WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

NY Judge Calling Cops Liars... Interesting Discussion About Ciga Weed

Should An Officer Be Able To Detain/Search/Investigate Based On Odor Of A Possible Crime?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Ahhhhh Hellllll Nooooo Craig!

  • RD Sux


Results are only viewable after voting.

Mr. C

going back in time
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
2,875
I know my answer also.:D

I only ready about the first paragraph
 

Wizard29

Really a 34 Eliminator
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
1,018
Reaction score
1,351
Absolutely. Get a call about shots fired, go to the house and smell fired powder but not be able to investigate further if the occupants tell you to go away? Doesn't make sense.

Additional investigation is allowed based on the other senses such as sight or sound...why not smell? For what it's worth, police dogs operate on smell almost exclusively.
 

t&y

t&y
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
10,402
Reaction score
10,881
I know my answer also.:D

I only ready about the first paragraph
It's an interesting read for sure.

Absolutely. Get a call about shots fired, go to the house and smell fired powder but not be able to investigate further if the occupants tell you to go away? Doesn't make sense.

Additional investigation is allowed based on the other senses such as sight or sound...why not smell? For what it's worth, police dogs operate on smell almost exclusively.
Yeah and that is the big picture here. If you take the politics out of it, and simply look at the basis of what legal standing exists and why, it's pretty clear.
 

CJ_Donahue

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
837
Reaction score
1,763
Hell YES. What is next? Can't use what they hear or what they see? What is different about smell?
 

Mr. C

going back in time
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
2,875
It's an interesting read for sure.
I'll try to get back to it and read the whole article later.

But your fooling yourself if you think cops don't abuse the "I smell weed" line. JMHO

I know label me the cop hater:D:D
 

Yellowboat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
16,116
Reaction score
6,345
Yes, the other side of that if the cops are lieing about it to get a search, that should be at least 10 years in jail and a big check going too the victim. Violating some ones rights like that is just wrong.

I wonder what this liberal judges opinion on the smell of alcohol is? I bet it's the exact opposite of pot.



Edit, if you did think you smelled pot, an arrest for dui and blood test too confirm would also happen. If you test positive, there is zero argument. If you don't it might get a little bit muddy.
 

ka0tyk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
6,502
Reaction score
3,610
ive been watching a bunch of the "Live PD A&E" on facebook videos and like 9 times out of 10 the cop says he smells an odor and wants to search the car. they consent for some dumb reason and he finds meth, guns, and a whole mess of other stuff.

at the same time that scares the sh%t out of me because ill be driving down the street with the windows down and someone outside is blowing huge clouds and my car smells like cheech and chongs van. I feel like I could get pulled for something dumb like window tint and get hassled for it.
 

sirbob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
7,012
Reaction score
5,227
Yes they should be able to investigate further if they smell weed...

However, as was stated in the article by another officer - many of the cops lie and use it as an excuse. Because of this, thy have ruined the ability now to use only smell. I think we are in a place now where smell alone isn't enough. I want to see smell combined with another verifiable clue before they should be able to search.

Without going into 10 examples - I can see many ways to have the smell of weed present and still not have done anything wrong.
 
Last edited:

Backlash

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
5,245
Reaction score
5,545
Yes, they should be able to search. Just because a couple of NY's finest say some officers have lied to get a search, doesn't mean all officers lie. There are going to be a few bad apples in EVERY career field, regardless of what people might think.
 

Andy B.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
2,924
Reaction score
2,646
This is my stance If a PO wants to search go ahead I have nothing to hide. I was working in Bakersfield and got pulled over officer thought I was drinking it was about 7:00pm I was going back to Taft after my workout I was just exhausted. He asked me if he could search the vehicle I said sure and there is a 380. under the seat not loaded and clip not in the gun(I lived in CO at the time,CO ID, was traveling for work and this was back in 1990) in the case. He said can you grab it for me I said I would rather you do it so he sat me back in the car and pulled it out and everything was in order. When I was leaving he said thanks for obeying,respecting and listening and said next time if your eyes are heavy and head bobbing pull over and take a nap sure thing officer and I was on my way.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steers With Throttle
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
23,543
Yes they should be able to investigate further if they smell weed...

However, as was stated in the article by another officer - many of the cops lie and use it as an excuse. Because of this, thy have ruined the ability now to use only smell. I think we are in a place now where smell alone isn't enough. I want to see smell combined with another verifiable clue before ethyl should be able to search.

