Young Turks: Marijuana Home Search Without A Warrant

[CherylK]

Run time: 06:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3wwBROv4PU   Posted on YouTube: January 15, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 5477   Posted on DU: January 17, 2011 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 1824

 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-01-12-supreme-court-home-searches_N.htm

[Dokkie]

1. long live the

US constitution. I think in the next 10yrs the pretense for abiding by the constitution will be over and people can start doing what they really want to do.

[WillyT]

2. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Devil_Fish]

3. What is the sound of evidence being destroyed??

:smoke:

[droidamus2]

5. The only thing I can think of

Is the toilet flushing and obviously that is real questionable on a couple of levels. The first is that there are other uses for toilets than to flush contraband drugs so smelling pot/hearing toilet flushing does not necessarily mean destroying evidence (maybe they were just drinking a lot of beer while getting stoned). Second, I would question in a lot of cases that the cops could even hear a flush or flushes from outside an apartment or home. So now you have I 'thought' I smelled pot and I 'thought' I heard the toliet flushing a number of times. Sure seems to leave a lot of room for pure bs from the cops. Finally, cops use this 'I smelled marijuana' as an excuse to search peoples cars all the time so it could become the universal excuse to enter peoples houses without a warrant. One question, what happens when a cop uses the 'I smelled pot and heard them possibly destroying evidence' (lets say they are trying to bust them for selling meth) to enter without a warrant but no evidence of any pot being present is found? Do we get Scalia saying 'oh well he thought he smelled marijuana so the warrantless search was done in good faith so it is okay'. One thing I have noticed with Scalia is a lot of his comments seemed to be based on whether he liked the outcome of what is going on. For example, in this case he probably thinks it is great that somebody got busted for doing illegal drugs so he will twist the law and constitution anyway he can to validate that outcome. Constitutional rights' don't really matter to him.

[RoccoR5955]

4. Not just that, but they seize all assets of the "criminal," in a drug case.

This is a way that police departments all over the country have been able to afford all sorts of stuff. Take it from someone who works in government. This is merely a way for DAs, and police departments to make money, by stealing people's property, "legally."

[davidthegnome]

9. Precisely

I first read about those laws in a Dean Koontz book - Koontz went on at the end to talk about how the truth is often stranger than fiction. To discuss how many of the things that were in a (fantastic, but far out, or so I thought) fictional novel happened quite frequently in this Country.

Now let's say one of the cops had actually taken in a little marijuana baggie and left it somewhere within the house (subtly). The others "discover" this evidence of crime. Now that there is evidence of a drug related crime, they may seize the owner's home, bank accounts, automobile/s, all of his or her assets are up for grabs.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but to my knowledge they need only "evidence" of a drug related crime or profit in order to seize all of this person's assets.

Now this person was smoking marijuana in their own home - which shouldn't even be a crime at all - and the cops busted down the door because they smelled it, figuring here was an easy bust. There is no specific "sound" of evidence being destroyed, therefor that argument could not stand up to simple logic - it sure as hell shouldn't stand up in court. So here we have illegal entry with a bull shit excuse, in which case it is the police who should be under investigation, not the so called "criminal".

Instead, it is entirely possible that this person will lose ALL of their assets and spend years in prison.

I'd be shocked, stunned and mad as hell if I didn't know this and worse than this happens all the time.

[RoccoR5955]

10. I believe that they actually have to be convicted before the fuzz get to steal everything. n/t

[davidthegnome]

11. Can't they at least temporarily

seize those assets prior to conviction? From what I've read on the subject, if there is evidence that someone used drug trade profits to purchase or upgrade a home the property may be seized - though the person may possibly regain them if vindicated.

This link is an example of what I'm referring to: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html

*Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.*

[KansDem]

12. I believe the "forfeiture and seizure" practice, which dates back to piracy during the 19th c. (?)

...was taken up again to stop drug lords from using their swag to finance their defense. By seizing their assets, they had no money to hire expensive lawyers who stood a better chance of getting their clients off.

Now, having said that, I'm sure F&S is abused to glean more money for police departments...

[Peggy Day]

6. And you trust the supreme court? nt

[Swampguana]

7. I don't trust the law enforcement

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, CherylK.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

13. So according to Scalia, it's OK to violate someone's constitutional rights-

- if you think he may be doing something wrong.

Sadly there are a great many Republicans who agree with him. Look at all the fuss they made about the Patriot Act.