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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoddessHerb

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

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

too funny stinky!

I wanna laugh too.

I don't get it.

YouTube - Kenny Rogers - The Gambler

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

Sweet Jesus hahah.

Good one Stinky.

:dance:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

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.