Without going into 10 examples - I can see many ways to have the smell of weed present and still not have done anything wrong.
To your point.. if weed is legal in that state, smell should no longer be enough.
 
Last edited:

Lunatic Fringe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
4,297
Reaction score
3,644
It seems like an obvious answer of yes and that is my vote but it could also be there is a need to establish a curb on the possibility of an illegal search based on a subjective sense of smell.
So, why not make any additional charges contingent on actually finding evidence of marijuana if the odor is the only reason for conducting a search.
If an illegal weapon or drugs etc is located due to the search but no marijuana evidence is found then confiscate the items but no charges.
 

Gelcoater

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2009
Messages
16,464
Reaction score
17,979
To your point.. of weed is legal in that state, smell should no longer be enough.
Would depend on circumstances wouldn’t it?
In a car...doesn’t matter. Is still DUI.
Now, the question there would be did the cop smell weed, or burning weed?
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
12,991
Reaction score
10,553
Would depend on circumstances wouldn’t it?
In a car...doesn’t matter. Is still DUI.
Now, the question there would be did the cop smell weed, or burning weed?

Or if the officer was a city, county, state or federal officer.

For if he was federal like a park ranger, then it is illegal no matter what.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steers With Throttle
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
23,543
Would depend on circumstances wouldn’t it?
In a car...doesn’t matter. Is still DUI.
Now, the question there would be did the cop smell weed, or burning weed?
Obviously the answer is yes. :)

I’ve noticed on Live PD they default to “recently burning” weed smell.
 

highvoltagehands

Laveycraft Nuera 2750
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
2,343
It seems like an obvious answer of yes and that is my vote but it could also be there is a need to establish a curb on the possibility of an illegal search based on a subjective sense of smell.
So, why not make any additional charges contingent on actually finding evidence of marijuana if the odor is the only reason for conducting a search.
If an illegal weapon or drugs etc is located due to the search but no marijuana evidence is found then confiscate the items but no charges.
Thats damn good thinking for a Lunatic. Makes sense and offers common ground for both sides of the argument to agree to. Unfortunately there's soo many tangents to this argument that neither side will give in and this argument will continue till the end of time……..
 

highvoltagehands

Laveycraft Nuera 2750
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
2,343
Or if the officer was a city, county, state or federal officer.

For if he was federal like a park ranger, then it is illegal no matter what.
Thats why Park Rangers "way too long arm of the law" should be limited to Parks….
Around Folsom Lake, the Cal State park rangers seem to make way more stops outside the park entrances than our local city cops or deputies and Rangers seem to follow way too many violators out of park and onto city or county roads before initiating enforcement stops for DUIs and other stuff that I'm sure could've be done shortly after leaving ramp or on the road out of park? I'm sure many of these roads probably still fall somewhat within Parks legal jurisdiction, but many of these are residential or commercial thoroughfares policed by others.
Curious what the benefit is for Rangers to police outside the park rather than in it???
 

sirbob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
7,012
Reaction score
5,227

monkeyswrench

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2018
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
9,674
I guess I'm somewhat oldschool. "Where there's smoke, there's fire"

I have been detained and my vehicle searched primarily due to type of vehicle, and time driving. Ladder rack on your truck after midnight, or lifted truck with custom paint in the ghetto at night. Usually a BS reason to pull me over, so they could try to get a whiff of my breath. When that didn't work out for them, they'd always ask if they could search my truck. I'd always let them. The main reason was I knew I would run into them again, as my hours were late or super early. Getting lit up once usually meant that cop wouldn't light me up again.

My youth was different. If something shady was being done, everything else was super legit. Stock appearing car and always parked before midnight. Do your misguided deeds during the afternoon rush and you won't get popped. Seemed to work pretty good:rolleyes:
 

Blackmagic94

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
1,898
Reaction score
1,995
Based on the fact that a scent dog alerts gives PC for a federal agency to do a search without a warrant I will say




Yes
 

DaveC

Car-boat motors
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
9,664
Reaction score
3,216
Yes. I think so especially if they are gang bangers, parolees or there’s evidence of some other major crime.

At least where possession is not illegal under state law. (The feds should respect local laws BTW)

However as the article states sometimes it can be used to justify an illegal search where no weed is actually present. By smelling weed that means it or the paraphernalia is actually present. The smell is unmistakable

As a compromise if no weed is actually found then that should invalidate the entire search. Seems fair.

