I saw a cop car sitting in front of my house. now I am scard cuz...

[hydrocannabis]

then I saw they cop car drive off. now I am scard cuz because I have a few plants in my backyard. am I screwed. do they know I have plants? and how ling does it take for them to get a sirch warnt?



I an realy realy realy freaking out bad now. should U cut down my plants.

let me know what to do soon. thanks.

[daihashi]

then I saw they cop car drive off. now I am scard cuz because I have a few plants in my backyard. am I screwed. do they know I have plants? and how ling does it take for them to get a sirch warnt?



I an realy realy realy freaking out bad now. should U cut down my plants.

let me know what to do soon. thanks.

When in doubt throw them out.

Rip them up from the roots, grind them up into mulch if you can and try to toss it somewhere that is not your house if you can help it.

It's better to be safe than sorry. I believe a search warrant can be obtained right away (like 12-24 hours) but I could be wrong. Hopefully someone else will chime in as well.

Personally I wouldn't risk it, it doesn't take much time to start another grow in comparison to jail time.

[norkali]

If the cops were trying to bust you for growing pot, there would not have been a patrol car sitting in front of your house for you to see.

Imagine:
Officer Schmeddly: "Hey Bob, you think since we've found these plants at this guy's house, we should go park out in front of the place? Ya know, give him some advance warning of our bust that we've been working for....."

Officer Jablowme: "That sounds like a good idea...."

Being paranoid is good, but some critical thinking can go a long way as well...

[daihashi]

If the cops were trying to bust you for growing pot, there would not have been a patrol car sitting in front of your house for you to see.

Imagine:
Officer Schmeddly: "Hey Bob, you think since we've found these plants at this guy's house, we should go park out in front of the place? Ya know, give him some advance warning of our bust that we've been working for....."

Officer Jablowme: "That sounds like a good idea...."

Being paranoid is good, but some critical thinking can go a long way as well...

Bad advice, someone may have reported a smell or something and a regular cop may have come out to investigate.

It happens and is not unheard of. It's easy to tell someone to keep their plants when you're not the one who bares the burden of the risk. :hippy:

If you're worried about it, bottom line, toss it out and see monitor the situation before growing there again, better yet, don't grow in your backyard.

[TurnyBright]

If you're freaking out and it's not enjoyable to have them, get rid of them. Why keep them if you aren't happy that they are on your property, even knowing that they'll grow flowers that are good to smoke?

[epilepticme]

Any chance to transplant them elsewhere?

[hydrocannabis]

Any chance to transplant them elsewhere? not really. I could take 1 of em into my closet to finish flowering but I don't know.

:(

[the image reaper]

if your plants are visible from the street, they would not need a search warrant ... :smokin:

[daihashi]

if your plants are visible from the street, they would not need a search warrant ... :smokin:

if they smelled what they thought to be marijuana in the air they would not need a search warrant either if it was strong enough to determine it's origin.

[wishpotwaslegal]

well maby they want t take your plants for them selvs. you no cops ther mostly dirty. its hapend to me not with plants but with my bag they took it and told me its a warning. basterds!

[flyingimam]

u mentioned backyard. If you plants are visible from a helicopter or any location for that matter outside of your house and u have had a cop park in front of YOUR house, If i was u i would throw em away, chop em, burn em, do what u can, in the most stealth manner to get rid of them.

the killin paranoia and a possible bust aint worth a couple months of waiting!

[hydrocannabis]

ok so when I was over there the other day I could not smell any thing.
and I have this to help hide the plants.
and I don't think that they can't be seen from the street.

[killerweed420]

You should do like I do. Just go talk to them and ask if they're after that pedophile down the block or something. I like to be nosey.

[GoddessHerb]

What country do you people live in??? Now read this carefully before you jump at the chance to argue... IN THE USA POLICE DO NOT NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE. (Period) They don't even need to tell you if they have searched (called sneak and peek). You can thank Bush and all his little cronies in congress for that right being thrown out the window, along with many others.

If you don't believe me read this (http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n843/a11.htm)

I miss feeling like I actually had freedom. :sadcrying Even if I was being delusional or naive.

Blessed be~

[the image reaper]

What country do you people live in??? Now read this carefully before you jump at the chance to argue... IN THE USA POLICE DO NOT NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE. (Period) They don't even need to tell you if they have searched (called sneak and peek). You can thank Bush and all his little cronies in congress for that right being thrown out the window, along with many others.

If you don't believe me read this (http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n843/a11.htm)

I miss feeling like I actually had freedom. :sadcrying Even if I was being delusional or naive.

Blessed be~

wow ! you really sound too stressed, maybe you would be happier living in some Socialist country, maybe Cuba, that sounds like a fun, tropical paradise ... :D

[GoddessHerb]

IR, did you have anything of value to add to the conversation or do you just like following me around and attacking me?

[painretreat]

hindsight 20/20: I always call the police dept and ask, cause it will be in the local paper the next week anyway. If it is a strange vehicle, the same thing!

And of course, depending on what I am feeling, I will go ask them if I can help with anything and look around.

If you are in a tiny town, chances are you need to ditch the stuff, asap! If no 420/215 laws the same thing! That even hurts to type, know how you much feel, Ugh!!

It is my personal thought, they can sit in their office and view your backyard in real time by PC and satellite. I am guessing it could have be 6 and 1 of asundry of items.

Ultimately, you have to do what you feel you can live with. Sorry, I don't know you to borrow them during your period of indecision and then give back! Maybe, you ought to try that out, if you have a friend you can trust, take it there? Only a thought!

Good luck to you in whatever you decide, I feel for you!! :wtf: PR :hippy:

[smok3y]

Any chance to transplant them elsewhere? not really. I could take 1 of em into my closet to finish flowering but I don't know.

:(

BAD IDEA dude, cause that will be just as bad as having them outside. If they no there plants there, they are going to search your house..

If your really worried about it, get rid of them or give them to some one who can grow them. Its not worth the risk..

If in doubt them pull them out...

:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

If in doubt them pull them out...

:jointsmile:

EXACTLY. That's what I said in my reply earlier. I'd rather have the peace of mind knowing I won't go to jail. 3 months of grow time lost is worth the trade off when compared to 3 months of jail time minimum :hippy:

[rebgirl420]

What country do you people live in??? Now read this carefully before you jump at the chance to argue... IN THE USA POLICE DO NOT NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE. (Period) They don't even need to tell you if they have searched (called sneak and peek). You can thank Bush and all his little cronies in congress for that right being thrown out the window, along with many others.

If you don't believe me read this (http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v08/n843/a11.htm)

I miss feeling like I actually had freedom. :sadcrying Even if I was being delusional or naive.

Blessed be~

WTF are you talking about? Read the constitution (which you obviously know nothing about).

Everything is Bush's fault with you. Image is correct, you don't have to live here. Canada is always accepting people (though their constitution is even more flimsy than "this hell hole American country"..

[mushaboom]

after all this time how can anyone not see that bush has screwed us over. in regards to that patriot act... well he did sign the papers to extend it. i dont know if anyone remembers but the patriot act was supposed to be temporary and stop a couple years ago. try showing some police raiders a copy of the constitution and maybe quote a few of the good lines to protect yourself. im sure theyll all switch their guns to safety and peace out in the name of the constitution. anyways, the whole political system here is jumbled up with special interests and lobbysists. im for reforming the whole thing.

[stinkyattic]

Please stay on topic, thanks.

It is true that police do not need to obtain a warrant to enter your home if they have probable cause to do so, such as you open the door during a knock-and-talk and they see a bong of the coffee table. They do, however, need to go back and get a warrant to do a proper search of the rest of the premises, which they WILL get, based on this probable cause. They can tape off the house during this time and not allow the occupants to re-enter until the search is complete.

There is a saying that holds true as much in growing as in poker, where it originated:

If you can't walk away, you shouldn't play.

[the image reaper]

IR, did you have anything of value to add to the conversation or do you just like following me around and attacking me?

first, as long as I follow the rules here, I will come and go anywhere I please ... second, I have in no way 'attacked' you ... if you didn't shoot your mouth off with stupid, inflammatory statements, no one would pay much attention to you, at all ... why don't you direct your energy at marijuana cultivation, and leave politics to intelligent adults ? ... :D

[stinkyattic]

***watching bemusedly from the sidelines whilst humming some choice tidbits of Kenny Rogers***

[epilepticme]

too funny stinky!

[rebgirl420]

I wanna laugh too.

I don't get it.

