Because weed smells like skunk

[Stoner4Life]

Find urself a good pot lawyer from NORML or find out which lawyer in that municipality is friendliest with the judge (it'd be easy to tell just by sitting in court room a day or two) someone will point you in the right direction. Be honest and forthright with all info but of course don't stick your foot in your mouth by offering up to many of your short comings. If you're an adult who maintains an otherwise normal life I don't see any jail time...... You mentioned the Iowa pinch.....I think your 'non-conviction' verdict in Iowa is what they call a 'stay of ajudication' or a 'conditional discharge' in both cases if you do not offend within a years time it is automatically removed from your record (no need to expunge). I have several conditional discharges and NONE have come back to haunt me.......NONE appear on my record (I saw my record at the Canadian border). They are dismissed immediately......I hope this is your case......very good luck to you

 

[kottonmouth69]

Well he definitely won't pull speeding in court. Because if he weren't speeding even faster than I was he would never have been behind me. He had to have been going pretty fast to make it all the way from town to behind me. It's not really a small area. It's smaller than across the river but this courthouse pretty much covers three small cities. See I knew that they could pat you down for safety reasons. That's why I wasn't too worried about letting him do that. I understand that you never know. No I don't carry weapons, like most of you good stoners out there, I'm not a very violent person. I'm sure that if I needed to I could wail on someone but it's never come up. I don't usually put myself into those situations. The only place I may end up violent is in traffic some day, because people just don't know how to drive. I'm sure it didn't feel like a weapon, it was just a big chunk in a plastic baggie. Just a regular old sandwich baggie. He never asked for consent to search, from what I've been told he had probable cause to search my pockets. I always thought that you were safe in your own person, but I guess that no matter what you do the fucking pigs have the authority to just reach into your pocket and pull shit out.

The cops have only been out to get people out of our house. They were friends that were staying with us until they got on their feet. They came up from Florida. So we were pretty cool with them until they went on this week long fight and then the girl called her brother, he came over and her b/f and him got into it. So we told him he needed to leave, especially since he'd kicked her. Then she went back to him. I wouldn't have said anything about it as long as she didn't bring his crap into our home, because then she might be trying to sneak him in after we were ordered to bar him from the property. So we found his bookbag in the shed and put it on the curb, overnight it disapeared and when they came in the morning she started crap with my g/f and they got into a fight so my g/f called the po po on her and she got arrested.

I know cops are shitty like that. It's really not right that a cop's word always wins over a citizen because who really knows if the cop is a liar. Some "criminals" are actually very honest people who feel that the law is absurd and don't feel the need to obey it. If I wouldn't have listened in history and government I never would have been so into fighting this. But because I've heard time and again throughout history that if a law is unjust you must break it. And I will continue to until things change or I move to Vancouver.

 

[Pinch]

If the search was as u said, u have a fightable case.Cops can speed to carch speeders.When did he turn on his lites?A few years ago up here, a cop was speeding,80mph with no lites.He ran a stop sign and killed a citizen and he's still on the force.He'll bring up speeding as probable and the seatbelts.Don't waste time on that.Research search and seizure.Any half ass lawyer oughta get that thrown out.I would use a PD for that.Seems like a no brainer.The cops break the law all the time and get away with it.Go for what will work.

Well put Mr Loco.. there's that sound western thinking again.

Search and siezure is your main focus. https://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?list=type&type=100

 

[Pinch]

Watch the news.The supremes just overturned the 4th amendment!!!!!

Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant) which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution.

Which news item are you speaking of? The latest suspected terrorists?

 

[Pinch]

Mr Loco, this is the story you mentioned:

Journal Inquirer


And Mr Loco.. here's a recent editorial on Mr Hudson's case and yes this is very fucking scary!:

Interests collide over ‘knock and announce’ rule

Sunday, June 25, 2006
rep board of contributors Paul A. Mastriacovo

There has been a debate about the costs vs. the benefits of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases almost since its inception. The latest round in the debate may signal the rule’s end.

It all started in 1911 when law enforcement officers went into the Kansas City home owned by Fremont Weeks without a warrant. Once inside, the officers seized Mr. Weeks’ personal papers. That evidence was used to convict Mr. Weeks of using the U.S. mail to transport illegal lottery coupons.

Mr. Weeks ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It ruled that the warrantless entry violated Mr. Weeks’ right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The court ruled that the government should not benefit by its illegality and that any evidence obtained in violation of Mr. Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights should not have been used in his trial.

The court stated: “The 4th Amendment was intended to secure the citizen ... against unlawful invasion of the sanctity of his home by officers of the law. ... If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment ... is of no value, and ... might as well be stricken from the Constitution.”

The controversy arises because the remedy so harshly punishes the government’s misconduct. It prohibits the jury from reviewing evidence that clearly demonstrates a defendant’s guilt.

Still on the Books

Critics of the exclusionary rule have offered alternatives, such as disciplining or firing the offending officers or allowing civil rights lawsuits against them. Yet, despite the fact that many, if not most, U.S. Supreme Court justices have decried the exclusionary rule since 1914, they have voted to retain it in the belief that these alternatives are ineffective in deterring the police from trampling on the rights etched in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers.

