SCOTUS Says Police May Break In If They Smell Marijuana

[Ravi]

It's even worse. Cops can now break into your home without a warrant if they suspect evidence is being destroyed.

All a cop has to do now is say, I thought.

WTF is wrong with the Supremes?

 

[manifold]

Just better hope you're not taking a shit the next time a cop knocks on your door.

Surely the flushing sound would constitute probable cause and justify a warrentless search.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Sense possession of less than an ounce in California is no longer a misdemeanor, I cannot imagine any agency's policy allowing such an entry. The inherent danger associated with such an action along with the potential liability makes this action the lowest of the low priority.
The issue being the officers were seeking a wanted person. This being the case one might surmiss a warrant would be easily attained for that purpose alone. If the person wanted was a priority, the unit might easily be contained as a warrant was obtained.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

Yeap this one is pretty bad.


It means police can beat down your door any time they want to.


I cant believe only Ginsberg desented

 

[Truthmatters]

There is only ONE solution to this "make pot legal".

 

[Anachronism]

There is only ONE solution to this "make pot legal".

LOL. NO, the solution to this is.... Don't give the Cops an excuse to be at your door to begin with. Don't have illegal things or people in your home. Either that, or be prepared to defend your property with deadly force at all times.

Personally I prefer to utilize BOTH options.

 

[dilloduck]

People should not be subjecting others to smells anyway. Look what we do to cigarette smokers.

 

[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.

Well, at least anachronism is taking up the charge in Ollie's absence.

 

[Ravi]

I wonder how this will work out in states where you can kill someone that is breaking into your house.

 

[Valerie]

Here is what Alito and Ginsberg each wrote on the decision...

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Alito wrote.

Alito said the occupants of the apartment could have refused to open the door or to speak with the officers. Or they could have talked to police, but refused to allow them inside. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue,” Alito said.


>>


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” she wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

Supreme Court Upholds Exigent-Circumstances Search of Apartment that Smelled of Pot - News - ABA Journal

 

[Wry Catcher]

A funny thing happened on the way to the pot farm. The officers learned that the sales of medical marijuana produced an unexpected sales tax revenue of one million dollars for the city of San Jose, CA. The city council will be able to retain more officers do to the unexpected revenue.

 

[TheBrain]

I wonder how this will work out in states where you can kill someone that is breaking into your house.

It won't affect at all since no other state is obliged to follow precedent sat by another state.

 

[Truthmatters]

Here is what Alito and Ginsberg each wrote on the decision...

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Alito wrote.

Alito said the occupants of the apartment could have refused to open the door or to speak with the officers. Or they could have talked to police, but refused to allow them inside. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue,” Alito said.


>>


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” she wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

Supreme Court Upholds Exigent-Circumstances Search of Apartment that Smelled of Pot - News - ABA Journal

Alito is such an idiot he doesnt even understand the impact of his vote

 

[Valerie]

Here is what Alito and Ginsberg each wrote on the decision...

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Alito wrote.

Alito said the occupants of the apartment could have refused to open the door or to speak with the officers. Or they could have talked to police, but refused to allow them inside. “Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue,” Alito said.


>>


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. “The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” she wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."

Supreme Court Upholds Exigent-Circumstances Search of Apartment that Smelled of Pot - News - ABA Journal

They DID choose to not answer the door, so it is left to the discretion of officers to claim that he heard something that sounded like destruction of evidence...? The occupant could have been flushing the toilet and on his way to answer the door for all they knew...

 

[Anachronism]

It won't affect at all since no other state is obliged to follow precedent sat by another state.

Additionally, and more important to Ravi's point.... The moment that a LEO verbally announces his/her presence as such, your right to "Self-Defense" against them is generally assumed to be null and void, regardless of other circumstances.

 

[masquerade]

Last night I watched Pineapple Express. True story. It wasn't as funny as I was hoping it would be but what can y'do?

A month ago I was standing in Universal Studios Orlando ( near Jurassic Park River Adventure ), waiting on my family who took a walk through a lush tropical area to see a life-size version of a dinosaur. Not generally open to the public. We had just eaten lunch and I was full and preferred to spend my time digesting in the shade. That was when I smelled it. Sniff .... weed! I followed the scent to see two young men just around the corner in almost open view, smoking a joint! At Universal! I saw some commotion of staff members moving towards them to question, but the duo had taken off. A few minutes later I did see one of the two being questioned, but then ran across them some time later in the day. I guess nothing came of it. True story.

 

[MikeK]

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

Criminals, for your information, are those who have been convicted of crimes. Prior to that occurrence there are only suspects who retain certain Constitutional protections. If you cannot understand the importance of that distinction now you will if you ever are wrongfully accused of a crime.

The following is an important principle which you should give a lot of thought to:

"Whoever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government, for if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

 

[MikeK]

Alito is such an idiot he doesnt even understand the impact of his vote

You're assuming he's concerned with that impact, which will affect you and me but not he.

 

[MikeK]

Additionally, and more important to Ravi's point.... The moment that a LEO verbally announces his/her presence as such, your right to "Self-Defense" against them is generally assumed to be null and void, regardless of other circumstances.

Which, for the benefit of those who do not yet understand it, is the short form definition of a police state.

 

[Ravi]

It won't affect at all since no other state is obliged to follow precedent sat by another state.

Additionally, and more important to Ravi's point.... The moment that a LEO verbally announces his/her presence as such, your right to "Self-Defense" against them is generally assumed to be null and void, regardless of other circumstances.

Nice job ignoring me.


Of course it could and will affect what happens in other sates. IF SCOTUS rules something constitutional police departments are going to have a tough time getting rid of bad cops for doing something deemed constitutional.

As for my point, if the cop doesn't have a warrant, doesn't have to even show ID and is free to break into your house because of what he or she "thinks" then I think castle laws should protect the homeowner.