Marijuana.com

PotShot

WHAT IS 'REASONABLE' FOR POLICE?
By James J. Kilpatrick | Yahoo! News | Tue Dec 20, 2005

Of the making of Fourth Amendment cases, to paraphrase the Preacher, there shall be no end. In support of that truism, consider the case of Dr. Michael Baldwin of Loomis, Calif. He is suing the county cops for abusing their powers. Four months ago he won a round in the 9th Circuit. Now the cops have asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeal.

The case began in July 1998, when the sheriff of Placer County received a tip that Baldwin, a dentist, might be growing marijuana in his home. The town of Loomis (pop. 6,312) is maybe 20 miles northeast of Sacramento. The mill wheels of the law began their slow rotation.

On Sept. 16, a sheriff's posse led by deputy Jeffrey Potter searched the outside garbage at the dentist's home. Regrettably, Potter then swore that they had found "marijuana leaves and stems recently cut from a mature marijuana plant." Moreover, "the marijuana was fresh green and still moist." This was not so. (The posse had found only .08 grams of dried and partly burned marijuana leaves and stems.)

Other items in the trash aroused the deputies' legitimate suspicions. A week later they obtained a warrant. In the early dawn, to quote Dr. Baldwin's subsequent deposition, five officers burst "paramilitary style" into his home. Officer Mark Reed pointed a gun at the doctor and ordered him to lie down. Reed "then pushed his gun at the rear of (Baldwin's) head."

Baldwin's then-wife, Georgia Chacko, was awakened by the noise. She was clothed only in a T-shirt and cotton briefs. She opened her bedroom door. A man poked his fingers sharply into her throat and ordered her to get on the floor. The intruder pointed a gun at her and held it briefly against her head. Then, according to her deposition, the unidentified gunman kneed her in the small of her back and handcuffed her. The gunman was Potter.

To shorten the story: The deputies seized 147 marijuana plants. Baldwin's subsequent trial for possession ended limply with the jury hung 7-2 for conviction. Charges against him are not likely to be revived. In 2001 the case devolved into a civil suit by the dentist and Ms. Chacko against Placer County and the implicated officers. Last April a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit ruled firmly against the cops. They had violated the couple's civil rights by relying upon a false affidavit. Their claim to qualified immunity "was rightly denied." From that order the county and the officers seek Supreme Court review.

In the 9th Circuit, Judge John T. Noonan treated the county's case roughly: Baldwin was a practicing dentist. Nothing in the record indicates that the officers had reason to believe he would resist or flee. The officers had stated no belief that the plaintiffs would be armed. A reasonable officer should have known that Potter's treatment of Baldwin's wife was excessive. The malfeasant officer had "concocted a story and fed it to a magistrate."

If the Supreme Court takes the county's appeal, we will hear a good deal about a relevant incident in 1994 in San Francisco. The historic Presidio army base was being converted from a hospital to a municipal park. The hospital somehow was identified with medical experiments on animals. Vice President Al Gore was the ceremonial speaker. Elliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals, attempted to display a large banner in protest of vivisection. The MPs hauled him off. He sued Officer Donald Saucier and others for police brutality and won on a procedural motion.

The high court voted 8-1 to reverse. Gore's presence created a significant exigency. Katz had not been seriously injured, if indeed he had been injured at all. More to the point: "The question is what the officer reasonably understood his powers to be, when he acted, under clearly established standards." Saucier had substantial grounds for believing that he had justification under the law for acting as he did.

Justice Anthony Kennedy had a few caveats. The excessiveness of an officer's conduct must be judged by objective standards of reasonableness. The border between excessive and acceptable force is "sometimes hazy." It is sometimes difficult for an officer, in the heat of a moment, to determine "how the doctrine of excessive force applies to a factual situation." Police should be granted immunity for "reasonable mistakes."

On that early morning in California, did the cops act reasonably? Doubtful, I would say, highly doubtful.

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent in care of this newspaper, or by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

 

killer12382

Seems like a perfectly legit bust. The cops had a tip that he was growing, searched his garbage and found "marijuana". True, it wasn't fresh marijuana, but it was still marijuana.
They shouldn't be upset at the cops, they should be mad at the rat.

Buzzby

The problem was in that the officers who searched their garbage lied about what they found there.

But in reality:
The evidence was of extremely minor possession, less than a tenth of a gram. If the officers had told the truth the warrant to search the house would never have been granted.

__________________

fight4rights

The cop must have lied for a reason.

Plus the way the police handled the situation seems unreasonable as well. It seems far fetched that a dentist and his wife are guarding their grow operation with weapons. Guns drawn? Sure. Handcuff the suspects? Sure. Breaking the door down? Forcing the suspects down to the ground? Not so much.

On the other hand I'm not a LEO. I wonder what Nightshift and Phuzz make of this?

__________________
"Those who do no harm to others should not be harmed by others..." Ethan Nadelmann
"Revolution is not a right, it is an obligation." John Locke
"Do SOMETHING besides argue emotions against the law, because it simply isn't a rational way to affect any type of change whatsoever. No offense intended, but your opinion on things is a moot point unless you take actions to change the law, rather than ramble about how unfair or injust it is." troublemaker_42
"'Just say no' to drugs, except those marketed by big pharmaceutical companies." Ignorant Politicians

urania3

There's this too...wonder what the items were.

__________________

Why is it that we cannot face the simple truth? Religion is at best unsubstantiated superstition. (Massimo Pigliucci)

 

oneluv4boognish

Hmm...maybe to cover their own asses? Cops lie regularly....mind you not all of them. Those that do are the jerks that give the good cops bad names....

Buzzby

Back issues of Pot Farmer's Digest?

Cassius

And that makes it okay?

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

fight4rights

No. I'm saying the cop must have lied about what they found because otherwise there case wouldn't have seemed as strong. The lie was important to the police for some reason. I think Buzzby is right. They might not have gotten the warrant otherwise.

I wonder if the police can search your house if they only have reason to believe that you are a marijuana user. Like roaches, stems, seeds, and what not. Can they get a warrant for that do you think?

Cassius

I'm fairly certain they cann't get a warrant based on a suspicion. There has to be probable cause that there is or was a crime taking place. This evidence can be circumstantial, such as electricity usage records or a thermal image of the home showing excessive heat loss, but some evidence must be documented.

Of course, I'm sure it depends on which judge they seek the warrant with as to how circumstantial the evidence is allowed to be. But just for "believing" you are a user? I doubt they can get a warrant for that.

Perhaps you are right, then. Perhaps the lie was necessary in order to obtain the warrant.