Marijuana.com

Shaundaddy

I'm rather new to the boards, but i have spent many hours reading posts in almost all of the forums. This is not a question, but more an opinion that may help spark a reasonable discussion.

Now, I know that police can search your person or Vehicle if they have probable cause, and most do so in a just and fair manor, but if i was ever asked to consent to a search, i dont believe i would, even if i knew that they would find nothing incriminating of any kind on me.

Nightshift, and K9Copper, I honestly have to say i have a very large amount of respect for both of you, and from what i have read, You seem to be a very reasonable and intelligent officers and i hope you dont take offense to this. It is not a stab at cops, only some of the Policies that you follow. I can honestly say that i dont find probable cause reason enough to search a person for Marijuana or Paraphenilia. Honestly, i believe that the only probable cause grounds that should be used to invoke a search of a person or vehicle should only be if they Violate the rights of another person, or seem as though they will cause physical harm to themselves or another person, such as an unliscensed weapon. Marijuana, quite frankly is as harmless as Cigarettes, if not more so. Marijuana does NOT cause people to do others harm and it does NOT do the user harm in any way other than those also associated with Tobacco. Police officers are supposed to there to Protect, and Serve the public, Not to violate our personal space JUST to make sure we arent breaking a VERY unreasonable law.

The simple fact that its illegal should not be grounds to violate someone's personal rights, especially by insisting that they consent to a search, with the hopes that they will incriminate themselves. I agree that cooperation is probably the most reasonable choice, as it will make a situation easier, but i would find it hard to have respect for myself if i consented to such a violation of personal space and rights.

Basically, I think that what everyone does on their own time is their business, unless it causes them physical harm, or another.

These policies are put into place by other people, not some divine being, So is there anything we can do to change these policies?
I'm not insisting that marijuana be legalized. Though that would be great, this country is FAR off from that. But perhaps the policies can be changed to exepmt Marijuana from the probable cause search policy, seeing as how it is not nessesary and would cut down on the VAST amount of good people crouding our prisons.

Anyone else have anything to add/contradict?

BTW...i have a quote that a few from this board may appreciate. It is from a 311 Song called "Off Beat Bare @ss"

 

Niteshift

Shaundaddy,

My policy, from day #1 here, has been to not defend or justify why mj is illegal. That is not my function. That's what legislators do. I'm in the executive branch of government, not the legislative.

Your opinion, which sounds pretty reasonable, is basically that of feeling the law is wrong and why you think so. Since I do not debate legalization, I won't be much fun in this thread. I did, however, feel I should let you know why since you said you were pretty new here.

__________________
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.

Shaundaddy

Thanks for the quick response =)

Well, my post wasnt exactly defending why marijuana should be legal, but more to voice my opinion on how unreasonable searches like that can be, especially based on the grounds of probable cause. My only question would be what (if anything) can be done to change this policy? (because i believe that many people on this board might feel the same as me)

Again just my opinion =)

Mamabudz

Vote...

That is how legislators get elected...

Speak to your Legislators...

Let them know what you want them to do...that's how they win your vote the NEXT go round..

Hey Niteshift, I have a question...Wanna run for office?

...cookies and cruellers

Hugz,

Mama Budz

Niteshift

my opinion on how unreasonable searches like that can be, especially based on the grounds of probable cause. My only question would be what (if anything) can be done to change this policy?

That's actually the least reasonable thing you said.

The 4th Amendment is clear that probable cause is grounds for a search. If you were arguing against a search based on reasonable suspicion, you'd be on more solid ground, but arguing against a search based on probable cause is really kind of unreasonable.

What would it take to change that? A new amendement to the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.


One thing I often do here to illustrate things is to use a non-drug example, since many times, if people are passionate about an issue, they look at it kind of narrowly.

Example: I stop a car. I notice the driver is acting overly nervous and keeps looking towards the floorboard on the passenger side. From my vantage point I can see what looks like a small girls shoe. In the course of conversation, I ask the man if he has children and he says "No, I don't like children". I ask him to step out of the car to come back so I can get his signature and explain the ticket. As he exits, a pair of girls underwear falls out on the ground. When asked about it, he says his niece must have left them in the car. I look at the pile of clothes sitting on the back seat and ask about them. As I watch them, something under the clothing moves. I run a criminal history and find the man has a conviction for child molestation.

Now, none of those things by themselves are illegal. But added together (totality of the circumstances), they would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is probable. So, with my probable cause, I search the car and find the 7 year old girl he'd kidnapped less than 30 minutes prior.

Now, I think everyone on here would agree that Mr. Molestor needs to go to jail and saving that girl the trauma of being molested by this sicko is a good thing. But how did she get saved? Because probable cause allowed the car to be searched. Without that provision.....well, you can imagine what would have happened.

How does this apply to your problem? The principal of law is the principal of law. If it applies to a heinous and serious crime like kidnapping and child molestation, it applies across the board. Probable cause allows me to search, whether it's murder, moonshine, robbery or possession of mj. You don't get to pick and choose.

BTW, while that example did not happen to me, it was an actual case with the same outcome...scumbag in jail, girl returned to parents.

Hey Niteshift, I have a question...Wanna run for office?

Not just no, but hell no.

 

Shaundaddy

thanks for the great reply nightshift! =)

That does kind of put everything a little more into perspective, and i do find that situation reason enough for a search of that kind. Not saying that i would still consent to a search on the ground of suspicion of MJ, but i do find that a search in a manner such as that is nessesary.

Now another scenario/question(semi-related)
Now...lets say you stopped a car and the man inside was fidgety and jumpy and all. But there were no shoes on the floor...no clothing. Would that be grounds enough to search a car?
Would just a man being jumpy be grounds enough to SUSPECT that he had committed a crime, and thus cause you to ask for a search of the car? Or must there be a physical object or something to arise suspicion before a search can be requested?

*edit* i answered my own question. Such a thing would be reasonable suspicion, not probable cause =) (sorry...i'm tired..lol) *edit*

Niteshift

Not saying that i would still consent to a search on the ground of suspicion of MJ, but i do find that a search in a manner such as that is nessesary.

Just keep in mind that "probable cause", "reasonable suspicion" and "mere suspicion" are not interchangable terms. They are 3 entirely different animals and are viewed completely differently under the law.

CheebaMonkey

Never head of this term, but I have heard of PC and RS. Can you describe it? Such as would it give you more or less powers to exert over people versus the others?

__________________

Nub

so if I was to answer a cop's request to search me as "Sir are you asking to search me because you have reasonable suspicion?"-then could I turn around and say no if he answered yes? Or mere suspicion?

Niteshift

Never head of this term, but I have heard of PC and RS. Can you describe it?

Mere suspicion is exactly what it sounds like.....merely suspicion.

In the "suspicion heirarchy", it goes from mere suspicion to reasonable suspicion, to probable cause.

It's nothing more than that feeling of "something isn't right about this" that I'm sure you've felt at times in your life.

so if I was to answer a cop's request to search me as "Sir are you asking to search me because you have reasonable suspicion?"-then could I turn around and say no if he answered yes? Or mere suspicion?

Maybe I'm confusing you guys.

It really doesn't matter if a cop asks for your consent if it's based on mere or reasonable suspicion. It's a CONSENT search. If he has PROBABLE CAUSE, that's different. (There are other exceptions as well.

Mere suspicion is nothing more than that feeling that you are suspicious of something or someone. You've felt it I'm sure.