prefers a few viewpoints and has a way to detect negative responses to those views. Either way, it is very offputting. I don't appreciate someone putting their thumb on the scales. I can't even downvote at this point due to not enough points, and at the rate it's going I might be able to do it like next year. Then there's the "You're posting too fast" thing. I think fast and people respond with predictable stuff to my comments. I can only respond to like 2 of them at once or I won't be able to comment on anything else for hours. I don't think there's anything wrong with spirited discussions. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Simple argument does not make it a flame war.
      - 2y ago

throwaway2037 2y ago

> Only the feds enforce federal crimes Real question: Who counts as "the feds"? I assume at least the FBI and Secret Service. Are there others? Maybe some Postal or Immigration police? How about Department of Homeland Security?

giantg2 2y ago
Not sure what your point is here. Even the feds aren't enforcing marijuana laws.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Can you take a domestic flight carrying marijuana? I doubt it.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Medical marijuana - yes. Recreational - no, but you also won't get arrested by the Feds. TSA will report it to law enforcement. If it's legal in that state, nothing will happen orher than forfeiture if you plan to fly. Basically the same deal as if you left a knife in your bag.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    Absolutely, as long as both states have it legalized. I do it frequently.

JAlexoid 2y ago

> Only the feds enforce federal crimes, so it's not relevant to most traffic stops. You're unlikely to be arrested by any federal LEO, as there are not many of them. Your local LEO do the arrest and then transfer to the relevant agency. Law enforcement can, and do, cooperate to arrest individuals. Imagine if a suspect could get away from being arrested just by crossing into another state.

giantg2 2y ago
Yes and no. Depends on what you consider an arrest. Colloquially, yes, any law enforcement can arrest you for any level of offense. Technically, the arrest is made by the officer with jurisdiction that you end up being transferred into their custody and putting their name on the paperwork. The big bottleneck here is that the Feds decline to have many people held because they don't have enough people to take the transfer. They perfer to let the state level law do their work for them (as on many topics they're basically the same). In the case we're talking about, the Feds generally don't care about marijuana in a traffic stop since their policy is to basically ignore it in states where it's legal.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  You can call it detention as well, but colloquially arrest is when you're taken into police custody. Enforcement begins whenever someone is detained and federal LEOs routinely request assistance from local LEOs... and they get that collaboration.