Lit legal scholars what is your opinion?

[Very_Bad_Man]

My cousin was in his garage which is detached from his house working on a car with several friends. The doors where closed but unlocked. The police showed up there because of barking dog complaint. The officer walked into the garage without an invitation. He declared he smelled marijuana and asked for a consensual search and was denied so her got a warrant. Marijuana was found and he was arrested.

My issue is the police entered a private residence without consent and therefore the grounds for the warrant are invalid in my opinion and all evidence gained should be suppressed.

What do you think?

The officer opened several beers and poured them all over the inside of the car because he is a giant douche and that issue will be handled separately.

 

[koalabear]

They thought he was burning the dog with blunts.

 

[dirtwrench]

I think if they fight it, the judge will dismiss the case, at least he would here.

We had a young city police officer who had permission from the owner to walk in his private shop anytime he saw the lights on. Just a friendly open invitation. Cop saw lights on one night, but no vehicles around, walked in through the unlocked door, found half a dozen teens drinking beer. He didn't really want to piss off a friendly parent, but felt he had no choice. He wrote all the boys up for minor in possession of alcohol. That ticket requires court appearance. The judge threw all the tickets out because the cop didn't have a search warrant, and did not get permission from the owner to enter that night. He didn't even listen to any info, just asked if there was a search warrant or consent given immediately prior to entrance.

 

[cum2ut]

If he came for the barking dog complaint, that's his legal standing to be on the property. Not sure what the search & seizure laws are in your state, but that may have been all he needed. Agree with the beer pouring.....some cops are just dickheads because they think they'll get away with it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He got a warrant.

A judge agreed there was probable cause.



I hate the drug laws as much as anyone, but reality says they are there.

If you can't do the time,
Don't do the crime.

 

[Saint Peter]

don't do it!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

don't do it!

Relax, don't do it...


My buddy spent 24 hours in jail. He forgets that just because he turned 21 doesn't mean all of his friends did, so they tried to stick him with a charge of providing booze to minors.

Now has has to party with geezers...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Looks like your friend is fucked.

Here in Schulbville our sheriff had to sack plenty of his drug detectives for playing loose with the rules. That is, the detectives set up cameras at garden supply stores, manipulated girls at the power company, and broke numerous laws to catch pot growers.

That is, they got info from car tags, had the power company clerks alert them to high usuage customers, trespassed to 'smell' pot, and ultimately destroyed 100s of drug convictions.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

My cousin was in his garage which is detached from his house working on a car with several friends. The doors where closed but unlocked. The police showed up there because of barking dog complaint. The officer walked into the garage without an invitation. He declared he smelled marijuana and asked for a consensual search and was denied so her got a warrant. Marijuana was found and he was arrested.

My issue is the police entered a private residence without consent and therefore the grounds for the warrant are invalid in my opinion and all evidence gained should be suppressed.

What do you think?

The officer opened several beers and poured them all over the inside of the car because he is a giant douche and that issue will be handled separately.

I think your cousin should get a dog that only barks at cops.

Did he physically open the unlocked door w/out knocking or announcing his presence? If not, then I agree with 4est and cum2ut.

Back in my day, like last century, most police would have simply let your cousin know they were aware of the smell of weed. As a 'heads up'. Then left, figuring he was not bothering anyone. Cities need the revenue these days, so things have changed.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I think you are all wrong. The Supreme Court is very prickly when it comes to search and seizure. Having a search warrant does not necessarily make it a good search. In Pa local magistrates sign search warrants which in effect they give a rubber stamp of approval. Entering into somebodies private abode without permission without exigent circumstances is a serious breach of constitutional rights.

He emailed me a copy of the Probable Cause Affidavit for the search warrant and it reads:

While in the garage of (insert name and address) for a barking dog complaint I smelled and odor of marijuana.

On that alone the local magistrate signed off on the warrant. The problem the officer is going to have during a suppression hearing is articulating his authority to entering a private residence unannounced without consent. even though it is a garage it is a private enclosure. It is no different then a cop walking into your house without consent. The local magistrate assumed that the officer had a legal right to be inside the building when he smelled the marijuana.

