Loud Sex Reason Enough to Enter and Search Your Home

[RainDog]

so you better close the windows, Dr. Strange!

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/loud-sex-cops-search-home/

On Feb. 17, 2007, New Jersey state troopers arrived at McGacken's home, responding to an anonymous 911 call complaining of screams coming from McGacken's home. McGacken explained the noise was a bout of loud sex; his girlfriend appeared at the front door and corroborated his claim.

But officers searched his home anyway, and found enough marijuana -- including potted plants -- to put him away for 10 years on charges of producing a controlled substance.

Appealing the conviction, McGacken argued that, once police knew the noise was consensual sex, they no longer had reason to search his home.

But the appellate panel at the Superior Court of New Jersey disagreed. On Monday, they dismissed McGacken's appeal, stating that "the potential for harm was too severe for the police to accept an explanation for loud screaming that could have been a cover-up of its true source."


EVEN WHEN BOTH PARTIES VERIFIED THIS FACT.

From the ruling:

Admitting that someone was screaming during sex was REASON to investigate whether OTHERS might still be on the scene who were not screaming because of sex.

huh?

[Deep13]

1. And the cops knew no one else was in there?

For all they knew, there was someone else at the residence being beaten to death.

[RainDog]

2. so you think that complaints of someone screaming during sex is reason to invade someone's privacy?

really?

[pipi_k]

5. The article doesn't state

whether or not the police first asked permission to search the home.

If they were granted permission, it's not an "invasion of privacy".


The occupants could have denied permission, forcing the police to obtain a search warrant.

[RainDog]

7. the guy went further into his home and the police officer followed him

I guess that indicates consent? if you don't say no it's yes.

I'm surprised that people here defend this obvious invasion of privacy.

the "anonymous 911 call" takes precedence over no sight of any violence, two people who, in any logical world, account for the noise, and no indication of any other criminal actions.

next time you have a screaming orgasm, make sure to call the police to tell them it was just fun, not a dangerous situation, so you don't get your door busted down just when you thought you were going to have a great night's sleep. lol.

[pipi_k]

12. Where does it say in the article that "the guy went further into his home"

and the police officer "followed him"?

I didn't see that.



Edited:

OK...I didn't realize the article went further down the page...

It does state, however, that the guy took few steps to prevent the police from entering his home, but then there was the faint odor of marijuana.

That right there gives police reasonable cause to do a search.

[RainDog]

18. here

Law.com reports that McGacken initially took few steps to prevent the police from entering his home. When he was asked for identification, he went upstairs to retrieve it and "did not object when a trooper followed him."

and at Law.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446277497&rss=newswire

Screaming too loud during sex can get you or your partner arrested in New Jersey, thanks to an appeals court ruling handed down on Monday.

Affirming denial of a motion to suppress drugs found in a Farmingdale, N.J., home, the judges said the screaming reported by a neighbor gave police an objectively reasonable basis to believe that a limited investigation was necessary to determine whether anyone was in need of aid.

Even after the occupants gave a plausible explanation -- that the cries were released in the height of passion -- the potential for harm was sufficient for police to search further, the court said in State v. McGacken, A-4527-08.

Responding to an anonymous 911 call, state troopers went to Brian McGacken's home on Feb. 17, 2007, and he answered the door dressed in a bathrobe. When he explained the source of the noise, the troopers asked to speak to his girlfriend. She came downstairs wearing a towel and confirmed his explanation. Nevertheless, the troopers asked McGacken for identification. He went upstairs to retrieve it and did not object when a trooper followed him.

[pipi_k]

20. fixed my reply as you posted this n/t

[appal_jack]

131. only in a proto-fascist state

"It does state, however, that the guy took few steps to prevent the police from entering his home, but then there was the faint odor of marijuana.

That right there gives police reasonable cause to do a search."

No it does not. The Founding Fathers did not grant any level of government the power to imprison people for cultivating, possessing, or smoking plants of any variety. If you really believe that the "faint odor of marijuana" constitutes a valid reason for a police officer to conduct a search of premises without a warrant, then you are not a progressive, a liberal, nor, I would posit, a true American. A "faint odor of marijuana" can be stated by any police officer at any time: maybe because there is a skunk under the porch, maybe because the suspect has not showered in a few days, or maybe because the officer is making shit up.

There is no "Reasonable Cause" in this search.

-app

[Deep13]

31. Screaming, yes, ...

...they didn't know it was sex from the call to dispatch and had they taken that couple's word for it and been wrong, the consequences would have been disasterous. Sorry, but a welfare check like that is not a search within the meaning of the 4th Amend.

[jobycom]

112. Jeffrey Dahmer

Early in Jeffrey Dahmer's killing career, a neighbor called the police to report screaming. Jeffrey answered the door, and told the cops he and his boyfriend were just being loud. Another man came to the door, and corroborated the story, and the cops left.

Dahmer admitted he strangled the man as soon as the cops left, and he had threatened the man to get him to placate the cops. Dahmer killed several other people afterwards.

So unless you know of some way the cops can prove that the woman wasn't under duress, or was even actually the woman screaming rather than an accomplice, I say yeah, the cops had an obligation to search the house.

Our goofy civil rights abusing drug laws, now, that's another story.

[Bunny]

6. Or the man had been beating up the woman and

she covered up for him and corroborated his claims when the cops showed up. It wouldn't be the first time a woman defended her abuser to the police. They could have been looking for signs of a domestic disturbance: disarray, overturned furniture, whatever.

[RainDog]

9. so if they had turned over furniture during sex

the couple should still be assumed to be guilty of something?

if the woman had no visible signs of abuse?

at what point does something like this become a gross invasion of privacy, or does that not matter at all?

[Bunny]

24. "While loud sex may have been a plausible source of screaming,

that explanation was not so reliable that the police acted unreasonably in investigating further." I don't consider this a gross invasion of privacy at all. I see the police responding to a report of screams and investigating it until they were satisfied that no one was being harmed. The man confirmed that screaming had occurred, so it was not a false allegation of noise. I guess the moral of the story is if you're going to grow and keep enough weed in your home to get you a ten-year sentence, you should try to be unobtrusive in your daily activities, including sex.

Oh, and some of us can manage to have sex without screaming (at least not loud enough for the neighbors to hear) AND with all the furniture still intact.

[RainDog]

27. lol

and because YOU aren't a screamer, that's all that's important.

and the default is to assume that an anonymous call has precedence over a reasonable explanation.

and the default is that, even tho NJ is implementing legal mmj laws, which invalidates the ENTIRE war on drugs arguments/scheduling...

being stupid is reason enough to have your right to privacy violated and to get a 10 year sentence for growing your own.

wow.

