On The Road – arrieve – Saudi Arabia, part 3
2 hours ago
Monday, May 16, 2011
Search Allowed if Police Hear Evidence Being Destroyed
On Monday, in an 8 to 1 decision, the supreme court ruled that if police officers smell the scent of burning marijuana, knock loudly, and then enter, they are not violating the fourth amendment. samuel alito jr. was part of the majority and believed in the decision, but the dissenting judge (ruth bader ginsburg), believed that police officers were being given a power too far-reaching. although it is true that these officers no longer would need a warrant, technically, alito commented that if a citizen doesn't come to the door and tell the officers that a warrant is required, and they are burning marijuana, then they deserve to get caught, basically. this case came to the supreme court as a mistake actually. in lexington, kentucky, officers ran into an apartment building, going after a man who had dealt coke to an informant. they ended up following the smell of marijuana to a different apartment, busting in under the assumption that they were following their guy. kentucky courts ruled that the officers were in the wrong, but the supreme court overruled that decision. i believe that if you are stupid enough to have enough weed in your possession that you need to burn it to dispose of it, you deserve to be prosecuted, but this case (Kentucky v. king) raises an important point. how secure are we in our homes??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
To answer your question, I would say: You're pretty secure unless you happen to be burning weed in your hideout, while simultaneously refusing to open the door to talk to the police. I don't necessarily believe that the policemen were doing what they were supposed to, but I agree with the ruling. You are definitely right in saying that someone would have to be fairly dumb and unlucky for this to apply anyway. As a rights issue, I think the benefits of prosecuting criminals like this outweigh the mild risks of a mistake.
I agree with Jeff. This ruling is not a huge threat to most homes, only the homes where there is clear evidence that marijuana is being burned. And in that case, the police have reasonable suspicion to enter the home and probably catch criminals with the marijuana. If these people are in fact in possession if the drug, burning it, and refusing to open the door, it is logical that the police are on the right track.
If this legislation was restricted to marijuana, I wouldn't worry too much about it. However, I'm worried if this legislation goes to the extent where police can enter our homes just because they hear suspicious activity. There's a possibility that the polices' suspicions are wrong. My concern is that this legislation sets the way for future legislation concerning our privacy in our homes.
This is interesting, because it raises the issue of unlawful searches and seizures. I learned from studying Mapp v. Ohio, that the police need a warrant to enter your house unless they are in hot pursuit. So, in this case, were they in the right to enter this apartment? I believe that this is acceptable. I think that if the police can tell that there is illegal activity within a room and they knock, they are allowed to enter. This case took place in Kentucky, which means that medical marijuana is not legal. However, if this had taken place in California, I wonder if the ruling would have been the same. How do they distinguish between those allowed to smoke it and those not allowed from smelling it outside a room?
So, as far as the Kentucky case, I agree that there is enough evidence that would definitely be hidden if the police went to get a warrant, that they were right to enter. However, if this had occurred in California, I feel that the police should have to obtain a warrant because there is not clearly illegal activity occurring behind those closed doors.
If this right is enacted and forced by the authorties, then I think that americans are not as secure in their home as we hope we are. By simply walking by and smelling weed from a house, a cop can run through your house? For all we know, this person could be a medical marijuana patient, so what would then give police to go through the house and possibly find something else that isn't weed related, and then charge the person for something completely different! Im talking hypothetical hear, but you catch my drift. There's soo many more oppurtunities for law enforcement to find something else then what thier intent was to go into the house--it isnt fair. And would only lead to more cases being brought to court, which means more money, more time, more hassle. Lets just let people smoke already sheeesh.
I also agree with Jeff on this one. I see absolutely no reason for police officers to not be allowed to enter and search a building if a suspect is tampering with the evidence. I don't see this as an infringement of any fundamental rights, and hey, if the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of King, then it seems to almost unanimously agree regarding this ruling as well.
I also think that the police should have the right to enter if they have proper evidence. I think it will definitely help prosecute more people and hammer down on the law. As for intruding on people with medical marijuana cards, the people should just show the police their cards and everything will be fine. There is no way to tell if it is legal or not unless they go in. Especially if the police knock before entering, people will know they are coming in and not take offense. By implementing this law, I think people will get smarter about what they decide to do, especially in regards to marijuana.
umm the bottom line is, if there is probable cause that a criminal activity is taking place, the police does not need a warrant to check it out...
... if it wasn't obvious he had possession of marijuana, then the cops would not have checked it out.
-Raymond Lim
I'm not a strict constructionist. but the 4th amendment does state that search and seizures without a warrant are not always unreasonable if the authorities have a good reason to suspect that something illegal is going on within the confines of your property. For example, the plain view doctrine states that officers may seize objects that are in their plain view. This might be taking the plain view doctrine a bit far, but if the police can smell drugs right outside a apartment door, then it is obvious that the scent can be deemed as a probable cause for search and seizure.
I firmly agree that the police do not have the right and will never have the right to barge onto anyone's property without any reasonable reason to do so. However, if you do something illegal and make it almost laughably obvious, then you can't expect the police to ignore the fact that you are doing something illegal.
In this situation, I agree with the Supreme Court. It's pretty obvious that under those circumstances, the police have the right to enter without a warrant. But I mean, we're pretty secure in our homes from policemen barging in. It's not like that happens frequently. And in state's with medical marijuana legislation, I don't think the police would even care that much, unless there were complaints.
Post a Comment