[stinkyattic]

YouTube - Kenny Rogers - The Gambler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo)

Gambling with your criminal record is even MORE fun than gambling with your money! :wtf:

[rebgirl420]

Sweet Jesus hahah.

Good one Stinky.

:dance:

[jsn9333]

I say don't chuck the plants. 99.9% chance it is nothing. I mean, was he in your driveway or something? Or just on the street? Cops often pull over in random places just to do paperwork and what not. Eventually one will park somewhere near your house just by general probability. Don't let them beat you so easily... if they knew you were growing (as has been said) they wouldn't just park a black and white out front.

Then again, I may not be the person to ask. The bastards can take my plants from my cold, dead hands.

[FakeBoobsRule]

if they smelled what they thought to be marijuana in the air they would not need a search warrant either if it was strong enough to determine it's origin.
Daihasi, I'm sorry to have to post this but this is incorrect and not the first time I have seen you post in the legal forum about smell gives them the right to search without a warrant so I want to help clear this up. First of all, you need probable cause and an exception to the search requirement. Now I know people want to talk about cops being dishonest, cutting corners or flat out lying but let's talk in what should be done and done properly.

Probable cause helps to establish that a crime has been committed and that suspect x is the one that probably committed the crime. To conduct a warrantless search at this point you have to have an exception to the warrant requirement. Some exceptions include granting the police permission to search, plain sight, terry pat down, imminent danger, possible loss of evidence. These aren't all of them. The loss of evidence is still tricky as many judges would rather the police secure the scene and then get the warrant (such as remove everyone from a house, stand guard, and then get the warrant) if evidence could be lost or destroyed.

Plain smell does not equal warrantless search by itself.

This was established by Taylor v. US (1932) and then pretty much upheld by Johnson v US (1948). If you find the summary for Taylor v US I think one or more of the judges writes about how plain smell isn't as convincing as plain sight because it's hard to trap a smell and bring it into evidence while something seen is easier to show as evidence and more compelling. I haven't read the whole thing in a while so I might be off. Then in Johnson v US if you read it you will see there is more evidence against Johnson than just smell and again the Supreme Court upholds smell alone is not the basis for a warrantless search.

The Supreme Court has also established that burnt marijuana smell suggests possession and personal use while raw marijuana smell suggests possible distribution or growing.

They can follow that smell around to try to find the origin but it can only take them so far. If those plants are in plain sight, it really doesn't matter about the smell.

[daihashi]

Daihasi, I'm sorry to have to post this but this is incorrect and not the first time I have seen you post in the legal forum about smell gives them the right to search without a warrant so I want to help clear this up. First of all, you need probable cause and an exception to the search requirement. Now I know people want to talk about cops being dishonest, cutting corners or flat out lying but let's talk in what should be done and done properly.

Probable cause helps to establish that a crime has been committed and that suspect x is the one that probably committed the crime. To conduct a warrantless search at this point you have to have an exception to the warrant requirement. Some exceptions include granting the police permission to search, plain sight, terry pat down, imminent danger, possible loss of evidence. These aren't all of them. The loss of evidence is still tricky as many judges would rather the police secure the scene and then get the warrant (such as remove everyone from a house, stand guard, and then get the warrant) if evidence could be lost or destroyed.

Plain smell does not equal warrantless search by itself.

This was established by Taylor v. US (1932) and then pretty much upheld by Johnson v US (1948). If you find the summary for Taylor v US I think one or more of the judges writes about how plain smell isn't as convincing as plain sight because it's hard to trap a smell and bring it into evidence while something seen is easier to show as evidence and more compelling. I haven't read the whole thing in a while so I might be off. Then in Johnson v US if you read it you will see there is more evidence against Johnson than just smell and again the Supreme Court upholds smell alone is not the basis for a warrantless search.

The Supreme Court has also established that burnt marijuana smell suggests possession and personal use while raw marijuana smell suggests possible distribution or growing.

They can follow that smell around to try to find the origin but it can only take them so far. If those plants are in plain sight, it really doesn't matter about the smell.

Local News | State Supreme Court narrows probable-cause grounds in pot case | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008058627_potruling18m.html)

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search,the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.

This could easily be applied to a grow if the smell was distinctly coming from his house and the odor was strong. Especially if he smelled the odor and found the plants in his backyard the police officers probable cause would have been justified and likely to found credible in the Supreme Court.