[Bunny]

38. You are completely determined to miss the point,

which is that the man and woman both verified that screaming had occurred, so it was no longer an anonymous or false complaint. Law enforcement was REQUIRED to investigate, to their satisfaction, that no one was being harmed. You know, the cops actually returned one of Jeffrey Dahmer's teenage victims to him, after Jeffrey explained that they'd just had a little disagreement. The kid later turned up dead in Jeffrey's apartment. The cops accepted a 'reasonable explanation' and someone died as a result.

Now you're going off on a tangent about marijuana laws, and I happen to agree that ten years in prison is way too much time for the amount the guy had in his home, but that's not the point, is it? There are a lot of stupid people in prison, so yeah, doing stupid shit can sure land your ass in jail.

[CTyankee]

124. We had a family next door whose teenage daughter used to scream

when she and her boyfriend had sex (windows open, neighbors heard). Her screams, however, were more along the "F**K ME! F**K ME!" variety but nonethless somewhat puzzling to some of the children of the neighborhood...

The next person to move in after them was a stunning blonde who had, um, "gentlement callers" but she did not scream...we found out later that it was a "business" for her, but for a while hubby was thinking she was just oversexed.

We have such a nice, quiet neighborhood...

[Missy Vixen]

125. We had those next-door-neighbors, too

We lived in a townhouse with a connecting wall, which had little soundproofing. The neighbor in question made sure to leave the bedroom window open at all times. He probably thought her screams attracted other lonely ladies in the neighborhood.

Everyone we know that ever visited our place still tell stories about the exhibitionist neighbors.

[YOY]

8. What/how people scream during sex and beatings are usually pretty different.

"OOH YES YES YES OH GOD YES YES OOH"

vesus

"AAH NO NO NO PLEASE GOD NO NO NO AAAH"

I'd say it's not a tough call. Your personal experiences may vary.

[Codeine]

Ahem.

We don't all have vanilla sex. ;)

[YOY]

16. I am mentally programmed to stop/pause at the word "No."

I think victims of sexual abuse/rape would generally agree it's a sound policy.

I'm hardly 'vanilla'...but the S&M thing ain't my bag. :evilgrin:

[Deep13]

33. "anonymous 911 call complaining of screams coming from McGacken's home"

That's all they knew.

[YOY]

34. That Anonymous really needs to do some *ahem* homework.

n/t

[Tailormyst]

65. Not everyone has that standardized version of sex

[YOY]

71. "Your experience may vary" and "usually" would show that I know that.

n/t

[TrogL]

105. That's assuming you're still capable of verbalization

Loud orgasm with bed banging against wall and incoherent ranting with head banging against wall sound identical.

[YOY]

113. The "somebody get a squeegee" one?

n/t

[Codeine]

3. I assume that the police

wanted to make sure that there was not someone actually hurt in the home. The fact that two people make a statement doesn't mean a third person might actually be in distress. :shrug: I guarantee that if the police had left and someone was hurt or dying people would be outraged.

[RainDog]

4. honestly? another person claiming that a reasonable explanation isn't enough?

because of a noise complaint?

[Codeine]

10. Calling about screaming isn't a noise complaint.

There's a legitimate concern about the safety of whoever may be in the house. The officers have a DUTY to make sure nobody is in danger. A lame-ass explanation isn't always enough.

Perhaps people shouldn't be so stupid as to make a shit-ton of noise when they have a houseful of weed. :shrug:

[RainDog]

15. agreed. BUT

but that doesn't make it okay to insist on searching someone's home because of an anonymous 911 call after talking to the adults involved.

[pipi_k]

37. OK I read the rest of the article...

The appellant ruling said:


"The police are not required to accept the explanation that a person answering the door gives for a distress call. While loud sex may have been a plausible source of screaming, that explanation was not so reliable that the police acted unreasonably in investigating further...."


I agree. The police would be negligent in automatically assuming someone's explanation of noise was true. Case in point...how many times had the police been to the home of that pig who held Jaycee Dugard over the 18 years he had her? Had even one of them investigated a bit further, she might have been spared a whole lot of suffering.

Two people could indeed be having sex, but it might have been with a minor child. Or an unwilling adult participant.



Also from the article:


"Law.com reports that McGacken initially took few steps to prevent the police from entering his home. When he was asked for identification, he went upstairs to retrieve it and "did not object when a trooper followed him."

On the second floor, the trooper smelled raw marijuana and saw McGacken use his foot to push a tray under a couch. Asked what was on the tray, McGacken admitted it was marijuana. In the bedroom, the trooper saw bagged and loose marijuana as well as growing plants. Arrested, McGacken consented to a search of his home, resulting in the seizure of 12.5 ounces of loose and bagged marijuana, 15 plants and marijuana-related equipment and paraphernalia."

The guy did not object when the trooper followed him upstairs.

The trooper saw the guy push a tray under a couch. He admitted, upon being asked, that it was pot.

Upon arrest, he consented to a search of his home.

Police did not conduct a search until they were given permission to do so.


They investigated a complaint of screaming and wanted to make sure it was ONLY the two occupants.

Perfectly reasonable.

[uncle ray]

68. except for ten years in jail for a small personal grow.

maybe if that wee little fact was different, than we wouldn't be so upset over the invasion. in more reasonable states, he would be charged with possession, and likely get no jail time for a first offense.

the police need to stop being the "fun police". once they actually entered the home, saw no problem, but a few pot plants, they should have apologized for the inconvenience and politely offered to be on their way, then the homeowner would have offered them a bowl as a good will offering. the police would decline, being on duty, but maybe next time buddy!

really, what would be the problem with that?

[pipi_k]

114. The sentence for having the pot sucks, yes...but...

If it's illegal to have it, why call attention to yourself in any way, shape, or form in the first place? Yeah, it's not illegal to have loud sex, but...people need to THINK about the consequences of their actions.


It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some people can be.

Someone out driving with no license or registration...driving a stolen car...carrying illegal substances on them...whatever...

What do they do? Call attention to themselves by speeding or going through a red light or something similar.


If you're doing something illegal, stay as low-profile as possible, and that means no loud parties, no noise that might irritate or piss off the neighbors, etc.

It's almost like some of them WANT to be caught.

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

14. Exactly

[tammywammy]

25. +1 n/t

[pnwmom]

11. A woman screaming loud enough to be heard outside shouldn't be ignored.

I disagree that the police should have just believed the woman. It wouldn't be the first time one person tried to cover up for another.