I don’t like being searched so I would never consent to one, as is my right. I never smoke weed or do drugs. (Not judging, just not my thing). So there is 0.0% chance of smelling weed on me or my car. I also keep my Chiba monkey friends out of my car cuz well you know. :p

That being said I have been told by cops that they smell weed in my car and boat. (Most recent was on Havasu at desert storm) I have also been told I looked wired. (Too much coffee and I talk fast). Neither can be farther from the truth. To be fair I haven’t been searched yet but was close once. Totally unjustified if they did.

We can of course blame this on the so called bad cops (never anyone here though for sure) ;)

My view is properly trained cops should be able to tell those that are drunk, high or wired just like experienced street cops can do. It’s so obvious. Might take some time to train but it’s part of the job.
 
Last edited:

DaveC

Car-boat motors
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
9,664
Reaction score
3,216
That’s different. Those dogs are amazing. They are so good at what the do and their nose is so much more sensitive than ours.

My buddy has one. He is the bomb. (The dog not my fat friend)

Based on the fact that a scent dog alerts gives PC for a federal agency to do a search without a warrant I will say




Yes
 

Moneypit

Ol' school kid..........
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
1,339
I voted yes...
#1 If an officer is going to use a dog seeking PC, ask the handler exactly how the dog is trained to "alert" before the dog search starts...And don't let the dog scratch the sides of my car with the toenails....
#2 Not for a long time, but I always refused permission to search based on the idea that I know where my stuff is, after you tear through it I won't know where it is, so no...I have nothing to hide, but no....
I agree, if the cop says he smells weed and finds none, but finds a questionable gun, the search should be moot, gun taken for safe keeping (to be returned if legal), and no further detainment or arrest... I guess fairness would also exclude any meth, take it, but no charges because no pot was found..Now that pot is legal in some places, even the smell, raw or burnt, is moot...
Ray
 

Ziggy

SlumLord
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,958
Reaction score
19,913
The phrase is used often it seems, even on Live PD you hear it used regularly. Seen one episode the smell was claimed and the search turned up nothing.
Cops do need the ability to do their jobs right but if it simply becomes a tool to bypass regulations I call BS.
 

Ballyhoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
755
Reaction score
869
Plain smell doctrine. Look it up for further details.

Due to the legality of Marijuana in many states, some folks are making arguments against these type of warrant-less searches. There is not a a straight forward perfect answer as every case has its own unique and specific facts.

Some things to think about regarding warrant-less searches of cars:

Alcohol is legal in our country. Marijuana is legal in many states but can have restrictions about use in public places, no matter how bad your back hurts. If you are stopped in a car and an officer smells alcohol, he can conduct a warrant-less search of the car to look for the alcohol. Its going to be no different for Marijuana under most circumstances, as DUI for both is the same charge. Its still a crime to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of Marijuana. The Marijuana might be legal for you to possess, but you can't drive while under the influence of it, just like alcohol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t&y

Ballyhoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
755
Reaction score
869
The phrase is used often it seems, even on Live PD you hear it used regularly. Seen one episode the smell was claimed and the search turned up nothing.
Cops do need the ability to do their jobs right but if it simply becomes a tool to bypass regulations I call BS.
That smell of burnt Marijuana will last for awhile just like tobacco.

The smell of fresh Marijuana is just as strong, maybe stronger. Years ago we were watching a house that we believed to be a stash pad. A car leaves with two guys in it and we stop it a few miles away. It was cold that night and both occupants were wearing sweaters. The smell of fresh Marijuana on both of the guys was overwhelming. We got a search warrant for the house and found 1k pounds of Marijuana in the house. Smell matters.
 

Ziggy

SlumLord
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
26,958
Reaction score
19,913
That smell of burnt Marijuana will last for awhile just like tobacco.

The smell of fresh Marijuana is just as strong, maybe stronger. Years ago we were watching a house that we believed to be a stash pad. A car leaves with two guys in it and we stop it a few miles away. It was cold that night and both occupants were wearing sweaters. The smell of fresh Marijuana on both of the guys was overwhelming. We got a search warrant for the house and found 1k pounds of Marijuana in the house. Smell matters.
Oh no I get it. Like I said, you need the ability to do your job. I'm sure the Leo's are correct most of the time but there are times they aren't. I've been there with an employee who was in my car with me.
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steers With Throttle
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
23,543
Plain smell doctrine. Look it up for further details.

Due to the legality of Marijuana in many states, some folks are making arguments against these type of warrant-less searches. There is not a a straight forward perfect answer as every case has its own unique and specific facts.

Some things to think about regarding warrant-less searches of cars:

Alcohol is legal in our country. Marijuana is legal in many states but can have restrictions about use in public places, no matter how bad your back hurts. If you are stopped in a car and an officer smells alcohol, he can conduct a warrant-less search of the car to look for the alcohol. Its going to be no different for Marijuana under most circumstances, as DUI for both is the same charge. Its still a crime to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of Marijuana. The Marijuana might be legal for you to possess, but you can't drive while under the influence of it, just like alcohol.
What if a passenger is smoking it (probably illegal to drive, but I don't know)? Who is to say what the difference in smell between burnt and unburnt weed is? Yes I get that there is a difference in smell, but these are subjective matters, just like a car exhaust is "too loud".
 

LargeOrangeFont

Steers With Throttle
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
19,874
Reaction score
23,543
Anyone with a nose, lol.
Big difference between burning and just a bag of weed sitting there stinking up the...joint. :D
Ahh so another thing the cop can pass off with "years of experience and training" ;)
 

t&y

t&y
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
10,402
Reaction score
10,881
We’ve had a few responses and votes ...

What say t&y on the subject?:)
Mine should be obvious. YES, smell of a potential crime should be cause for a legal detention/investigation/search. This is Cop 101. We use all senses when investigating including the odor of something. Most of my traffic stops that last longer than a "Slow Down" advisement include the odor of Marijuana for one very simple reason... the people I'm contacting usually smoke it along with all the other criminal shit they do.

Smell goes right there with hear, observe, feel in the tool box. That is one of the reasons our windows are always down when on patrol.
 

C-2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
8,923
Reaction score
3,172
Reasonable articulable suspicion, need something more than a hunch or suspicion alone; you must be able to describe your observation.

My answer is also Yes :eek:
 
Last edited:

monkeyswrench

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2018
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
9,674
Mine should be obvious. YES, smell of a potential crime should be cause for a legal detention/investigation/search. This is Cop 101. We use all senses when investigating including the odor of something. Most of my traffic stops that last longer than a "Slow Down" advisement include the odor of Marijuana for one very simple reason... the people I'm contacting usually smoke it along with all the other criminal shit they do.

Smell goes right there with hear, observe, feel in the tool box. That is one of the reasons our windows are always down when on patrol.
Damn, I always thought the windows were down from the drive-thru "inspections"
:p
 

Ballyhoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
755
Reaction score
869
What if a passenger is smoking it (probably illegal to drive, but I don't know)? Who is to say what the difference in smell between burnt and unburnt weed is? Yes I get that there is a difference in smell, but these are subjective matters, just like a car exhaust is "too loud".
Its very easy to determine the difference in smell between the two. Police officers in most instances will qualify to testify as an expert. There is a short process in court to get to this situation but its not that difficult. Once that occurs the officers word carries much more weight on the subject. As far as car exhaust goes, its not how loud it is, its the fact that its been modified to increase sound. Those are easy battles in court also as long as the cop is prepared.
 
Last edited:

Ballyhoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
755
Reaction score
869
Oh no I get it. Like I said, you need the ability to do your job. I'm sure the Leo's are correct most of the time but there are times they aren't. I've been there with an employee who was in my car with me.
We are not perfect and we do make mistakes just like anyone else. I appreciate the fact that you understand the challenges law enforcement faces in the ability to do the job. Unfortunately, if you are the driver/owner of the car, you will be responsible in many cases. If you allow your loaded friend/employee in you car and you get stopped by the cops, expect to get searched - legally.
 

RiverDave

In it to win it
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
96,286
Reaction score
64,078
Hell YES. What is next? Can't use what they hear or what they see? What is different about smell?
The fact that both of those can be recorded and one relies solely on testimony from a foulable and sometimes corrupt person?
 

Yellowboat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
16,116
Reaction score
6,345
It isn’t the good guys that make mistakes that I am concerned with. There are some shitty people out there and then having a badge doesn’t make them any less shitty..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1028991

I can literally bring up 1,000’s of these. Or other examples of corruption.
In my mind that guy has fucked up the public trust so much he should be charged with capital crimes.

Yes, I want people like that to face the death penalty
 
Top