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

maybe you should learn to take a joke and relax

 

Joke? I thought maybe my matrix example provided enough levity in response either way.

 

Excellent, thank you. I saw one like that the other day and had wondered if it was any good. I'll go back and get it.

 

I must be stoned.

 

hmm...

Gotta move my timetable for conquest of Madagascar up.

 

Love my country.
Fear my government.

What is this world coming to?

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United Corporate States of America
And to the oppression
for which it stands
One government
under the guise of the christian god
indivisible
without freedom or justice for all

 

I think we disagree on two things... one, that his example validates a dismissal of her dissent with the new clarification/ruling on the 4th in regard to exigent factors when extrapolated to his suggested non contraband related scenario, which I disagree with because that situation needs no clarification or updated consideration on 'new exigency' for them to save the hypothetical woman.... and two, that your example is all we can learn from this.

 

Saying the police officers can come in when they smell pot is a big over simplification of the case. First, a few things to note - even before this case was decided, if a police officer smelled probable cause coming from your house he had probable cause to search it. However, probable cause on its own is insufficient to search a home - in order to search a house a police officer would either need 1) a warrant, 2) consent, or 3) exigent circumstances had to exsist. This case simply expands the last item.

Prior to this case, the law said police officers could not be the cause of exigent circumstances. Now, basically so long as the officer wasn't engaging in conduct that violated the 4th amendment or threatned to violate the 4th amendmendment, if his actions create exigent circumstances he can come into your house.

Specifically, in this case, the officers knocked on the door and announced themselves - this led the occupants to start destroying the evidence (an exigent circumstance). The Supreme Court's ruling simply says, the cops created the exigency because they knocked, but their actions were not violating the 4th amendment or threatening to violate the 4th amendment (i.e. they just knocked, they weren't threatening to kick down the door) - hence a search was valid.

So short answer - no, the cops can't smell mar1juana from your house and kick in the door. But, if they knock and they hear you destroying the mar1juana, they can. Keep in mind, this decision is not really about mar1juana - this logic will be applied to everything. But, it's not a huge change from the current law.

 

oops...I meant if they smelled mar1juana coming from your house, they had probable cause...not smelled probable cause, obviously

 

Points taken as I was less concerned with the factor of the mistaken household and more with the factor of what constitutes reasonable search and seizure due to exigent factors (I still feel they should have had that case thrown out as it seems the search/seizure was unreasonable in my eyes) .

As for the hypothetical example and the article, I guess I still don't see how adding these clarifying reasons to circumvent the 4th, when put against other scenarios, relates or is necessary.

I think dude in the apartment is right, they had no reason to search and seize in his apartment as that was not based on anything real besides their mistake until after they entered. Now they justify it saying "he made a noise." I guess my initial thinking here is that flushing a toilet or using the disposal or shuffling around is not the same as someone screaming about being shot or threatened with murder.... but I get your point here.

Yes, I get it, both exigent factors... emergency aid vs. destruction of evidence, both stories about accidental discovery of a crime while doing something else.. Difference is, in the hypothetical case they would only be noticing and intervening AFTER it could be legitimately argued that someone needed emergency aid. In the other, they were looking for someone else and mistakenly entered because of "ruffling sounds." My thought would have been that since they were in the wrong place, the ruffling sounds were MISTAKENLY regarded as exigent factors, and thus it should be thrown out.

I think maybe then we disagree on how and when this ruling can and will be put to use, then. If a word like "unreasonable" in the 4th can cause this much stir through interpretation, then I would suspect this ruling makes things even more grey and puts more authority in the hands of the officers than was intended or is necessary. In my eyes, they had the authority to save the hypothetical woman before the ruling on "new factors" and thus it is not a justification nor is it a reason to challenge her dissent.

As for the joke, I thought I was being poignant in face of your levity. Guess I'm 0 for 2 on that. Will check sarcasm meter batteries, though.

 

No, it says you can't shoot a cop that does that.

You can press criminal charges after the fact if the cop violated the law. You just don't have a right to enforce the law.

 

Do you get any extra legal trouble for making them break in, instead of opening the door when the police knock? You'll obviously get beat a little more, but any extra charges for not answering the door & making them break it down?

One time I just turned down my stereo when they knocked, & ignored them hoping they'd go away. The officer opened an adjacent window & reached through to the doorknob to open it! They asked why i didn't open the door & i said I thought it was the neighbors coming to complain about the music, & if i turned it down I thought they'd go away. They bought that & didn't search or give me a ticket luckily.

but they were essentially breaking & entering without even announcing they were the police- luckily they didn't do that to the guy here who sits around in two bullet proof vests holding his gun, just waiting for something like that to go down. For all parties involved.

 

Hopefully you get mistakenly raided and shot by these Gestapo traitors.

 

Two problems with this statement. Of the eight Justices that voted this way, only two were appointed by President George W. Bush (Alito and Roberts). Since you only need 5, the holding would stand even if he had appointed two Ginsberg clones. Among the majority were two Obama appointees, two Reagan appointees, two Bush the Younger appointees, one Clinton appointee and one Bush the Elder appointee.

The second problem is that Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts replaced Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rhenquist. Chief Justice Rhenquist almost certainly would have been in the majority. Justice O'Connor could have gone either way. So at most President George W. Bush was responsible for swinging this from a 7-2 decision to an 8-1 decision.

 

get in a lot of fire fights much?

 

The decision was 8-1. So thanks to Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, and Obama as well.

 

Thank the Lord I haven't but I saw a couple guys get murdered in a pool hall gun fight. That changed everything.