One for Us

[gypski]

The Supreme Court of Washington State ruled one in our favor.

The strong odor of marijuana coming from a stopped vehicle is not sufficient cause for a warrantless search, the Washington Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority on Thursday. :thumbsup:

Toke of the Town - WA Supreme Court: Pot Smell Not Cause For Warrantless Search

gypski Reviewed by gypski on 08-06-2010. One for Us The Supreme Court of Washington State ruled one in our favor. The strong odor of marijuana coming from a stopped vehicle is not sufficient cause for a warrantless search, the Washington Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority on Thursday. :thumbsup: Toke of the Town - WA Supreme Court: Pot Smell Not Cause For Warrantless Search Rating: 5

[jamessr]

The Supreme Court of Washington State ruled one in our favor.

The strong odor of marijuana coming from a stopped vehicle is not sufficient cause for a warrantless search, the Washington Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority on Thursday. :thumbsup:

Toke of the Town - WA Supreme Court: Pot Smell Not Cause For Warrantless Search

My case just got dismissed...WooT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s. note who the judges are.Justices Gerry Alexander, Richard Sanders, Tom Chambers, and Mary Fairhurst signed the majority opinion authored by Justice Debra Stephens.

[justpics]

not grounds for a warrantless search, but they will just use the info to get a warrant if they really want to search you.

[jamessr]

That's the whole point..get a warrant, no skirting the laws officer dick-head-sir.

It's most definitely a voting year with this kind of ruling...:thumbsup:

[jamessr]

WOW, dude got convicted for a non-offense crime...typical of wa. prosecutors...charge for crimes which don't exist and the judge goes along with it...must be the federal drug court grant money which does this...greed!!!!!!!

[Mr. Tibbles has not challenged his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, and the charging instrument is not in the record. Therefore, although it appears that he may have been convicted of a nonoffense (there is no such offense [*24] under state statutes), the issue is not properly before the court and cannot be resolved on this record.] <<<<MADSON wrote this in dissent.

He had less than 40 grams and glass pipes in a bag under the passenger seat..

It is not a public offense to have pipes, it's a public offense to "use" them for/with drugs.

Tis what I am talking about...non-public offense because the statute don't say so...

[justpics]

something else that is probably important to recognize is that they actually don't even need to go get a warrant. From the article, ""It should be noted that Trooper Larsen likely had probable cause to arrest Tibbles based on the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car," the court ruled.

Because the trooper did not do so, but instead released Tibbles, the customary 'search incident to a lawful arrest' exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, the court ruled."


Just expect to be arrested if they smell marijuana, and then searched.

[jamessr]

something else that is probably important to recognize is that they actually don't even need to go get a warrant. From the article, ""It should be noted that Trooper Larsen likely had probable cause to arrest Tibbles based on the strong odor of marijuana coming from the car," the court ruled.

Because the trooper did not do so, but instead released Tibbles, the customary 'search incident to a lawful arrest' exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, the court ruled."


Just expect to be arrested if they smell marijuana, and then searched.

Good point..also note state v. fry confirmed that the smell of marijuana is enough probable cause to arrest...state v. olson

Tis the sweet, sweet smell of ganja which is the underlying issue. That's a given. The rule has always been, arrest incident to search, hasn't it?? Now the cops have another slap in the face...follow the rules as written, no cutting corners...

[gypski]

From now on, if they say they smell that smell, they better have more grounds then just their sniffer. And, if they do an arrest and search, they better come up with some evidence. We all know they use the, "I smell, detect the odor of whatever", as probable cause. I think this ruling weakens that reasoning on the part of the officer. They now have to be damned positive or out goes the arrest. :jointsmile:

[killerweed420]

Yeah the smell test is just like the K9 "hitting" on a vehicle. Pretty much a joke. Would be nice if cops could find better things to do with there time.