SCOTUS Says Police May Break In If They Smell Marijuana

[MikeK]

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.

The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

“Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ


This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.

This is no longer America.

 

[Contumacious]

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.

The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

“Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ


This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.

This is no longer America.

Fourth Amendment?

What Fourth Amendment?

.

 

[TheBrain]

oh noes.............

In other news, LEOs may enter your house without a warrant if hey hear your wife screaming as you beat the shit out her.

 

[JBeukema]

Hemp Incense

So... what probable cause did they have to believe there was any marijuana present?

 

[xsited1]

I'm sure they'll be a silver-lining to this ruling. After all, Prohibition brought us NASCAR.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sure they'll be a silver-lining to this ruling. After all, Prohibition brought us NASCAR.

So this'll bring us competition booby trapping and pig-shooting?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They would have broke into my sons room last night too

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.

The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

“Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ


This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.

This is no longer America.

That is not what they said. What they said is that the mere act of knocking on the door was not a violation of the 4th Amendment, and they sent the case back to the state to determine if, under the clarified rules, this amounts to exigent circumstances. I sometimes wonder why anyone thinks the WSJ is a conservative news source.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am not up to any form of debate so I will just post a brief comment from the link

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home


INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

 

[Montrovant]

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope.
By Nathan Koppel. The Wall Street Journal. 5/16/11
(Excerpt)

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect.

The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. But once inside the police found marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested one of the inhabitants.

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

“Exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

Whole article here: SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope - Law Blog - WSJ


This is another giant step forward in an ongoing effort to undermine the Fourth Amendment and move the United States closer to being a police state. No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.

This is no longer America.

Did the fact the police believed the home harbored a criminal suspect play a part in the ruling?

I ask because from the tone of the article and some of the replies, I'd think cops are going to be walking door to door sniffing for pot so they can start busting down doors.

 

[Contumacious]

That is not what they said. What they said is that the mere act of knocking on the door was not a violation of the 4th Amendment, and they sent the case back to the state to determine if, under the clarified rules, this amounts to exigent circumstances. I sometimes wonder why anyone thinks the WSJ is a conservative news source.

Fine The Kentucky Supreme Court should grow a pair and decide that the Police violated Section Ten of the Kentucky Constitution .

Section 10

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

.

 

[uscitizen]

Everyone knows that the liberals are the antidrug four your own good types that support no privacy in ones own home.
Damn liberal judges.

 

[Ravi]

This is not a good thing.

The police have too many powers as it is, entering someone's home without a warrant because they "smell" weed???

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For a little over 40 years, starting with Terry v Ohio, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the edifice of the 4th Amendment with various and sundry ‘exceptions’ to search and seizure case law. This was done primarily to appease politicians and the public who incorrectly perceived the courts as being ‘soft on crime.’ Agents of the state – as governments are apt to do – took advantage of these ‘exceptions’ in every aspect of police work. The politics of crime and the politicizing of the justice system made it increasingly difficult to defend citizens’ rights against unreasonable searches; indeed, as with the judiciary, politicians didn’t want to be perceived as being ‘soft on crime.’

Needless to say 9/11 exacerbated these trends, creating a culture of fear where Americans became willing to surrender their liberty for security.

This case is yet another sad example of judicial appeasement to the culture of fear and Americans’ willful ignorance of, and unwillingness to fight for, their cherished Constitutional rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not what they said. What they said is that the mere act of knocking on the door was not a violation of the 4th Amendment, and they sent the case back to the state to determine if, under the clarified rules, this amounts to exigent circumstances. I sometimes wonder why anyone thinks the WSJ is a conservative news source.

Fine The Kentucky Supreme Court should grow a pair and decide that the Police violated Section Ten of the Kentucky Constitution .

Section 10

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable search and seizure; and no warrant shall issue to search any place, or seize any person or thing, without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

.

That they can. They can also determine that the circumstances here did not rise to the level of exigency and vacate the conviction.

 

[manifold]

Where is SFC Ollie to regale us all once again with his favorite nugget of "wisdom"...?

...that of course being that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[George Costanza]

oh noes.............

In other news, LEOs may enter your house without a warrant if hey hear your wife screaming as you beat the shit out her.

Correctamundo. The "odor of marijuana" PC to search has existed for as long as marijuana has been illegal. No big deal. I get cases all the time where cop makes traffic stop, smells "strong odor of marijuana emanating from interior of the vehicle" ("emanating" is usually misspelled), orders occupants of car out and has them sit on curb, searches car: Game Over.

Nothing wrong with that. Exigent circumstances (beating shit out of wife; wife screaming; cops hear it from outside) always justify a warrantless search. Discovery of contraband, either in plain sight or by other senses (usually smell) always justifies a warrantless search.

One caveat: The cops have to be where they legally have a right to be when they smell the grass on the inside or hear the wife screaming. If they smell the marijuana because they have climbed up on the roof and are hanging down from a rain gutter, then a warrantless entry would not be allowed. But they can go where other members of the public could go as well, i.e., up the front walk and onto the porch, etc.

 

[George Costanza]

No condition for error is mentioned so presumably there is no penalty for erroneous forced entry. What this essentially means is all the police need to do is say they smelled or thought they smelled marijuana and heard sounds of destruction of evidence it's okey for them to break down any door they choose. And if they find no marijuana they can simply say they were right about the sounds of destruction of evidence because it was flushed down the toilet.

It's called "good faith." If the entry is made "in good faith," then it is valid, and all contraband found following the entry is fair game, even if the original reason for the entry turns out to be non-existent. The test, of course, is an objective one, not subjective on the part of the officers.

 

[TheBrain]

oh noes.............

In other news, LEOs may enter your house without a warrant if hey hear your wife screaming as you beat the shit out her.

Correctamundo. The "odor of marijuana" PC to search has existed for as long as marijuana has been illegal. No big deal. I get cases all the time where cop makes traffic stop, smells "strong odor of marijuana emanating from interior of the vehicle" ("emanating" is usually misspelled), orders occupants of car out and has them sit on curb, searches car: Game Over.

Nothing wrong with that. Exigent circumstances (beating shit out of wife; wife screaming; cops hear it from outside) always justify a warrantless search. Discovery of contraband, either in plain sight or by other senses (usually smell) always justifies a warrantless search.

One caveat: The cops have to be where they legally have a right to be when they smell the grass on the inside or hear the wife screaming. If they smell the marijuana because they have climbed up on the roof and are hanging down from a rain gutter, then a warrantless entry would not be allowed. But they can go where other members of the public could go as well, i.e., up the front walk and onto the porch, etc.

Just more proof that some of those on here don't understand the damn law.

 

[Anachronism]

I see no reason to provide CRIMINALS with ANY Constitutional Protections whatsoever. I never have and never will.