[bemildred]

49. I agree.

And people that grow pot ought not attract attention to themselves.

[Webster Green]

13. 10 years in prison for a little pot? That is insane!

Arrested, McGacken consented to a search of his home, resulting in the seizure of 12.5 ounces of loose and bagged marijuana, 15 plants and marijuana-related equipment and paraphernalia.

McGacken is serving a 10-year sentence with no possibility of parole for 39 months. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[RainDog]

22. it's insane, agreed.

so is the idea that two consenting adults give up their right to privacy if they scream during sex, provide an explanation to police, appear in the flesh to verify...

but apparently for some here, THE POSSIBILITY that someone may not be telling the truth is reason enough to assume someone is lying in face of an "occam's razor" moment for a 911 call.

[NeedleCast]

26. You seem determined to miss the point here

The police have a responsibility to investigate. Two people at the door going "nope, nothing going on here" is not good enough because, should there really be foul play going on, woe to the officer who accepted that explanation and then had a dead body turn up in the house a few days later.

This may be a case of an over-reaction by nosey neighbors, but I don't think it's a case of unreasonable search.

[RainDog]

29. why isn't it good enough?

why isn't the physical appearance of people who provide a logical explanation good enough?

there was NO reason to assume anyone was being harmed at that point, was there?

it is overreaching to claim that ANY complaint gives police the right to enter someone's home.

[NeedleCast]

40. Because they could be lying?

I understand your argument here but according to a poll prisoners, prisons are 95% full with innocent people.

The issue I have here is with not knowing any of the back story. Is this a place the police have been called to before? Have "screaming noises" been complained about before? Is the person who called the cops a nosey-nelly type neighbor?

I wasn't there so I'm inclined not to second guess the cop. They unharmed physical appearance of dude and his girlfriend doesn't mean there wasn't someone else in the house being victimized.

[RainDog]

43. I guess the lesson here

is to use a ball cock. :think:

I guess I live in a world in which it is assumed that, when two adults give a reasonable explanation for something, that is sufficient reason to assume they have a right to privacy.

thankfully I am not a screamer or a grower.

to say that all calls require the assumption of a possible criminal reason seems like an assumption of guilt.

[Echo In Light]

51. +1 - the 'need' to search was 110% Bull. Shit.

[NeedleCast]

52. Have you read the article?

I mean, dude could have taken steps to stop this at any time.

He went upstairs to get ID and didn't object when the cop followed him up. He could have.

Once it was discovered that he had a bedroom full of weed and he was arrested, the cop asked for permission to search the rest of the house and he consented.

I'm all for freedom from false search and seizure but you also have some responsibility for knowing your rights. It's not unreasonable for dude to say "sure, please wait here while I get my ID."

As has been pointed out - several times - in this thread, two people who'd have a reason to give the same expalation for "loud screams" doesn't mean they both not lying. I completely get what you're saying, I do, I agree that I don't want to live in a world where an annoying neighbor can report me for something and that such a report gives the police de facto permission to search my house. But that's not what happened here.

[tammywammy]

55. +1 n/t

[RainDog]

62. you assume he knew the police officer was following him to his bedroom

yes, many people have pointed out that an explanation doesn't mean someone isn't lying.

I understand that.

What I do not understand is why a rational explanation isn't enough in response to an anonymous call.

When do people give up their rights to privacy based upon someone else's misunderstanding?

The issue comes down to which side do you think should have the greater rights... those who explain something to police officers who show up at your house when you are not engaged in harm to others or the officers who are there.

To say that there may be someone else inside really doesn't address the issue that, given the circumstances, the logical assumption would be that the call is a false alarm.

To me it comes down to when is a presumption of innocence enough?

that's long before the police went into the guy's bedroom.

[tammywammy]

67. So go with he didn't know the police officer was following him

Why the fuck did he admit he had pot and/or consent to the search?

"On the second floor, the trooper smelled raw marijuana and saw McGacken use his foot to push a tray under a couch. Asked what was on the tray, McGacken admitted it was marijuana. In the bedroom, the trooper saw bagged and loose marijuana as well as growing plants. Arrested, McGacken consented to a search of his home, resulting in the seizure of 12.5 ounces of loose and bagged marijuana, 15 plants and marijuana-related equipment and paraphernalia."

[RainDog]

75. the police officer followed him upstairs

when the guy went upstairs to get his i.d. (which, obviously, the police requested.)

the article states that before that moment the guy had not given consent. that was only after the cop followed him and saw evidence of an actual criminal activity.... growing weed.

he got his i.d. after his girlfriend appeared and told the officers that the reason for the screams were sex.

[jberryhill]

86. The issue there is...

The cop is at the door and asks for ID, perhaps to confirm that it is the guy's residence.

He then is going to go into another room and return to the door.

Do you see the problem the cop is facing there?

[tammywammy]

106. And all the guy had to say is

"Wait here and I'll get my ID."

[jberryhill]

116. Maybe...

But I think there is a safety issue when someone at the door wants to go to another room and come back to the door. He may be retrieving a weapon.

Overall, yes, if for whatever reason - be it not wanting people in the house because it is a mess - or no reason at all, one should be very specific with police if one does not in general want other people to enter one's house. Any indication of consent will be taken to the max, and then they can turn the place upside down on officer safety grounds. They don't clean up afterwards, either.

[liberalhistorian]

149. Frankly, most people don't realize that they

can refuse to consent to a search; they think they must comply. It wouldn't have mattered much had he refused anyway, because the police likely would have been able to quickly obtain a search warrant based upon their observations.

[NeedleCast]

70. I still think you're not giving the other side of the story any credit

I mean, lets just for example say these two have some kid back in the bedroom and they've been pounding on him for awhile because he owes them money for weed. These things do happen. The cops accepts their explanation and little Billy is found in a dumpster aroudn the corner the next morning...who do you think is going to get shit on here?

I don't think the anonymous phone call is any sort of factor here. If the cop drove by with his window down and heard a scream he's got a plausible reason to investigate. The determination of who notified the police really doesn't factor in this, IMO.

If a plausible explanation is a good enough reason to get out of a possible criminal act, then I'd never get a speeding ticket because I can assure you (and any cop that pulls me over) that I'm going to have an plausible explanation of why I was going 70 in a 55. I just wouldn't expect you (or a cop) to believe me.

