Posted on 01/17/2011 5:46:00 AM PST by IbJensen
*shrug* - I didn’t say that there never were; I said that I didn’t ever hear about them.
Perhaps you just aren’t looking? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such stories available at the click of a mouse.
But if they smell marijuana and do NOT get a valid warrant, they cannot use the results of the search, correct?
You are missing my point, I think.
The officer must affirm under oath that they smelled marijuana, prior to executing the search. PRIOR to the search. A smell isn’t enough to perform a warrantless search.
If there is significant precedent that belies that last statement, please correct me. But it is the basis by which the state supreme court threw out the case under discussion, unless I misunderstood the article. Therefore, it appears that the avoidance of proper procedure - that is, proper sequence - is a poison in the well against which the case does not survive.
I believe that people should live within the laws of the land. I believe the police must also do so.
I never claimed to have any interest in them, now did I?
Besides which, even “enforcing the law” can be questionable.
Consider this, the New Mexico State Constitution says:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet there is a State Statute prohibiting the carrying of firearms on University grounds [— full text: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=6c1804dd.55b72e94.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.4%27%5D —] as well as a law prohibiting the carrying of weapons on carrying a deadly weapon on school premises [—full text: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=6c1804dd.55b72e94.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.1%27%5D —].
The first statute abridges the right of the Citizen, living in on-campus housing, to both bear AND keep arms (with the possible exception of keeping them in his vehicle; yet there is no guarantee, or legal requirement, that he have a vehicle). So then, if one were to strap on their .45 and openly carry it on campus, and be subsequently arrested, would that arrest be valid?
But let’s go into some even less arguable circumstances. Notice how the State Constitution prohibits a municipality or county from regulating “IN ANY WAY” an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Now, on both municipal and county courthouses there are posted “NO WEAPONS”, and upon inquisition on whose authority that falls under, I have been informed that it is the judge’s own authority. Now the judge, operating in a municipal [or county] courthouse must needs be an agent of that municipality [or county], no? If he is, then how can he be regulating incidents of the right to keep and bear arms? Furthermore, would the attempt to take your weapons with you (say to jury duty) be lawful? [Or would it be “deemed to be ‘unlawful’” or “contempt of court”?]
Insanity Ping.
As TSgt said: “Note this day in history, I agree with Ginsburg and Sotomayor.”
So of course the Drug Warriors need to break the door down so they can achieve this month's arrest quota, and put a man in hell for a decade so they can do *something* while MS13 is selling 12 year-old girls and machine gunning suburban neighborhoods down the street.
The War on Some Drugs is a war on the Constitution.
It's Prohibition on acid, steroids, and meth.
>The War on Some Drugs is a war on the Constitution.
>It’s Prohibition on acid, steroids, and meth.
Not quite; prohibition had Constitutional backing/authorization.
The War on Drugs has... nothing.
Don't ask me. Ask an attorney who has spent years studying case law. "Why were the Founders wrong?" How about "Why do you beat your wife?" It's the same kind of snarky question I've come to expect these days.
>>Second, no pot user lives next door to a known pot dealer and isn’t involved with that dealer in some way. Common sense tells you that the neighbor of the dealer, was also a dealer.
That is one of the more absurd things I’ve seen a FReeper write lately. Have you ever lived in a large apartment complex? It is very easy to have very, very little contact with your neighbors.
Excellent point.
Oh well, we don't need a natural born citizen for a President, we don't need to have our Congress do anything but "deem" unread legislation passed, we don't consider the TSA's formalized sexual abuse to be a violation of the 4th Amendment, so why should we care that the War on Some Drugs is an illegal war?
Could the revised FISA act have applied to a situation like this? Maybe the police, under those circumstances, could have obtained a warrant after the fact.
You win a cookie for being the second person to take part of that post out of context and run off about it.
BTW...he was a drug dealer.
You, and the police, didn’t know that at the time.
I’m not sure what context there was that made your statement in any way reasonable. For fun, go back and read post #27. Do you think those people were burglars? If not, why not?
It matters not a whit if the person charged with the crime didn’t do the alleged crime.
Take murder, for example, let’s say that Mr. A and Mr. B are both murdered {time and place irrelevant} and the murderer of Mr. B — who is innocent of the murderer of Mr. A — is caught by the authorities and charged with the murder of Mr A.
In such a case, though the man *IS* in fact a murderer he should be found innocent, for he was (and is) innocent of the crime he is being charged with: Murdering Mr. A.
Now, if we extend this to warrants, then the police having a warrant for Drug-Dealer A, instead breaking in on drug-dealer B, have NO LEGAL STANDING. Their warrant was for Drug-dealer A and it matters not a whit that drug-dealer A was in fact dealing drugs insofar as that warrant is concerned.
Beside the point. It doesn't matter what he was doing.
Scalia didn't use "I don’t like drug dealers" as a rationale.
Sounds like he sure doesn't much care for criminals in this case.
Every point listed in the tiny article effected the reason I came to the conclusions I did.
The fact that he was found guilty and given 11 years was a very major factor in every other conclusion. You don't get 11 years for smoking a joint anywhere.
One other opinion I made was that a pot user that lived right next door to a known pot dealer had likely had contact with that dealer in the past.
Point being, why would anyone risk getting caught making a street buy when they could go next door where nobody could possibly see him? It was a hall with only two doors that couldn't be viewed from anywhere else.
All of those things have to be included to take my comment in context.
The original article didn't make sense because far too much information was left out, likely on purpose by the author to make a point. Selective reporting typical of the MSM.
I spent some time digging up the facts in the case, which did prove my theory was correct.
Will the guy get off? I don't know, but, I still think the case was a poor example to take to the USSC to test the warrant-less search issue.
>The fact that he was found guilty and given 11 years was a very major factor in every other conclusion. You don’t get 11 years for smoking a joint anywhere.
The reason this point is such BS is it is basically the same thing as saying that the Waco incident was a-ok because the majority of the task-force was NOT charged with murder [and as far as I know no-one was convicted thereof].
Furthermore, as far as the “you don’t get X for...” argument goes let me remind you that Koreshe’s group was ACCUSED [not convicted] of evading a tax [concerning firearms]; Randy Weaver’s wife was killed [in a government operation], according to the government, because they ACCUSED Weaver of selling too-short sawed-off shotguns.
“The reason this point is such BS is it is basically the same thing as saying that the Waco incident was a-ok because the majority of the task-force was NOT charged with murder [and as far as I know no-one was convicted thereof].”
No, it isn’t the same as anything else. My comments apply only to what I commented on.
You can play with your strawman by yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.