So now we come to June 15, 2006, and the case of Hudson v. Michigan.

The Detroit police had obtained a warrant to search Booker T. Hudson’s home for firearms and drugs. When the officers arrived, they announced their presence but waited only three to five seconds before turning the knob of the unlocked door and entering Hudson’s home. The police admitted violating the longstanding “knock and announce” rule that is generally required before storming into someone’s house.

Once inside, the police searched Mr. Hudson’s house pursuant to the warrant and found illegal drugs, including cocaine rocks in his pocket. They also found a loaded gun lodged between the cushion and armrest of Mr. Hudson’s chair. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and drugs.

Mr. Hudson’s attorney filed a motion to exclude the evidence from trial because the police failed to wait a sufficient amount of time to let the homeowner answer the door before barging in. The Michigan courts overruled Mr. Hudson’s arguments and ruled that despite the violation, the evidence was admissible. Mr. Hudson was convicted of unlawful possession of drugs.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that conviction. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority of the court that although the police are required to “knock and announce” before entering in most cases, it is almost impossible to determine in any case how long they must wait before entering. Therefore, even if the police barge in quickly, the exclusionary rule should not be applied and any evidence found should be allowed in trial.

Four of the nine justices disagreed, believing that alternatives to the exclusionary rule have proved to be “worthless and futile” because “police know that they can ignore the Constitution’s requirements without risking suppression of evidence discovered after an unreasonable entry.”

The dissenters believe that unless there are extenuating circumstances, there are important reasons for the police to allow time for a homeowner to answer the door prior to storming into a house to conduct a search.

First, a warning keeps people from responding violently to a surprise entry into their home. The owner does not know who is barging in, and the officers or someone in the house could be injured unnecessarily. Second, a warning may prevent the needless destruction of the homeowner’s private property.

PRIVACY DIGNITY PROTECTED

And last, the dissenters said waiting prevents the government from violating citizens’ right to privacy and dignity when they are in their own home. “It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence (by the police); but it is the invasion of (the occupant’s) indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property.”

Those who advocate for tough government enforcement will cheer the Hudson decision and hope the exclusionary rule is dead forever. Those who cherish civil liberties are worried that this is another step away from personal freedom.

Paul A. Mastriacovo of Jackson Township is a faculty member in the Department of Justice Studies at the main campus of Kent State University.




The Repository
500 Market Ave. S.
Canton, OH 44702
This page was created June 25, 2006
©2006 The Repository
https://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=293491&Category=14

 

[Pinch]

Mr Loco.. what does PNW stand for?

Is it Points North West?

Curious.

 

[kottonmouth69]

I did smoke that day, but it was outdoors on a cool night. If the smell was in my hoodie then it was because of smoking with it on probably the day before or something like that.

 

[fallen]

dude, if your record isn't expunged that means that the lil Iowa incident remains on your record, therefore, it still states you did wrong in the past! Like it or not, unless the old incident has been whiped off your record, they ARE DEFINATELY GONNA HOLD IT AGAINST YOU, just hope they don't count this as a second offense... cuz if that's the case, TO JAIL YOU GO... it's like cannabisuser said... "good luck"

jail is on 3rd offense

 

[kottonmouth69]

Well, thought I should let you all know how it went. Got 6 months court supervision. So basically I have to keep my nose clean for the next 6 months. I think that I can handle that. So for the next 6 months, I'll be doing the speed limit and wearing my seatbelt when I'm driving. I'll also be checking constantly to make sure all my lights are working. Of course in Iowa I'll probably still do 5 over, but that's because there are no cops here that will pull you over at 5 over. They're pretty leniant, and in Iowa they have a right to speed law, 1-10 over is 1/3 of a moving violation. So I think all in all everything went pretty well. The cop seemed pretty pissed off though, I had to leave the court room I was supposed to be in so that the Prosecutor could talk to me and then she realized that I had a lawyer and said she couldn't do anything until he got there. So I had to wait in the hall with the cop and the lab tech who both were ready to testify that I had indeed been carrying cannabis. The prosecutor was actually not too bad though, she's like that's all, you just had cannabis? I think she's probably seen way too much other shit to think that pot is something that needs to be prosecuted hard. Thanks everyone for all your advice and support. So hopefully in the future I'll be helping out with changing the laws so that we aren't being perscuted for liking the plant.

 

[fallen]

Hopefully more judges, lawyers, cops, and prosecuters will realize that with all that other hard shit out there, it's a waste of time, effort, and money to try and keep marijuana illegal.

Good shit, glad to hear you kept your head up, and you're almost free.

 

[TheOldGuy]

Words you should have said:

"I don't smell anything. I do not consent to a search."

 

[DankCloset]

definatly do not bend over and take it. fight that shit. there was no probable cause to be pulled over in the first place if he didnt say anything about going 5 over the speed limit.