Marijuana.com

JTP

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2408571

Talk about some petty tactics.

...But federal prosecutors insist no warrant is needed to swab a doorknob and run the test - called an Ionscan - to detect whether occupants and visitors have been in contact with drugs. The exterior of a home cannot be expected to remain untouched, they say, as friends, solicitors, proselytizers, campaign workers and delivery people come to the door. ...Assistant U.S. Attorney Leshia Lee-Dixon pointed out that visitors to Mora's home were directed by a sign to go around to the back door. The invitation meant officers could touch the door, she wrote in a court filing.


The only appellate ruling in such a case is from the Virgin Islands. In 1999, a trial judge threw out the analysis of a swab taken from a home's screen door, saying the search of the doorknob for marijuana residue violated the Fourth Amendment.


Ironic that they can't walk the dogs onto your property without a warrant, but they can creep up and 'rub on your knob'.

I think this is very silly.

 

StewScum

I really don't know what i would think if an LEO rolled up to my door and began to swab my doornob. What the hell is that some sort of Highschool science experiement? And even if they did swab and find something, do you know how many Jehova witnesses and lawn service people leave pamphlets and sh*t on my doornob, and I'm pretty sure they do as much drugs as the rest of us. I'm glad the judge saw through that crap.

__________________
Life is like a pot of stew, if you don't stir it up every once and a while, all the scum rises to the top -Still Life with Woodpecker by Tom Robbins.

Herb Ninja

Jesus that sounds like something Hitler would have tried to create, except to detect jews, not drugs.

This is what they spend our tax money on, creating new ways to detect our ohh so benign crimes...

Id have to agree with JTP, very silly. Peace, HN-

__________________
Ron Paul for the Long Haul

JTP

This is still up for debate.

I guess I should have posted more of the article.

...Utah appears to be at the forefront of the legal debate, with at least three pending Ionscan challenges in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City:
l Mora was arrested by Ogden police in December after officers allegedly found a box of bullets in his home. He is awaiting trial on a charge of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon.
l Dennis Daybell, 51, of Magna, is charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and illegal firearm possession. Police searched his home in April.
l Miller, 33, is facing five counts of possession of controlled substances and aiding in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine. His home was searched in March.
The cases all request that evidence from the homes be tossed out because police used the results of Ionscan tests, among other factors, to get warrants.

Just another violation of basic rights.

First they can search your house or property to ensure "officer safety" without a warrant, now they try and search your doorknob for enough evidence to secure a search warrant.

Just plain dumb.

Really happening, and just fvking stupid.

Hiz Highness

I got a knob they can rub. . .

-HH

 

Niteshift

This is what they spend our tax money on, creating new ways to detect our ohh so benign crimes...

Um, no.

Tax dollars had nothing to do with creating Ionscan. It was a private company that developed it, several years ago.

Then, immediately after 9/11, General Electric bought Ionscan because their products (which include more than just Ionscan) are dual use, they detect drugs and explosives (and more of each than any dog could ever do). GE saw the big government buying spree for explosive detection on the horizon and jumped on it fast.

In terms of drug detection equipment etc, I can't think of anything developed with tax dollars that is in common use.

First they can search your house or property to ensure "officer safety" without a warrant

That's only telling part of the story. The entry has to be based on probable cause or one of the long-standing, enumerated exceptions. That ruling affected conduct only AFTER a legal entry.



Regarding the topic: I see where they are getting their legal reasoning, but I can't see how a judge would properly issue a search warrant based solely on the results. Their own legal justification (a sign telling them to go to the back door) claims the door was "open to public touching", which negates the idea that only an occupant could have had residue on his hands.

It's sort of like finding a fingerprint on the outside of a stolen car. It proves you touched the car, but it doesn't prove you stole the car. You could have leaned against it in the parking lot to tie your shoe.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Ragdoll

I'm sure Ganja Lawyer will step in here to add the voice of reason... *wink*

I feel certain that this question will need to be tested in court several times, and I hope in a variety of locations. I think it's no accident that you're hearing about this in Utah, rather than, say, Oregon. To be blunt, this is the type of "envelope-push" that requires a very conservative environment to establish precedent. And hey, centuries ago when I worked in the court system (prefer not to name the state) I always knew which judge to go to to get the outcome I wanted. I'm sure these guys used the same insight.

But to add balance, I notice that the two drug cases noted were methamphetamine manufacture; clearly an extremely dangerous business. Let's see what happens when/if this device is tested for THC residue. I suspect that could be a much more difficult "find".

JTP

I was refering to this http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0230629cr0p.pdf[/url]

There was no PC and the room-mate cannot consent to the search of a closed bedroom not his own, not to mention the closets, under the bed, in the bathroom, etc.

Anyway, just another case of what I consider an abuse of the law designed to further erode the right to privacy.

Niteshift

There was no PC and the room-mate cannot consent to the search of a closed bedroom not his own, not to mention the closets, under the bed, in the bathroom, etc.

Anyway, just another case of what I consider an abuse of the law designed to further erode the right to privacy.

I'm aware of the case.

But the way your statement sounded, without elaboration, was that they could enter a house and search it for "officer safety" reasons. That's not the case. They entered the home legally. It was their actions AFTER legal entry, once inside, that were in question.

I simply wanted to clarify that there is no court decision saying the police can just enter a home for "officer safety" reasons and start searching.

Stephanie S.

Development of Ionscan may not have been funded by the Feds but the Feds issue a lot of Grants to local and State Law Enforcement Agencies. The federal government may not have paid to develop this technology but they certainly provide the funding through which various LE Agencies obtain the technology and training to use Ionscan.

It is important to keep in mind that while this technology was developed by a private company, the technology was researched and developed specifically for law enforcement, such as anti-terrorism work and drug law enforcement agencies.

Here's how it worked in one case. The National Guard Drug Bureau, Counterdrug Office asks for a report on drug detecting technology. For some reason, they can't ask for the research themselves, so they employ an organization such as the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM) to commission the report. FEDSIM then asks Georgia Tech for a report....a report funded by federal grants.

Click Here
This place touts the successes of the Ionscan!

"The IONSCAN® is the most accurate explosives and narcotics trace detector available; billions of US dollars in drug and asset seizures have been made with the assistance of an IONSCAN®, and there are hundreds of IONSCAN® ‘s being used at the major international airports.

The IONSCAN® 400B provides the capability of detecting and identifying trace amounts of more than 40 explosive or narcotic substances in a quick 8 second analysis."

This technology has been used on airports quite a bit since 9/11, I think. They take a swab of our film, camera, pocket pc, etc. frequently at various airports. I never even thought they could scan for marijuana residue.

Anyway, who doesn't clean their door knobs on a regualr basis? There are more germs there than on a truck stop toilet seat, ewww. Keep it clean if you're partaking of the green.


peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)