Because of some counties in Pa having history of bad warrants many DA's offices now require police to contact the on call Assist DA to approve a warrant before they get a judges signature.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

I think you are all wrong. The Supreme Court is very prickly when it comes to search and seizure. Having a search warrant does not necessarily make it a good search. In Pa local magistrates sign search warrants which in effect they give a rubber stamp of approval. Entering into somebodies private abode without permission without exigent circumstances is a serious breach of constitutional rights.

He emailed me a copy of the Probable Cause Affidavit for the search warrant and it reads:

While in the garage of (insert name and address) for a barking dog complaint I smelled and odor of marijuana.

On that alone the local magistrate signed off on the warrant. The problem the officer is going to have during a suppression hearing is articulating his authority to entering a private residence unannounced without consent. even though it is a garage it is a private enclosure. It is no different then a cop walking into your house without consent. The local magistrate assumed that the officer had a legal right to be inside the building when he smelled the marijuana.

Because of some counties in Pa having history of bad warrants many DA's offices now require police to contact the on call Assist DA to approve a warrant before they get a judges signature.

Bummer. My knowledge comes from watching 60s and 70s detective/cop reruns. From now on, I will just stick to 'Law and Order' shows.

 

[Honey123]

so...the police officer came in, said he smelled pot...then left to get a warrant.

during that time, did they clean the place up and leave..locking the garage?

Or did they stay there continuing to party?

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

so...the police officer came in, said he smelled pot...then left to get a warrant.

during that time, did they clean the place up and leave..locking the garage?

Or did they stay there continuing to party?

no the police secured the premises. Nobody was partying they were working on a car. The underlying story is they suspect my cousin of being a drug dealer when he is just the everyday run of the mill pothead. They were looking for an excuse to search so they entered into his property and claimed they smelled pot to get authorization for the search. My cousin said he had not smoked in days and with the amount of chain smoking of regular cigarettes there was no pot odors. Even though the cop most likely lied you cannot prove it. But they can prove he did not have permission to walk into the garage as several neighbors saw it go down.

 

[eyer]

Reads like just another candicane tale...

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

no the police secured the premises. Nobody was partying they were working on a car. The underlying story is they suspect my cousin of being a drug dealer when he is just the everyday run of the mill pothead. They were looking for an excuse to search so they entered into his property and claimed they smelled pot to get authorization for the search. My cousin said he had not smoked in days and with the amount of chain smoking of regular cigarettes there was no pot odors. Even though the cop most likely lied you cannot prove it. But they can prove he did not have permission to walk into the garage as several neighbors saw it go down.

In reality, the police are being used as revenue collectors for the local government. If this situation exists, then everyone with intimate knowledge of your cousin's situation know he is not bothering anyone. The local DA or police chief could be entertaining thoughts of this leading to a bona fide drug lord arrest.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

so...the police officer came in, said he smelled pot...then left to get a warrant.

during that time, did they clean the place up and leave..locking the garage?

Or did they stay there continuing to party?

Its a bullshit madeup story.

 

[Lancecastor]

no the police secured the premises.

Good story.... but I say it's made up and is starting to come unglued.

The police don't "secure the premises" while they are waiting for a warrant, unless your cousin's garage is in Caracas.

 

[cum2ut]

He can fight it all he wants....just don't be suprised when they take the officers side. Legally, he was there doing his job....investigating a animal complaint. Technically, the officer didn't really need a warrant to look for the pot, once he was inside, if the odor was that strong. I sincerely doubt that he could smell it if it had been awhile since it was smoked, but I wasn't there, so I can't speak for the officer. But I'm pretty certain your cousin is screwed.

 

[Honey123]

He didn't need a warrant if he "smelled" the pot. It gives probable cause...he basically secured a warrant because he was not let in under consent, even though he didn't need consent.

There is a Plain View doctrine. If it's there in plain view, or smell, he, the police officer has the right to enter, search and seize.