I never claim to be a lawyer or for people to take my advice as actual legal advice. I gave my opinion and while it could be fought and overturned, I doubt anyone here has the money it would take to get that done and to get a Jury that would support it especially after this Supreme Court ruling July 17th 2008 where they determined that it would give probable cause to search but not to arrest/detain.

shrug... I'm no lawyer... besides it's likely to vary state by state anyway

Say what you will but I've been to court enough times to see that smell is enough probable cause for the judges locally and I'm fairly certain here no one has the money to take this to the supreme court.

While it certainly sucks that police officers use this as probable cause, most courts I've been in allow this. What's right and what actually happens are unfortunatley two different things.

[FakeBoobsRule]

This could easily be applied to a grow if the smell was distinctly coming from his house and the odor was strong. Especially if he smelled the odor and found the plants in his backyard the police officers probable cause would have been justified and likely to found credible in the Supreme Court.

I never claim to be a lawyer or for people to take my advice as actual legal advice. I gave my opinion and while it could be fought and overturned, I doubt anyone here has the money it would take to get that done and to get a Jury that would support it especially after this Supreme Court ruling July 17th 2008 where they determined that it would give probable cause to search but not to arrest/detain.


Even though newspapers are written on a 4th grade level they can be of some use. :rolleyes:

Ok, how you made a jump from this one case involving a car to coming up with how this case can be applied directly to a house escapes me. Cars and house fall under a different set of rules. When The Constitution was written, the British were walking into colonists' homes at will. The Constitution was written with the belief that a home is one's castle and the most sacred of places. Cars on the other hand aren't. Because cars are mobile, you have fewer rights than a house. Carroll v US helps to establish that a car itself is an exception to the warrant requirement because of its mobility. You can't always apply a ruling from a car to a house and vice versa. The fact that a car is involved is an exception to the warrant requirement in most cases.

Next look at the timeline of events.

1) Cop see what he believes is illegal window tint, initiates stop.
2) Cop smells marijuana and arrests both the driver and passenger.
3) Cop searches both of them after incident to arrest.
4) Cop finds pipe and marijuana on the passenger.
5) Cop now searches car because he has found marijuana on passenger.
6) They all go to court.

The cop didn't smell the marijuana, search the car, then arrest them. He arrested them first based on the smell alone which is what the whole case rests on. Did he have probable cause for a warrantless arrest, not a warrantless search and seizure.

I found the whole opinion and summary insted of the written in stone words of some news reporter who may or may not have legal training.

Under their state law, once you are arrested you are subject to search. Arrest would be an exception to the warrant requirement in Washington. The defense is arguing that the arrest was illegal making the search illegal. The Washington State Supreme Court agreed and reversed the lower court ruling.

You can read it all right in the following link here instead of a reporter's own take because this part:

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.

Washington Courts (http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=810681MAJ)

In that opinion, none of the judges ever state smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search. That's what the reporter said. To me, for the reporter to say smell alone when dealing with a car arrest is almost like an oxymoron because it isn't smell alone, it's smell and a mobile crime scene and falls under Carroll v US with the car is an exception to the warrant requirement. How much power the car exception gives a cop varies from state to state by the way.

You don't have to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court to use Taylor v Us or Johnson v US in a defense. It's called citing cases to support your argument something judges take highly into consideration when ruling.

While you might have sat in court and heard what was going on, that doesn't mean that people were being searched based on smell alone.

You can hang your hat on this case that was ruled upon by a state Supreme Court. I'll stick with Johnson v US and Taylor v US.

If the cop was smart, he would have had a better chance getting the search in by arresting the driver for driving while impaired, impounded the car, and searched it incident to arrest, which is also an exception to the warrant requirement.

[stinkyattic]

There is case law kicking around somewhere establishing that smell, in and of itself, is NOT probable cause to search a vehicle. I do not have the case name or even whether it was state or fed, but smell is going to be low on the list of concerns- PLAIN SIGHT is the big one to worry about.

As for smell, cops aside, thieves have noses too...

[jsn9333]

There is case law kicking around somewhere establishing that smell, in and of itself, is NOT probable cause to search a vehicle. I do not have the case name or even whether it was state or fed, but smell is going to be low on the list of concerns- PLAIN SIGHT is the big one to worry about.

As for smell, cops aside, thieves have noses too...