[RainDog]

78. but is that the rational scenario?

someone appears unharmed but claims screaming sex.

the majority of people in this nation, I think most would agree, do not have children locked away in their homes.

it could be argued, however, that someone having sex in their own home may make noises not meant for public consumption.

if the cop heard someone screaming from his car window and was met by the same people, I still assume that a presumption of innocence in the face of a logical explanation would be the default in a nation that assumes people are not acting against the interests of the state in their day-to-day lives.

the speeding analogy doesn't hold because you were actually committing a crime by speeding. screaming doesn't rise to the level of a crime, as far as I know.

[NeedleCast]

88. I don't know how you think it isn't

Shit, people have provided you with examples all through this thread of cases where cops have ignored suspicious circumstances and things turned out to be very bad. Dahmer is the biggest, shiniest example. You also seem to be arguing this from a standpoint that the cop KNEW there were only two people in the house and I don't have any idea why you think that's a logical argument.

The majority of people in this nation, I think you would agree, do not have sex at a volume so loud as to disturb a neighbor to a level that they thought something might be amiss. I agree with your notion that most people do not have children or other victims of crime locked away in their houses but some do, so if suspicious circumstances arise, I sure as hell hope my local police force would investigate them instead of taking the "nothing to see here" statement of the possible perpitrator at face value.

Additionally, if a neighbor heard screaming coming from my house I hope, most earnestly, that they would call the cops!

You keep acting like the only possible number of people in the house was two. It's not.

The analogy was meant to point out that people lie to the cops all the time and if the cops simply accepted any plausible explanation as evidence that nothing illegal was going on, our prisons would be empty.

[RainDog]

92. probability

maybe the difference is that I operate in an environment in which people do not regularly reveal themselves as criminals - real criminals intent on harming others.

if I look at the probability that a police officer would come to my home or the homes of most everyone I know and find someone in the basement being tortured - the probability is very low compared to the explanation that someone got a little too enthusiastic cheering for the "home team."

knowing that, I would want police officers to employ that same logic in regard to my and my neighbor's privacy.

if the call had been to the house and someone was watching a football game and screaming because of, would that rise to the level of reasonable assumption that someone was being tortured, too?

[NeedleCast]

94. Looking at probablity is all well and good until you're the victim

Must suck pretty hard to be the person tied up in the bedroom when the cop says "Ahhh, just a case of loud monkey sex, carry on then!"

Is it likely? No.

Is it plausible? Yes.

And I think the cops have some level of responsibility to operate under the plausibility that something bad may be happening. I hope you understand that I *don't* think its okay for cops to pick a house at random and search it because there's a chance something illegel might be going on. In this case though, I think they had a reason. I'm also not saying there aren't circumstances where the cops should treat this more frivilously. If the neighbor that called had a history of making calls to the cops at the drop of a hat, then sure, I think a good enough explanation was provided. Had one of those types three houses down from me as a kid and believe me, she would call five-0 every time a teenager walked down the street. Pretty soon though, cops just ignored her...she was the proverbial lady who cried wolf.

In the football scenario I would say again that it's circumstantial. If the cop shows up and sees several rowdy people gathered around a TV with snacks and beer, I'd say no further investigation is warrented. If its one dude in a house by himself with the TV turned to something that isn't football and that explanation is given, then maybe further investigation is warrented.

Okay, I've been DU'ing for 2 hours now, gotta go do some work at work. Good talking to you though, even if we disagree over this.

[jberryhill]

83. The call is not "anonymous" to 911

They know who called.

[MattSh]

111. Two points...

1. Uh, why should anyone in his own house have to produce ID?

Because the police ask for it? It's his freaking house!

2. The notion that loud noise should always be investigated is bullshit.

What if the guilty party's dog crapped on his neighbors lawn earlier that day? And neighbor then decides to call in a phony noise complaint. There wasn't actually any loud noise. Just a complaint about it. Should it always be assumed that each and every call to 911 is legitimate?

Whether the owner said anything or not, any evidence gathered without a warrant should be thrown out. Even if, at some point, the police claimed that they thought the owner granted permission...

.

[jberryhill]

82. Can I ask you a question?

Remember this situation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125139175921764061.html

"PLACERVILLE, Calif. -- A woman kidnapped in 1991 when she was 11 years old was reunited with her family after allegedly being held captive 18 years by a sex offender who fathered two children with her, authorities said Thursday."

Okay, so a guy and his wife had a woman imprisoned in their backyard for 18 years.

Let's say she screamed at one point or another. The police arrive, and the captors say, "We were having loud sex."

This wasn't "any" call, it was a call about a woman screaming. The woman at the door may not be the woman who was heard screaming.

It's not a matter of reflexively believing someone is lying. You just don't know whether they are lying or not, but you do know there was a report of a woman screaming.

I used to live near a wooded area with a pretty good fox population. They make an awful noise at night sometimes, and newcomers would regularly report to the police that "a woman is screaming in the woods". Knowing it was probably one of the foxes, the police would come out and sweep the area, just in case.

[pipi_k]

118. Good point...I have a friend with a service dog...at least once a month

she's reported to the animal authorities by a nosy old neighbor who insists that she is "abusing" her animal because she takes the dog wherever she goes. In other words, she never leaves the dog at home.

Uhhhhh...HELLO???? Earth to idiot...It's a fucking service dog

anyway, each time there's a report, she's investigated.

The people come out and the first thing they say to her is, "Oh, abusing Nikki, again, huh?"

They do an "investigation", and each time she's cleared.


But they HAVE to investigate every report.

[Johonny]

45. I agree

It's the kind of action that leads to little girls living in tents in the back yards of child molesters. Police are often found in no win situations. The call is probably nothing, but to ignore the complaint could lead to dire circumstances for the department plus a person in actual distress.

The whole stories hard to believe. Who would think these people would be so hyperactive with that much weed around :P

[arcadian]

90. I heard loud screams at Needlecast's house last night.

Think I'll call the cops. See? How easy it can be done?

[RainDog]

91. and you should assume someone is being tortured

lol.

(just teasing, needlecast.)

[NeedleCast]

95. I certainly hope you would!

In fact, I'll just assure everyone on DU right now that if you know me, and you hear screams of any type coming from my house, PLEASE CALL THE COPS!!

[arcadian]

104. No, you see, that's the point.

I made it up, I just want the cops to visit your house.

[NeedleCast]

123. Yes, I understand that it's a double edged sword and I've said so many times in this thread

Of course, the reverse side of this argument, the one you seem to be making, is that cops shouldn't investigate screams reported at a house unless the person who answers the door is what, covered in blood?