If there is no consent, the officer then feels that there is something illegal happening, therefore a warrant protects him and allows him to go in without consent. If there is no evidence of pot anywhere by the time he came back can also be suspect of the evidence being destroyed, since he was not given consent in the first place.

As for the beer situation....is your cousin underage?

 

[chillywilly2]

If he "secured" the premises to get a warrant he knows he had no right to be there in the first place.

Had he not secured it your cousin would have gotten rid of any pot so the cop wouldn't have found anything when he got back.

This gets tossed out...and the cop has to pay for destruction of private property

 

[bronzeage]

no the police secured the premises. Nobody was partying they were working on a car. The underlying story is they suspect my cousin of being a drug dealer when he is just the everyday run of the mill pothead. They were looking for an excuse to search so they entered into his property and claimed they smelled pot to get authorization for the search. My cousin said he had not smoked in days and with the amount of chain smoking of regular cigarettes there was no pot odors. Even though the cop most likely lied you cannot prove it. But they can prove he did not have permission to walk into the garage as several neighbors saw it go down.

This all comes down to a single issue. Where was the dog and why was he barking?

 

[Corbal]

so...the police officer came in, said he smelled pot...then left to get a warrant.

during that time, did they clean the place up and leave..locking the garage?

Or did they stay there continuing to party?

no the police secured the premises. Nobody was partying they were working on a car. The underlying story is they suspect my cousin of being a drug dealer when he is just the everyday run of the mill pothead. They were looking for an excuse to search so they entered into his property and claimed they smelled pot to get authorization for the search. My cousin said he had not smoked in days and with the amount of chain smoking of regular cigarettes there was no pot odors. Even though the cop most likely lied you cannot prove it. But they can prove he did not have permission to walk into the garage as several neighbors saw it go down.

Does your cousin live in Mayberry? FFS.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Good story.... but I say it's made up and is starting to come unglued.

The police don't "secure the premises" while they are waiting for a warrant, unless your cousin's garage is in Caracas.

Yes they do. Police do it all the time and I did not make it up.

He didn't need a warrant if he "smelled" the pot. It gives probable cause...he basically secured a warrant because he was not let in under consent, even though he didn't need consent.

There is a Plain View doctrine. If it's there in plain view, or smell, he, the police officer has the right to enter, search and seize.

If there is no consent, the officer then feels that there is something illegal happening, therefore a warrant protects him and allows him to go in without consent. If there is no evidence of pot anywhere by the time he came back can also be suspect of the evidence being destroyed, since he was not given consent in the first place.

As for the beer situation....is your cousin underage?

No he is of age but it has no relevance to the officer willful destruction of property because he is a douche.

I think if he did smell marijuana he has the right to search the immediate area but he got a warrant to search his house as well. The had two officers on the scene. One secured the garage the other secured the house while a third got a warrant. I think the rule of thumb is when in doubt get a warrant. I still think it all hinges on the officers authority to enter into a private domicile without consent. The only time they can do this is under exigent circumstances and a barking dog complaint does not qualify.

 

[bra_man69]

My cousin was in his garage which is detached from his house working on a car with several friends. The doors where closed but unlocked. The police showed up there because of barking dog complaint. The officer walked into the garage without an invitation. He declared he smelled marijuana and asked for a consensual search and was denied so her got a warrant. Marijuana was found and he was arrested.

My issue is the police entered a private residence without consent and therefore the grounds for the warrant are invalid in my opinion and all evidence gained should be suppressed.

What do you think?

The officer opened several beers and poured them all over the inside of the car because he is a giant douche and that issue will be handled separately.

The story is made up bull shit.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Tell him to pay the fucking fine and move on.

Never been a big fan of pot. Some people can function on it and some can not. I am in the can not category. My buddy will smoke all 18 holes when we golf and it actually makes his game better. Me, I laugh for five minutes, get hungry, then want to go to bed. I sure the hell am not going to hit my 2 iron stoned.

That being said a friend recently sent me a shit load of edibles from that place in California currently on the TV show weedwars. The jolly ranchers are not bad and it is more like a good beer buzz than being stoned.