Kansas Supreme Court rules cops can enter any house w/o a warrant if they smell weed

CaliFFL

Downside: Cops can say they smell weed to enter any house. Doesn't matter if there actually is weed, or a dead skunk or Heineken beer. "I smelled the weed from 30 feet, in a baggie, sealed in a Tupperware container, inside a locked safe, inside a closet. My nose is that good." Of course, the Court did not challenge this BS. Kansas police now have a "license to lie" to circumvent PC. 

Upside: Kansas residents will save tax money with the elimination of drug dogs. 


https://www.cjonline.com/news/20181208/kansas-supreme-court-decision-in-marijuana-case-hinges-on-lawrence-officers-sense-of-smell

CHIRO1989

That's laughable, I would have tested that officers ability to smell anything stored like that, in court, bad lawyering if anything, the next case will be better prepared for, surprised the ACLU did not lend their expertise.

earlyagain

I have to believe that a great many Kansas cops are having the same ****? reaction as many Kansas residents????

tennmike

I think that the cop that said he/she could smell that odor from 30 feet away while standing 30 feet and outside a closed door was lying like a bad rug. Marijuana burning has a pretty pungent odor, and most has a hint of burning dried horse poop. Maybe burn a few horse apples on the front porch in a cheap hibachi grill and have the cops coming from miles around who smell it!

mitdr774

This decision won't survive being challenged further up the chain. 

CaliFFL

CHIRO1989 said:

That's laughable, I would have tested that officers ability to smell anything stored like that, in court, bad lawyering if anything, the next case will be better prepared for, surprised the ACLU did not lend their expertise.

Not bad lawyering...awful judging. The quote is telling. 

Justice Dan Biles, who wrote the majority opinion released Friday sustaining the Court of Appeals’ decision in 2016 upholding the convictions, said officers didn’t have to perform a sophisticated sensory task to proceed with reasonable action intended to prevent possible destruction of evidence.

“We are not dealing with sommeliers trying to identify a white wine as a Loire Valley Chenin Blanc,” he wrote in the decision.

The judge's comment relieves the cops from any qualifiers. 

CaliFFL

mitdr774 said:

This decision won't survive being challenged further up the chain. 

The only link in the chain remaining is SCOTUS. Read Florida v. Harris. The Court ruled a canine alert is probable cause and can result in a full blown search. The problem with this ruling is false positive alerts happen 80% of the time. The Court legitimized a warrantless search with an 80% error rate using dogs. 

If this case goes to SCOTUS and is upheld, it will set precedent for the entire US, not only Kansas. 

CHIRO1989

I am thinking the next time this evidence is admitted in court, the defense attorney will make the cop look like a fool testing his/her ability to differentiate smells.

Make_My_Day

What a jack-ass decision. I doubt that any human can smell weed from 30 feet in a closed container. When it's burning, that's a different story.

CaliFFL

CHIRO1989 said:

I am thinking the next time this evidence is admitted in court, the defense attorney will make the cop look like a fool testing his/her ability to differentiate smells.

Won't happen. Florida v. Harris says a dog's testing accuracy is irrelevant to the search as long as the dog is certified. LE will create a certification for themselves and it'll be business as usual. 

CHIRO1989

Not sure a jury will buy that.

CaliFFL

CHIRO1989 said:

Not sure a jury will buy that.

If the judge allows it into evidence, maybe. Betcha a beer a judge will never allow it at trial. 

CHIRO1989

A reasonable person would see the error of the ruling, might see a lower court judge do the right thing and see what flies.

Bigslug

Here in California you can make all the MJ smoke you want.

Now, whether or not Gavin Newsom decides that probable cause to enter exists for the smell of Hoppe's or Shooter's Choice remains to be seen. 