[bridgit]

17. Oh yes, very powerful, I saw that movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gmdPgJeo8 But people are just plain dumb to draw attention to a residence with plants growing. Cops will come in if it sounds like someone is being murdered, slapped around or squirrels are being set on fire too for that matter. There was a case back some time about some hydroponic growers. Authorities showed up after a spike in power usage. Dreadlocked fully baked rasta-boy answers the door with a joint in his mouth...that operation went down too :(

[uncle ray]

93. please, this was a tiny personal grow.

if you're running a 20kw commercial grow, then yes, you do nothing to draw attention to yourself. this sounds like a strictly personal grow, nothing anybody should be doing jail time over, the guy wasn't caught selling on the street or driving while high. the guy may have had thought he had a reasonable police officer in his presence, not a fucking pig.

another thing, it sure isn't easy to stand nose to nose to a cop and tell him he is not going to get his way today. many years back i was once one of those "plain dumb" people who "drew attention to themselves". foolish enough to invite the police to my home for a medical emergency. well actually i invited an ambulance, but the police always show up. instead of them tending to a dying person they are grilling me about a locked door. they were insistent but so was i, and insisted they focus on the dying person they were called about. they eventually left without further incident and certainly didn't bust me for a shitty little grow op. and the girl lived. maybe i should have not called 911 when i found here there unconscious? the point is, it takes nerves of steel to tell them NO! most times they will search anyway(been there too), because they know with relative confidence, that the only people that say no are those with something to hide, good law abiding folks always cave in to authority and let them have their way, because as we all know, "we have nothing to hide!" only dangerous criminals like potheads actually know and assert their rights.

what a shame so many defend our cannabis laws and mock and ridicule those who get caught up in the system because of them. the irony is, if the cannabis laws were more lax, less of us would assert our rights, and there would be more invasion of privacy. i realize in the OP and my case, the police were ostensibly acting in the interest of some victim, trying to gather information, it is unfortunate that the very real threat of imprisonment for the mere act of growing and consuming a relatively benign plant in your own home, and then having a night of fun sex with your spouse should have to get in the way of cooperating with the police to solve their investigation. of course i would love to have opened that door to give the officers the assurance they needed that there was nothing of concern to the case they were investigating there.

[bridgit]

138. Less than agreed with as a summary matter "personal grow" or no ~

[WI_DEM]

19. The problem is somebody phoned a complaint. A woman corroborated his claim, but...

how would the police know she wasn't involved in some crime involving somebody else? I'm on the fence on this one. There have been lots of incidents of crimes being committed by couples.

[kanrok]

30. It was a good search, IMHO

The concept of "exigent circumstances" has always been an exception to the 4th amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches.

I agree with the posters who pointed out that police inaction in the face of screams in a house could lead to litigation against the police department.

If they didn't bust in under the circumstances they would not be doing their job.

I also agree that the police had reasonable cause to search further, even after the man and the woman gave their story.

There could have been a third person injured or killed, and again, they would be remiss in their duty not to check.

I do not, however, dismiss the potential for this being a ruse by the police.

It is entirely possible that they made up the anonymous 9-11 call since they had suspicion that there was already substantial pot in the home.

I assume the defense attorney did his job and subpoenaed the 9-11 information.

If he did and that didn't pan out, then, this isn't even a close question, IMHO.

[Wizard777]

48. SCOTUS has already ruled that the police have NO duty to protect anyone from anything.

If they did Baltimore City Police would rack up about 300 wrongful death death suits a year from the families of the 300 Homicide victims. The police also have no duty to stop a crime in progress.

[jberryhill]

117. You are confusing specific and general duties

No, you cannot sue the police for not specifically protecting you. That is the decision you are indirectly referencing.

It is also not the issue here.

The issue here is whether the police have the right to investigate a report indicating someone in potential jeopardy. Yes, they do.

Those are two unrelated issues.

[NeedleCast]

57. its important to note that at NO TIME did the cops "bust in"

The cop walked in when the guy who answered the door went up to his bedroom (where the weed was) and didn't ask the cop to wait outside.

After he was arrested, dude gave consent to have his house searched.

[NeedleCast]

21. Poor Decision Making 101

If you're going to grow a bunch of weed in your house it's a bad idea to do anything to attract attention to said house.

[RainDog]

23. and so the guy deserves 10 years behind bars for a small amount of pot

yep.

makes perfect sense.

[NeedleCast]

28. Define Small

Dude had three quarters of a pound of weed plus sevearl more plants. That's hardly "personal use" quantities.

I smoke and I'm all for legalization. Unfortunatley the officer is responsible for investigating a possible crime and this donkey had a pile of weed that would have lasted me three years. I'm not going to blame a cop for doing it's job and I'm not going to blame a judge for a sentance that appears to be defined in the penal or legal code of the state.

Does he deserve 10 years? I don't think so, but the person responsible for him being in jail is him (and a fairly vocal girlfriend, possibly).

[RainDog]

35. how do you know that's not personal?

you don't. you're basing this upon your consumption.

and in any case...

the weed was not in sight when the police went to the door. the police claim the weed was not known until a police officer followed the guy to his bedroom on another floor.

the issue is that the judge claimed that it was not enough for innocent people to explain a situation to a police officer. (innocent as in there was a logical explanation for screaming from the residence.)

[NeedleCast]

47. Its not defined as peronal by any laws that I know of

and that's what the court is going to base it's sentance on...not what NeedleCast or RainDog define as personal use. Do I think 10 years is ridiculous? Yes.

I otherwise agree with the judge...I find the dude's explanation insufficient to not warrent at least a casual search.

It doesn't sound like an intesive search was going on. It doesn't seem like there was a team of cops there flipping over furniture and opening boxes. I think a cop saying "Hey look, I understand, you guys were having a good time, not a big deal, but I'm under an obligation to take a quick look around" is pretty reasonable.

[Webster Green]

63. It varies from state to state...there are places where this is personal use..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=59261

[NeedleCast]

72. I'm glad the jury aquitted them

I can't imagine being able to function on four "cigar sized" joints a day, but not really a problem...I don't care.

But we're still talking apples and oranages. The folks in your link were aquitted by jury. This dude was not. At which point he gets sentence, and which point the penal code kicks in to determine what the legal definition of personal use is.

[Webster Green]

77. Yep.

It's no accident that I choose to live in one of the more civilized areas in this country.

[Webster Green]

36. That is personal use quantity for some people.

And even if he was selling a little to friends (which is likely..I sure would), big fucking deal.

Cruel and unusual punishment is what's happening here.

[NeedleCast]

44. We're talking about to different things

I pretty much agree with you that 10 years is a ridiculous sentence.

I've been mostly talking about the claim by OP that this was an invasion of privacy...

