Life after being busted?

[ibchiefn]

so i was just wondering who alls been busted and what for and how you came out in the end? ALSO, after being busted when you got pulled over did the cops try to search you real hardcore....my friend got busted once and they did like a decent search (he said) then after he had been busted months later he got pulled over and the cops did like 2 hour search....he said they were moving things around in his car that he didnt know moved....so tell me ya situations, so we or just me can learn?!

:smokin3:

 

[Mr.WeedMan]

Back in 05 I was busted for slanging and my life went down hill since then. I had the best time of my life right before I got rolled. Some bitch snitched me out and I had a search warrant and u know the rest of the story. But yea, I kinda wish I didnt slang so I can still be smoking weed every day now like I use to. I get drug tested every few months for probation now so I gotta watch out when to smoke and not smoke. I did get caught for possession once but nothing really happened. It was not even a misdemeanor, it was an infraction so I had to pay a fine of about $150 and went on with my life. The sales of weed just got me in big trouble.

 

[slntchttrbx]

i was busted with a half pound. might get out of it. if you want details. its in the worried thread...
have your friend check out your rights on searches in a car. they have no right to search your car if he has no reason to arrest you. ill look it up tomorrow but a case was taken to supreme court on a case where a woman was pulled over in her car and the officer "smelled marujuana" and searched her car. it was found that her rights were violated.... good luck

 

[slntchttrbx]

i put this in the wrong thread.
but here it is.
The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent 80 and awareness of the right of choice
U.S. Supreme Court
JOHNSON V. U. S. , 333 U.S. 10 (1948)
333 U.S. 10
JOHNSON
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 329.
Argued Dec. 18, 1947.
Feb. 2, 1948. [ Johnson v. U. S. 333 U.S. 10 (1948) ] [333 U.S. 10 , 11]
Mr. James Skelly Wright, for petitioner.
Mr. Robert Erdahl, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted on four counts charging violation of federal narcotic laws. 1 The only question which brings the case here is whether it was lawful, without a warrant of any kind, to arrest petitioner and to search her living quarters. [333 U.S. 10 , 12] Taking the Government's version of disputed events, decision would rest on these facts:
At about 7:30 p.m. Detective Lieutenant Belland, an officer of the Seattle police force narcotic detail, received information from a confidential informer, who was also a known narcotic user, that unknown persons were smoking opium in the Europe Hotel. The informer was taken back to the hotel to interview the manager, but he returned at once saying he could smell burning opium in the hallway. Belland communicated with federal narcotic agents and between 8:30 and 9 o'clock went back to the hotel with four such agents. All were experienced in narcotic work and recognized at once a strong odor of burning opium which to them was distinctive and unmistakable. The odor led to Room 1. The officers did not know who was occupying that room. They knocked and a voice inside asked who was there. 'Lieutenant Belland,' was the reply. There was a slight delay, some 'shuffling or noise' in the room and then the defendant opened the door. The officer said, 'I want to talk to you a little bit.' She then, as he describes it, 'stepped back acquiescently and admitted us.' He said, 'I want to talk to you about the opium smell in the room here.' She denied that there was such a smell. Then he said, 'I want you to consider yourself under arrest because we are going to search the room.' The search turned up incriminating opium and smoking apparatus, the latter being warm, apparently from recent use. This evidence the District Court refused to suppress before trial and admitted over defendant's objection at the trial. Conviction resulted and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 2
The defendant challenged the search of her home as a violation of the rights secured to her in common with others, by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. [333 U.S. 10 , 13] The Government defends the search as legally justifiable, more particularly as incident to what it urges was a lawful arrest of the person.
I.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Entry to defendant's living quarters, which was the beginning of the search, was demanded under color of office. It was granted in submission to authority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of a constitutional right. Cf. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 .
At the time entry was demanded the officers were possessed of evidence which a magistrate might have found to be probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
We cannot sustain defendant's contention, erroneously made, on the strength of Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 , that odors cannot be evidence sufficient to constitute probable grounds for any search. That decision held only that odors alone do not authorize a search without warrant. If h e presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant. Indeed it might very well be found to be evidence of most persuasive character.
i cannot remember the web site but my lawer used it in my case! i only have it in my mail box...
found it
JOHNSON V. U. S., 333 U.S. 10 (1948) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez