AHW Got arrested with 2gr :/ Fuck The Police

[Lehsyrus]

Not entirely. For unequivocally most of the time that is indeed true. There are certain circumstances wherein the police CAN search you without a warrant, and without your consent, such as in the case of motor vehicles. The ruling on the Carroll case stated that if in the case of motor vehicles, the police can search your vehicle without a warrant, and without your consent, if they have reasonable cause to believe you are in possession of contraband.

However, we are speaking purely on a subjects person in this matter. Even with motor vehicle incidents an odor is not enough (hence why they usually illegal search the car and plant a joint on the seat to make it "legal", but I won't get into that).

[Aborted]

However, we are speaking purely on a subjects person in this matter. Even with motor vehicle incidents an odor is not enough (hence why they usually illegal search the car and plant a joint on the seat to make it "legal", but I won't get into that).

That is incorrect. There are numerous cases where the courts rules odor as a probable cause.
Here are 2 examples.
State v. Jennings
Miller v. State.

[Lehsyrus]

That is incorrect. There are numerous cases where the courts rules odor as a probable cause.
Here are 2 examples.
State v. Jennings
Miller v. State.

Your first source deals with a predator touching underage children of the ages eleven, nine, and six. Such cases are handled completely differently in comparison to a substance abuse case. As such, the reason for a search in such a case if such came under need would be the multiple children's report of inappropriate contact, giving probable cause to a search warrant in itself.


Your second source is completely flawed in this debate. Miller had been pulled over due to a verbal domestic dispute report filed with the police. The officer then asked Miller to take a breathalyzer test, which Miller had denied, which in basically every state is grounds for a guilty plea and is grounds for immediate arrest.


Neither of your sources have anything to do with this topic.

[Aborted]

Your first source deals with a predator touching underage children of the ages eleven, nine, and six. Such cases are handled completely differently in comparison to a substance abuse case. As such, the reason for a search in such a case if such came under need would be the multiple children's report of inappropriate contact, giving probable cause to a search warrant in itself.


Your second source is completely flawed in this debate. Miller had been pulled over due to a verbal domestic dispute report filed with the police. The officer then asked Miller to take a breathalyzer test, which Miller had denied, which in basically every state is grounds for a guilty plea and is grounds for immediate arrest.


Neither of your sources have anything to do with this topic.

It seems there are multiple cases with the same name. Back to my main point though, the odor of marijuana is considered reasonable cause, only in the case of motor vehicles.
Here: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-distri...l/1433055.html

[Dextro92]

If you don't wanna look like a dumb ass, learn the law in your state -_-

[Lehsyrus]

It seems there are multiple cases with the same name. Back to my main point though, the odor of marijuana is considered reasonable cause, only in the case of motor vehicles.
Here: STATE v. JENNINGS, No.

They really need a better way of keeping these cases separate.

Though in the case you posted, one of the cops asked the driver if there was Marijuana in the car, and the driver admitted to there being Marijuana in the driver side door. His admittance of the substance gives probable cause in itself.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

Drivers side visor*

[noob555]

uhm guys
judging from his flag and broken english, I don't think he's American l0l

[Aborted]

They really need a better way of keeping these cases separate.

Though in the case you posted, one of the cops asked the driver if there was Marijuana in the car, and the driver admitted to there being Marijuana in the driver side door. His admittance of the substance gives probable cause in itself.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

Drivers side visor*

That is indeed true. In the case though, it was stated that odor was enough for a search. Bottom line, odor IS enough for a search, but only in the case of a vehicle.

[dakr54]

Let's see, where to start..

Ah yes, the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This means in laymen terms that they can not search you without probably cause. You gave them permission to search your bag, giving them probable cause. If you simply denied them access to your bag, you would have been walking away without issue.

Thus the discussion on "where you bought it" would have never come up, as you would have never been put into an interrogation room.

Lastly, you are moronic. You do NOT lie to the police. Saying "you found it on the ground" is obvious bullshit, and having it in your possession is the illegal action, NOT where you "found" or bought it. In that situation you simply say "I have nothing more to say to you". There is a reason why within the miranda rights comes a phrase "ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU". By lying they now have reason to subpoena your records. Now the Police are looking at your Facebook and Phone records, all texts, calls, forwards, messages, etc. With this information if you even use a slang word for Marijuana such as a "dub" or a "smot", it WILL be used against you and the Judge WILL side with the police. This means you have just prolonged your probation by a year and added sixty hours of community service.

No, I am not wrong.

u are almost right except this is the US you are talking about and you don't know where OP is from .. atleast I don't know. and its OP's fault for smoking weed in the first place and then being an idiot about it. should avoid the trouble all together by not starting drugs.

[Lehsyrus]

u are almost right except this is the US you are talking about and you don't know where OP is from .. atleast I don't know. and its OP's fault for smoking weed in the first place and then being an idiot about it. should avoid the trouble all together by not starting drugs.

Marijuana is not a drug. It is only classified as such due to stereotypes and misinformation.

[Bowl.]

I gotta go into law more.

What this guy said x7

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

Marijuana is not a drug. It is only classified as such due to stereotypes and misinformation.

It's Just a Plant, But if it Happens to Catch on Fire, There May be Some Side Effect's.

[Paralyze]

I'm glad it's legal here

[Bowl.]

I'm glad it's legal here

Lucky, I'm in New Jersey, Not legal here yet, as I sit and wait doing it Illegally.

[Paralyze]

Lucky, I'm in New Jersey, Not legal here yet, as I sit and wait doing it Illegally.

I'm doing it illegally too, I'm not 18 yet

[Bowl.]

I'm doing it illegally too, I'm not 18 yet

At least at some point its legal for you