...and making a point that if you're going to do something illegal - whether I think it should be legal or not - it's a really bad a idea to attract a lot of attention.

I speed on the D.C. Beltway. I don't give the cops the finger when I speed by them...

[Webster Green]

59. Lol!

I hear that!

Caution is the keyword, especially if you live in one of the states with regressive pot laws. :hippie:

[reggie the dog]

109. why would you sell to your friends?

my buddies who grow just give weed to their friends when they have it. There is a pot anarchist movement here in France which involves people growing a shitload and giving it away for free, you just gotta be lucky enough to know the right people.

[reggie the dog]

54. three quarters of a pound would last me

six months, it takes about 5 months to grow, harvest, and dry pot. They busted someone likely growing for themselves. Two people could easily smoke three quarters of a pound, or even a pound in the time that they were waiting for their next harvest to be ready.

[NeedleCast]

58. Super

but not the point.

[Raineyb]

64. Actually he's explaining how an amount that you consider not so small may actually not be

as much as you think it is. I would say that was very much the point.

[reggie the dog]

108. it is to the point, you said they had a lot of weed

I say that is not a lot, it is only enough to last until the next harvest. If your goal is to no longer support the black market you have to grow engough to last. If all goes well I will get a kilo off of my outdoor plants this year. So the cops would find over 2 pounds in november and progressively less until the next harvest.

[krabigirl]

103. wow..just wow. You know, child rapers get less time than that.

But drug warriors rule this POS country, so this is what we get.

What he did wrong was let the cops inside his house....

[Grand Taurean]

129. When law enforcment enforces bad law,

they are guilty of promoting injustice as
LAW and JUSTICE are not the same thing.

[kanrok]

32. The pot is a different issue

Whether he deserves any prison time for possession of pot can be debated.

The search appeared to be constitutional.

[AngryAmish]

41. Putting someone in jail for pot is stupid

That said, the police do have to look around if they hear screaming. And with the plain sight doctrine, there you go.

[kanrok]

60. Agreed

Nice avatar.

[JackRiddler]

96. Wow, you are the fascist's best friend!

That's the one who blames the victim for not protecting himself well enough against his rapists.

Ten years worth of rape, in fact. For some pot plants. He shouldn't have worn that short skirt, I guess.

[KittyWampus]

39. It hadn't been established it was just "loud sex" between consensual partners.

[Wizard777]

42. For all intents and purposes the Fourth Amendment is dead.

[Gman2]

46. They dont need any screaming to do home invasion.

The pigs that invaded me, stood outside my home, and claimed to hear a woman crying. So, four thugs bang on my door with guns in my face. Search my home without permission, find my med mar grow, and do further search. All they need is to CLAIM to have had a call. End of story. You have NO PRIVACY. I was asleep, live alone, and have heart failure.

[Echo In Light]

56. _

[Grand Taurean]

130. Oink!

[Wizard777]

50. The link is not working.

[RainDog]

53. here it is again

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/loud-sex-cops-search-home/

and the original link at law.com

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446277497&rss=newswire

[Wizard777]

73. I've already read this case The guy is a dumbass. He let the officer follow him in.

He should have told the officer you can't come in you'll have to wait on the porch. He admitted to being in possession of Marijuana. Then consented to a search after being arrested.

But this guy being a dumbass doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS has weakened the Fourth Amendment to the point it has actually become the very thing the Fourth Amendment was meant to prohibit. That's a Writ of Assistance.

[unblock]

61. if you're screaming loudly enough for neighbors to hear, it's not private

second, many abuse victims tell police that there is no abuse, especially when the abuser is right there. the state does have a reasonable interest in searching the home for evidence of abuse.

that said, i have a strong bias toward protecting peoples' privacy and i'm not sure the state's interest in investigating a potential abuse/rape situation based solely on a neighbor's claim of a scream during what may have been consensual sex (as claimed by the alleged victim) rises to the level needed to justify a search of the premises.

finally, as usual, if you don't want the police to search you or your home, the best approach is to state clearly that you do not consent to a search. that avoids a lot of grey areas.

[uncle ray]

97. it's easy to preach "just say no".

it's a lot harder to do with a cop breathing down your nose. and it's a lot harder to do anything about it when they decide to go ahead and search anyway.

if the police involved in this matter were not assholes, they would have let him be, and nobody would be calling him an idiot for cooperating with police. we can change the laws so this is not an issue anymore.

[Wizard777]

66. Did the officers hear the screams? If not they are proceeding upon hearsay.

The hearsay plus and observation, like evidence of struggle, by the officer could form probable cause with an exigent circumstance. Unless the officers hear the screams they have no reason to believe anyone is in danger. Another problem they will have is that they did not allow reasonable suspicion or probable cause to dissipate. They presence of both parties at the door with no visible signs of a struggle and the explanation should have caused the suspicion to dissipate.

[NeedleCast]

The presence of both parties

doesn't mean there isn't a third party.

You and the OP keep making this arugment that it was a known quantity that there were two people in the house. It wasnt.

[RainDog]

79. why do the police get to assume what is not in evidence? n/t

[Wizard777]

84. But the burden on the probable cause to believe there was a third party is upon the police.

They would need probable cause. They had a hunch that there might be a third party. That doesn't even rise to reasonable suspicion.

[chrisa]

87. I completely disagree.

Crimes committed by couples is not unheard of. Also, someone being threatened, with the person who was beating or threatening them being right there, might cause them to claim that nothing is going wrong.

My question is, how did the police find the pot? I'm thinking the guy either had it out in the open, or told the officers that he had pot. Otherwise, the officers would have had to pick the house apart for a long time. The lesson here is, hide your pot well, and don't tell police officers that you have it.

[slampoet]

107. They searched his entire house up and down. That's how they found it.

You need to read the article.

Essentially the decision gives the police the right to search your entire home even ripping apart the walls if there is even one reported sexual sounds reported by an anonymous caller.

[TorchTheWitch]

134. the couple admitted there was screaming

No hearsay. The cops get a call from a neighbor that hears screaming coming from the house. The cops rightfully go to the house to investigate. The couple TELLS the cops that Yes, there WAS screaming and add that the reason for it was consensual sex. The cops STILL have an obligation to further investigate the alleged reason for the ADMITTED screaming. The couple admitting there was screaming going on in the house is already probable cause to search the house regardless of what plausible explanation was given by the couple. The cops have no reason to believe there was no one else in the house that may have been doing the screaming or that the woman was not in danger herself and no reason to believe that consensual sex was the actual reason for the admitted screaming.

There is no problem here. The cops acted correctly and the court has already ruled and ruled correctly.

[Tailormyst]

69. The problem is not that cops entered the home

The problem is that we are still jailing people for possession/ growing of pot.

[Codeine]

74. I don't think anybody here will dispute that point.

We're just arguing about the validity of the search.

[uncle ray]

99. the validity of the search is the guys only chance.

because the pot laws, and our justice system are unreasonable.

[Tailormyst]

101. Personally I believe they were right to enter the home, BUT

anything beyond making sure no one was hurt should be thrown out in court.

[jberryhill]

121. It's well established that...

...if they had a valid reason for entry, then anything they see in there is fair game.

That would be a slick route to immunity. Call the police yourself and say you are being burgled. Invite them in, let them see whatever is there, and then in any future prosecution say it was off limits.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. Anything in "plain sight" is fair game

They can't tear the place up unless they have a warrant.

[Wizard777]

140. He would have been fine if he just told the cop it's none of his business whats on the tray.

The cop asking him whats on the tray proves it wasn't in "plain" sight. If it was he would have known whats on it. Once the guy kicked it under the couch. The Cops needed a warrant to pull it out. He also should have told the cop he has to wait outside.

But asking for ID is a trick the cops like to play to get in the house. If you have to go get your ID like that guy did. They want to follow you to make sure you're not getting a weapon. From what I understand you only have to give cops your ID when stopped on the street. Not in your home. It also helps to have No Trespassing signs up. Once you've answered reasonable questions you begin to press the trespassing issue. Yes the police can trespass. They have some exemptions while enforcing the law. But it's not absolute. I've seen trespassing cases tossed because the officers themselves were trespassing. They couldn't articulate how they knew the person wasn't on the property with the owners permission before entering the property. They had a hunch at best which is not the reasonable suspicion they would have needed to legally enter. But No trespassing also applies to the police.

[vadawg]

142. no cop is going to wait outside while you get your ID in this situation

i havent checked the house out to make sure everyone is okay, im not letting you walk off to get ID and have you coming back with a gun, this is not a trespass, and yes ive seen trespasses been thrown out as well but not when the officer is enforcing the law or investigating a crime, but you are right hunches are not good enough but reasonable suspicion is and the report of screams would give me more than enough suspicion that i could articulate..

[Wizard777]

144. But your tip is from an anonymous source. So you can't testify to their reliability.

That's also your first clue the call could be a hoax. That's one thing that trips up some cops. The very first thing you must do is determine that a crimes has, is, or is about to be committed. Receiving a complaint doesn't alleviate that. Usually when police arrive that is self evident. But not always. Also these officers didn't hear the screams. So they are proceeding upon hearsay. An officers probable cause is based upon what they witness. Not what others have witnessed.

But like I said, asking for ID is a trick the cops use to gain admittance to the house. Personally I would close the door in their face and call my lawyer.

[vadawg]

146. and if you closed the door on my face, i would make an entry

id rather be wrong than have a dead kid or women on my hands, especially since you both just admitted there had been screaming, there is no way i could leave, imagine if youhad lied to me and you were brutalising someone, i can guarentee you would want my ass in a sling.. also i dont need to witness something for probable cause, if a witness comes up to me and says deputy that man getting on that bus robbed me last week then i have probable cause to stop and to arrrest with the witness going in front of the magistrate for the warrant. I dont need to see a crime in order to make an arrest i just need to be able to convince the magistrate that the witness was credible or my reasons for the arrest where..

[Wizard777]

147. That's fine. But you would be making a warrantless forced entry. Every step you take is on thin ice.

All this because the couple was cooperative. They could have just as easily said, Yeah we heard it too. It sounded like it was coming from next door. You have to becareful of suspicion. It's a dangerous weapon. Suspicion can inflict wounds that not even the truth can heal. Look at Kirk Bloodsworth. The first person in history to be exonerated by DNA evidence. But because of the power of suspicion combined with peoples general unwillingness to admit they are wrong. There are STILL people that actually believe he raped and murdered that lil girl and got away with it. Suspicion is a powerful weapon. It can destroy the innocent just as easily as the guilty.

[uncle ray]

151. translation for the layperson:

"i can lie my ass off to justify what i do. the law says so."


oh and posters, be aware, our buddy is doing exactly what cops do, twist your words "you both just admitted there had been screaming" to justify his actions, even if they are a crime. that is why is a situation like this, the proper way to deal with the police, is to do nothing. don't even answer the door. let them bash it in if they really feel the need, because they are not going to cut you a break, ever. the only way you have a chance in court is if you make them do their jobs the hard way, don't give them anything. the system is stacked in their favor, your only real chance is getting off on a legal technicality with the help of a good lawyer.

you make our lives easy, we'll make your job easy. it doesn't have to be the way it is now.

[uncle ray]

150. and no cop is going to overlook a little pot.

since you are the expert, if only self proclaimed, how about you tell the nice people what happens when the guy refuses to produce his ID?

do you want otherwise law abiding people to cooperate with your investigations? or do you want us to have to make your job difficult for fear of being busted for relatively minor "crimes"?

[jberryhill]

76. On the other hand....

People wonder about how that guy in California managed to keep a woman and her daughter imprisoned in his back yard for years...

[RainDog]

80. so no one should have a right to privacy b/c a few are nuts

yikes.

[KittyWampus]

85. police should never investigate domestic violence because they may incidentally find pot

laying around.

[RainDog]

89. that's not the argument nt

[jberryhill]

98. It is the argument...

And the fact that you raise "presumption of innocence" - a jury rule - in the thread suggests you should read up on Fourth Amendment law.

They received a report of a woman screaming at the house.

The people at the door, including a woman who may or may not have been the one screaming, said they were having loud sex.

At that point, it is not a question of believing them or not. What they did do is to confirm that a woman was screaming, and offer an explanation for the screaming.

This suggests one of several possibilities - (a) they were having loud sex, or (b) someone else was screaming, they know it, so they decided to say they were having loud sex (c) the woman at the door was screaming for other reasons, but is under pressure from the man at the door not to tell the cop he was beating her (which is extremely common). Under these circumstances, it is permissible to resolve any reasonable suspicion by a quick look to see whether anyone else is in the residence and to separate the two, so the woman can be questioned outside of the presence of the man.

The emphasis on the "anonymous" nature of the call is misplaced. 911 knows exactly who called, from where, and from what number. It is only "anonymous" in the sense that 911 won't provide that information to anyone else. That is done so that people who report possible crimes do not face retaliation.

The other issue here is that marijuana should not be illegal in the first place, but we do not live in a world where violent crime does not occur in homes while people at doors offer reasonable explanations.