CaliFFL

This has mission creep written all over it. 

tennmike

If his alleged 'smell alert' makes it to trial, then hopefully there will be at least one to a few of the jurors that throw a red flag up in deliberations and call BS on that fool claiming to be able to smell marijuana under the conditions given, and refuse to vote guilty due that 'fruit of the poisonous tree' thing. Or just general jury nullification. Either works.

CaliFFL

If you are caught with weed, this is ideal. What about the poor bastard that doesn't have anything illegal and has his house ransacked? My safe is always locked...there's no way in hell I'm giving up the combo. What happens then? 

zorba

CaliFFL said:

My safe is always locked...there's no way in hell I'm giving up the combo. What happens then? 

I've been wondering this exact same thing - somebody would play hell getting in, you'd pretty much need  a torch with this safe.

tennmike

Both my safes are fairly easy to change the combination. They're the old 'spin the dial' type and the instructions for changing the combination are the same. I could always spill the small plastic bottle of Montana Extreme copper remover I keep on the gun stuff shelving on the floor if I knew they were coming. That would negate them claiming to have smelled pot. That Montana Extreme has enough ammonia in it to make you think you're in a chikkin broiler house; makes your eyes water just cleaning a rifle with it! A few ounces on the floor will clear your sinuses out RIGHT NOW!

zorba

That's not the point - what do you do if searchers want into your safe? Which has nothing illegal in it anyway.

zorba

That's not the point - what do you do if searchers want into your safe? Which has nothing illegal in it anyway.

CHIRO1989

zorba said:

That's not the point - what do you do if searchers want into your safe? Which has nothing illegal in it anyway.

Let them dig their own holes, anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law, state your innocence, refuse to cooperate on the grounds that you have no idea why they are in your place, you have no search warrant to state in writing why they are there, you said they said. 

zorba

Ok, that's fine.

Now, say the police enter my home, they have a warrant for "whatever". They want me to open my safe.

Now what?

CHIRO1989

Ask a lawyer in your state so you know what to do, just in case.

CaliFFL

zorba said:

Ok, that's fine.

Now, say the police enter my home, they have a warrant for "whatever". They want me to open my safe.

Now what?

If they have a warrant, open it for them or they will torch it. I don’t know about you, but I have too much plastic and wood in my safe to allow a torching. 

Gene L

https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2018/113888.html

tennmike

Gene L said:

https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2018/113888.html

What has that got to do with a cop claiming to have a nose rivaling the abilities of a dope sniffin’ dog?

Gene L

Perhaps you should read the case before making comments?   You might be better educated on the facts.  Thisis a "test case".  No one goes to the Supreme Court to defend a misdemeanor case of possession of pot.

tennmike

That lame website locks up my computer. I CAN’T READ THAT MESS BECAUSE SCROLLING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE. And I still say that cop was lying through his teeth. Unless he’s at least 95% bloodhound and walks on all fours.

Gene L

If you can't read the document (which is easy) how can you possibly say the officer was lying through her teeth?  Load the document and scroll down on the right side.   It's easy.  I am of the opinion that some lawyer wanted to make his reputation by challenging this decision, and he lost.  And possibly made bad law.  The officer had smelled raw marijuana 200 times.

CaliFFL

Yeah, I read Hubbard. 

Deputy Dog smelled 25.07 grams of raw MJ inside a baggie, inside a Tupperware container, inside a safe, inside a closet, and 30 feet away while standing outside the entrance doorway? BS....she went fishing and got lucky, that's all. The other cops on scene testified they did not smell any weed. The bongs found were clean and had no traces of MJ. There was a trace of burnt MJ in an ashtray. The safe had to be pried open to find the weed. Remember, the cops prying the safe open testified they did not smell weed. Only one cop detected "the strong smell of raw marijuana." Again, the other cops searching the place did not smell it. 

At this point, it doesn't matter if she was lying or not...Kansas cops can now say they smelled weed or any other contraband to justify a warrantless search. There's no qualifiers; the Justices made sure of that. Exigent and totality of the circumstances is whatever the police say it is at the time of the warrantless search.