I am not a lawyer (yet) nor any sort of criminal attorney, but it is my understanding that smell alone is grounds to search a vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the laws vary State by State, but on the Federal Level (if you appealed to the Supreme Court) I believe smell alone is grounds to search a car. I know of many people in various states that have had their car searched because of smell alone, and they did not win on appeal. Now maybe some case in X state did win on appeal... but unless I lived in that state I wouldn't take my chances. Just keep the smell out of the car (and off you if you are in the car) by all means possible.

That being said, smell is not grounds, by itself, to search a house since that has more historical protections under the 4th amendment. That is my understanding at least. But if you let your house reek and they smell it you can be damn sure they're going to start trying to gather additional evidence.

[daihashi]

That being said, smell is not grounds, by itself, to search a house since that has more historical protections under the 4th amendment. That is my understanding at least. But if you let your house reek and they smell it you can be damn sure they're going to start trying to gather additional evidence.

It is my understanding that an officer may enter premises if your property remains unlocked. (at least this is how it was explained to me by my lawyer.)

Meaning if your front door is unlocked the officer may come into your dwelling or if you have a fenced in back yard and the outside door to the back yard is unlocked then he may search the premises.

Smell will not allow an officer to arrest or detain you, but I believe it still gives him reason to investigate further, and if he actually finds something then there is little chance of it being thrown out.

As I've said before, I've spent quite a bit of time in the criminal courts (I'm not proud of this fact) and regardless of whether it's right or wrong, smell typically is justifiable by the judges are reasonable probable cause. You can appeal your case or take it to a higher court, both which costs money most people don't have.

I don't stand by what I say as legal advice. I say it regurgitating a combination of what I've seen in the courts first hand and what my lawyer has expressed to me personally. He's gotten me off on anything I've been arrested for (more so in my early 20's.. and luckily I don't need his services these days) so I personally take what he tells me to heart as I respect his insight and advice.

With that said I think if the cops were going to come for hydrocannabis they would've gotten him by now. It's probably safe to say the coast is clear, but that's up to the OP to decide.

[rebgirl420]

There is case law kicking around somewhere establishing that smell, in and of itself, is NOT probable cause to search a vehicle. I do not have the case name or even whether it was state or fed, but smell is going to be low on the list of concerns- PLAIN SIGHT is the big one to worry about.

As for smell, cops aside, thieves have noses too...

I posted this a while back:

http://boards.cannabis.com/current-events/159964-scent-marijuana-not-grounds-search-says-b-c-court.html

[daihashi]

I posted this a while back:

http://boards.cannabis.com/current-events/159964-scent-marijuana-not-grounds-search-says-b-c-court.html

Go canada

[missconspiracy]

You would be surprised what the USFG can do under the PATRIOT act and new terror laws. GoddessHerb IS correct about 'sneak-and-peek' searches, which were either XOed or passed by congress in the USA PATRIOT Act. That's just true.

Moreover, if property is locked, police may not enter without a search warrant. But, with a warrant, they may cut locks, etc. UNLESS, however, they claim some bullshit about terrorism.

The BUSH (yes, Bush did this!) administration's crackdown on imaginary terrorism has definitely added SIGNIFICANT powers to the state and taken most rights to privacy and 'security in one's person and papers' and thrown them the fuck away.

[CaptainDankNuggets]

How many times has this happened, and im sure that you have to much traffic in and out of your house not to smart, especially when your growing.

[hydrocannabis]

the only ppl that ever go in and out of this house is me, an old ladie, a weener dog and 2 cats. and thats it.

and most of my neighbor R old and R cool ppl.
and the buds R gitting bigger now and still no smell. not up close or from the street. :D for now.


well thats it for now and try to stay safe as I will try to do.:stoned:

[dragonrider]

the only ppl that ever go in and out of this house is me, an old ladie, a weener dog and 2 cats. and thats it.

and most of my neighbor R old and R cool ppl.
and the buds R gitting bigger now and still no smell. not up close or from the street. :D for now.


well thats it for now and try to stay safe as I will try to do.:stoned:

Dear Owner,

The weiner dog is a narc. Never trust a weiner dog.

Yours Truly,

The Cats

[rebgirl420]

Dear Owner,

The weiner dog is a narc. Never trust a weiner dog.

Yours Truly,

The Cats

LOL!

Sincerely, Boots and Mittens