[RainDog]

100. I don't claim to be a 4th amendment scholar

I'm talking about this as a person in a home who reads about this and thinks... wtf?

because people do make noises in their homes that might alarm others but in no way indicate that person is committing a crime.

nevertheless, people here argue that the assumption should be that noises that are explained in a way that appears to be the logical explanation for such noises is not reason to respect a right to privacy in one's home.

[jberryhill]

115. You are generalizing too far...

These situations tend to be fact specific.

The call wasn't about "noises", it was about a woman screaming to the point where someone outside of the house was worried and called 911. Back at the switchboard, they know who called, from where, and what that person's call history is (as noted above, Mrs. Kravitz nosey neighbor types do tend to get flagged... I witnessed a burglary once and the police said it was a good thing I called, since the first caller was a guy they knew as Frank "No Emergency" Smith).

Now, this ruling was handed down by a three judge panel at the NJ state appellate level, which means four judges have now had a crack at this thing. It can still be appealed up to the New Jersey Supreme Court and from there to the US Supreme Court.

"McGacken's lawyer, Mitchell Ansell, says he may appeal further, insisting the circumstances did not satisfy the test set out by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586 (2004), for justifying the emergency-aid exception."

So, the story may be far from over, and the guy is getting due process.

Try this one on for size:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11558110116492368368

"On January 16, 2008, the Carteret police department received a 9-1-1 call from a person claiming to be John Smith who stated that his sister Kamilah A. Richardson was the victim of a domestic dispute possibly involving a handgun, and he provided her address. When Officer Rosario and three other officers went to that address, they met Richardson outside of her apartment. She indicated that there was no problem at the residence, and she refused to allow the officers into her apartment. She advised that only her eleven-year-old son was in the apartment. The police report indicates that she became "noticeably agitated." The officers went to the apartment door which the child inside opened for them. When Rosario entered the apartment with gun drawn, he immediately observed defendant, whom he recognized, seated in the room in front of the television. While Rosario found no weapons on defendant's person, when he searched the immediate area where defendant had been seated, he found the gun under a pillow on a nearby mattress.

In its decision rendered on January 6, 2009, the trial court found that despite Richardson's assurances that there was no problem, the officers acted reasonably in investigating the matter further because many times a victim of domestic violence will deny that a problem exists..."

[pipi_k]

122. Everyone has a right to privacy except when it comes to

probable cause to believe a crime is, or was, being committed.


Maybe the guy was acting more suspiciously than a little loud sex would justify.


Others have pointed it out above, and I don't know what else it will take to convince you that cops have a DUTY to investigate if, and when, they suspect something is just "not right".


I said it above, and I'll repeat it here...people who are involved in illegal activities (like possessing pot) need to make themselves as unsuspicious as possible. The guy sounds like the same type who would be violating traffic laws while carrying a significant quantity of pot on his person or in his car.


Like they say...the stupid burns.

[chrisa]

81. Yes to entering, imo, NO to the charges.

Ridiculous.

Marijuana should be completely legal anyways.

[Wizard777]

143. I think that if police enter without a warrant to search for persons in need of assistance.

They should be limited to crimes against persons like murder, rape, assault etc. Evidence of contraband or even property crimes would be inadmissible. That would give the police the leeway they need to help victims in danger. But it wouldn't allow them to use that as a run around the warrant requirement for other crimes. As they sometimes do. Most of the cops I've tossed that idea out to think it's fair.

[Swede Atlanta]

102. Too bad...............

I am all for protections against unlawful searches and seizures but......

If you are doing things that are illegal, don't do ANYTHING that might attract attention.

The facts of this case are sensational but, but for the screaming the police wouldn't have been called.

[reggie the dog]

110. At least in Illinois the warrant would have saved him

Shut the door, demand a warrant. The warrant will be to search for violence. They find drugs they can confiscate them but not charge you. I had a friend get out of possession of a half pound and possession of pipes and bongs because the warrant said to search for "heroin" and not "drugs". That was illinois back in the mid 90s

[jberryhill]

120. "exigent circumstances"

If the report was that a woman was screaming, indicating an active violent incident, then they can use the exigent circumstances exception to get in, and do not have to wait for a warrant.

Although I wonder whether the lack of screaming while the police were there would not permit that exception.

You can't get a warrant to look for "violence". You can get a warrant to look for a thing or person.

[Orsino]

119. I know *I* would barge in and check it out. n/t

[jberryhill]

145. For the screaming or the sex?

"If you don't mind, could you show me just how this screaming happened?"

[Greyhound]

126. Well you've certainly brought out the "law & order sheeple" with this one.

I bet you thought this would be viewed as an outrageous intrusion into private citizens lives without cause, didn't you?

[Codeine]

127. As soon as you use the term "sheeple"

you've lost the argument.

[Greyhound]

136. As if there is a point to arguing with a sheep.

I was replying to the OP, not engaging the mindless horde of terrified livestock.
:rofl:

[Grand Taurean]

128. Never conscent to a seach of your personal/private property.

Also, Do NOT talk to law enforcement, do NOT befriend law enforcement, and do NOT marry law enforcement.
Understand?

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

135. even if you need their help in a life or death situation... yeah that will work

[ddeclue]

137. the pot was not germane to a search related to domestic violence

there's no way that meets the 4th amendment test requiring that items to seized be described in the warrant:

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[vadawg]

141. they didnt need a warrant, it was extigent circumstances

there is no way i am going to leave a call that was screams without checking that everyone is okay and not just the people at the door, also no one reneters a vehicle or leaves your sight to go get ID, thats what gets you killed, and if the crap was in plain view..

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Your tax dollars at work.

Congratulations, you just sent, yes, a loud fucking pothead to prison for 10 years.

[pipi_k]

148. I actually agree

The question of whether or not it was legal for the troopers to "find" the pot in the first place aside, yeah...we basically took a guy who wasn't, from all appearances, a violent person or a danger to others, and sentenced him to prison for ten years.

There are rapists and molesters and abusers running around who have gotten less time.

People who have stolen millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Drunk drivers who have been caught multiple times.



Who gets locked up for ten years? The pot smoker.



That's the part that's so ridiculous here.

[uncle ray]

152. times are a changin.

have you heard of the weeks long saga going on in Grand Junction CO? the census bureau is leasing space adjacent to a 1000+ plant legal MMJ grow op. they are not happy with the smells coming through the hvac system, after several federal agencies looked into the issue, they've basically settled on "control your odor better, please" as the solution.

have a nice day cops.:hi: