Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Okays Warrantless Search of Apartment that Smells of Dope
Wall Street Journa; ^ | 05/16/11

Posted on 05/17/2011 11:20:57 AM PDT by AtlasStalled

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled that Kentucky police were okay to kick in the door of an apartment that smelled of pot and was suspected of harboring a drug suspect. The police did not have a warrant to enter the apartment, and it turns out the suspect who they were chasing was not in the apartment. * * * The Kentucky Supreme Court held that the search was illegal. But the Supremes reversed, holding that the police could enter the apartment without a warrant, because after they knocked on the door and announced their presence they heard noises inside that sounded as if drug-related evidence was about to be destroyed.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; kentucky; scotus; searchwarrant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: Joe 6-pack
It will get to the point where people are deliberately letting their homes smell like dogs, feet and ass just to avoid being raided.
Ahh - thank goodness. I feel safe now. ;-)
61 posted on 05/17/2011 1:15:43 PM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Wait, I forgot Carolene, which is especially significant in this sorta case.


62 posted on 05/17/2011 1:18:37 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Which all means, as a homeowner, you’d better be prepared to shoot both invading robbers and invading police, as it seems they BOTH have the right to break down your door!!


63 posted on 05/17/2011 1:38:27 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

64 posted on 05/17/2011 2:47:46 PM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

This is just reaffirming the plain smell rulings of the past.

Plain sight is allowed, plain smell is allowed. This is NOT via police dog, this is the officer’s human abilities.

Think of a DUI stop where you can smell the booze on the drunk’s breath.


65 posted on 05/17/2011 2:58:00 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
I'll just get me one of these signs


66 posted on 05/17/2011 2:58:44 PM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: exPBRrat

>...arbeit macht frei.

If you can ever pay your taxes, and the debt your government has laid up on your behalf...


67 posted on 05/17/2011 3:15:57 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
I too was surprised to find myself agreeing with Ginsburg, and I wondered where all those so-called conservative judges were who usually want to put constitutional limits on the government. The exception for “exigent circumstances” is swallowing the 4th Amendment rule requiring warrants, and should be limited to cases where someone is in danger or a more serious crime than smelling wacky weed in an apartment.

The problem is that we are in a state where the classical meaning of 'conservative', keeping things the same, is directly at odds with 'Constitutional.'
That said, the USSC is the head of the most lawless branch of government. What we, as citizens, need to do is make the Justices of the Supreme court feel our displeasure by turning EVERY bad USSC decision against them, personally; I would start with the 2005 Kelo v. New London case wherein the USSC ruled that the imaginary numbers of a "projection" were sufficient to satisfy all 5th Amendment constraints on the usage of Eminent Domain. Therefore, I would love to see people "project" that the property belonging to the Justices (or their spouses) would produce an increased tax-revenue and then seize them... and keep doing so, even going so far as to do the same to any who would rent to them or hotels which would accept their tenancy, until they reverse their decision.

It's past time that public officials be forced to lay in the bed they've made.

68 posted on 05/17/2011 3:40:00 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tea Party Reveler

>There must be something that can completely remove the smell of marijuana from the air!

Large amounts of Chlorine gas?


69 posted on 05/17/2011 3:50:25 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

not quite. plain sight was not just invented.

this is just within an officers normal human faculties.

The USSC has stated police can not use infrared cameras to see/detect the insides of a house without a warrent.


70 posted on 05/17/2011 3:54:09 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Palter
The police manufactured cause to discover another crime when their original action was logically and legally indefensible.

That is exactly what the court found that the police did NOT do in this case. In fact, you have put your finger on the exact crux of the case, and (probably) why SCOTUS decided to grant cert.: they wanted to clarify their prior rulings on exigency, particularly with regard to the question of whether or not a police action itself created the exigency. The practical upshot is to underline the long-standing principle that the "exigent circumstance" has to be independent, and specifically NOT "created" by the police. Which, the court found in this case had not, in fact, occurred.

The link above to Volohk's site, and the decision itself are helpful in grasping this distinction.

71 posted on 05/17/2011 4:11:54 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
Marijuana smoke odor in car not enough for police action?

(Reuters) - The smell of marijuana smoke is no longer enough reason for police to order someone out of a car, now that pot has been decriminalized in Massachusetts, the state's highest court said in a decision published on Tuesday.

[excerpt]

72 posted on 05/18/2011 7:29:40 AM PDT by raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

Thank God! States can and Some Do Impose tighter Restrictions on Police Powers and asset forfeiture. Each State may rule on there State constitutions. Many states like Alaska,Vermont,Montana,Washington,Louisiana,Arizona I know Alaska is Iron glad and Pretty sure that Montana,Washington State and Airzona.

The Supreme Court just sets the Minimum Protection States can always make it Stronger.


73 posted on 05/18/2011 8:55:28 AM PDT by Gus221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson