Supreme Court: Cops can break-in to your house if they smell weed

This expands on the ruling the other day from Indiana court that allowed for police to enter without warrant:

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Scary f'n times we live in. Privacy was just being intruded by gov't via the internet and now they're doing it literally by breaking in your house.


This is such a broad broad ruling that the repercussions could be ridiculous. What happens for instance, if cop comes into house based on "reasonable suspicion" of this mar1juana smell issue or the Indiana domestic help issue, sees a legally registered and licensed gun in the nearby vicinity and then uses that as a motive to shoot a person for fear of being in immediate harm?

 

I hope you have a lot of dogs, because the cops have a lot of bullets.

 

justice stephen david graduated magna c*m lade. Apparently this guy either cheated his ass off or he went to a terrible school. Do these guys know any history at all? Fire them all.

 

So, that's Indiana only? I don't think such a ruling would hold up in the US Supreme Court. Seems like the Indiana Supreme Court needs a beatdown or a reversal on appeal.

 

Nope, this was a US supreme court ruling standing across the states. The Indiana decision I posted was from a similar case stemming from a domestic dispute leading to illegal entry.

 

Good thing I live in Canada.

 

That's unbelievable a cop can bust down anyone's door at any time for any reason basically. But, I guess it is what it is. No sense in worrying about stuff beyond your control. Just hope some dumbass cop doesn't bust through your door and shoot you I guess. I'm still going to shoot first and ask questions later...if I can't identify it as a cop. They better be crystal clear or whatever happens...happens.

So, if they knock on your door, then they don't have to ask permission to come in or get a warrant any longer regardless? You open the door and they can just bust right in. Or, they can bust right in. That's messed up.

 

You pot heads who are making this about the smell of mar1juana are missing the point of the decision. This is bigger than the smell of weed. The court (Federal Supreme Court so this applies to the whole US) ruled that if the police hear sounds consistent with destroying evidence they can enter the home.

What is that sound exactly? A flushing toilet? So if the police come to my door while I'm on the crapper I lose my 4th amendment rights?

Ginsburg dissented (I can't believe I'm supporting Ginsburg) and stated this in her opinion:

She also referenced a 1948 Court Ruling in Johnson v United States

 

There's a long-held "exigent circumstances" rule, which says that cops don't need a warrant if an "emergency" exists; destruction of evidence has been held to be one of the possible emergencies. This case was about whether that exigent circumstances rule applies when the emergency in question is created directly by the conduct of the police. The court ruled that, yes, it doesn't matter how the circumstances developed.

The court originally was pursuing a crack dealer from the street, who decided to duck into an apartment building and head down a hallway with two doors. The cops smelled the mar1juana coming from the door on the left and chose to enter w/o warrant. The man in question that was being pursued? He had actually gone in the right door. He was eventually caught and then released for unexplained reasons. The homeowner whose house was illegally entered sued the police and this was the result of the case, expanding the "exigent circumstances" to include "sounds of destroying evidence".

 

Have you used this particular model? If so, how would you rate it?

 

Can you back that up? I've never read that "destruction of evidence" could qualify for exigent circumstances. It's such a vague qualifier. "The sound of evidence being destroyed."

 

God Bless the Conservative Supreme Court of Our Glorious Nation of God and Laws.

 

That's what this new supreme court ruling does.


From the earlier links posted by VanityHalfBlack:

http://cannabis.hawaiinewsdaily.com/...rijuana-smell/

Here's the case in full from FindLaw:
Kentucky v. King (2011)





And here's the holding directly from Alito's opinion:

 

Requirements to become a policeman are too low. Stupid **** will happen.

 

Ah, yes. I thought you meant that before this decision you believed destroying evidence was held as an example of exigent circumstances.

 

A cop "breaking in" to my house is a dead cop.