[w00t]

Yep. You have the constitutional right to not open the door for a police officer, so before, our hypothetical officer would have had to respect your decision and come back with a warrant, but now he needs only to hear a noise that could be the destruction of evidence to break down your door.

Or, yknow, detect an illegal substance exiting your property.

Also known as smelling marijuana.

[Finesse]

Or, yknow, detect an illegal substance exiting your property.

Also known as smelling marijuana.

Listen, I have the utmost respect for my nations laws, and I definitely see the value in allotting police the power they need to do their jobs, but this law has WAY too much room for abuse. There's no way to prove that an officer smelled or didn't smell something, and "the sounds of the destruction of evidence" is so vague that it can be applied to almost any sound the police hear.

My run-ins with law enforcement have always been friendly ones. There's never been an instance where I've felt anything but protected by my local officers of the law.
But I know. I've seen it, I've heard stories. Police can be cruel, unfair. They can line people up and pepperspray them. They can attack innocent people through misguided attempts at justice. Worst of all, they can work for themselves, in lieu of the people.

I'm sorry but I can't feel safe in a nation where the police have the power to enter and ransack my home with no warrant or explanation other than "I smelled weed and I heard some noise."

[Dismas]

Listen, I have the utmost respect for my nations laws, and I definitely see the value in allotting police the power they need to do their jobs, but this law has WAY too much room for abuse. There's no way to prove that an officer smelled or didn't smell something, and "the sounds of the destruction of evidence" is so vague that it can be applied to almost any sound the police hear.

My run-ins with law enforcement have always been friendly ones. There's never been an instance where I've felt anything but protected by my local officers of the law.
But I know. I've seen it, I've heard stories. Police can be cruel, unfair. They can line people up and pepperspray them. They can attack innocent people through misguided attempts at justice. Worst of all, they can work for themselves, in lieu of the people.

I'm sorry but I can't feel safe in a nation where the police have the power to enter and ransack my home with no warrant or explanation other than "I smelled weed and I heard some noise."

It requires us trusting the government. Do you really trust them that much? I don't.

[w00t]

When it comes down to it, you have to trust someone to defend you. If you aren't defending yourself as a "tribe", you'll be attacked by a "tribe".

If you don't want your home to be ransacked, don't do illegal things. If your home is comprehensively searched and there is absolutely no evidence that what the initial officer said was true, you can sue the city for your "damages". If you don't think something should be illegal, start a movement.

My point was more that this ruling doesn't actually add anything new, it's just a reaffirmation of current law.

[Finesse]

It requires us trusting the government. Do you really trust them that much? I don't.

I most certainly do not, and I'd be a little naive if I did. The United States government has lied to its people too many times to retain my trust.

When it comes down to it, you have to trust someone to defend you. If you aren't defending yourself as a "tribe", you'll be attacked by a "tribe".

If you don't want your home to be ransacked, don't do illegal things. If your home is comprehensively searched and there is absolutely no evidence that what the initial officer said was true, you can sue the city for your "damages". If you don't think something should be illegal, start a movement.

My point was more that this ruling doesn't actually add anything new, it's just a reaffirmation of current law.

Tribes? Are you talking about other nations? Protecting us from other nations is the job of the military, not the police, and searching people's homes unconstitutionally does not fall under the pledge to "protect and serve."

It seems like a small change, but it's one that should never have taken place under the Fourth Amendment. Until the ruling, to break into a home and search it, police needed either a warrant or probable cause. Now that smelling something and hearing something, two factors that can be neither confirmed nor denied in a court of law, are sufficient, any hypothetical corrupt police officer with a blood-grudge or conviction can break into my house, destroy my things, and walk away, or if his conviction serves him, plant evidence in my home.

It may be a paranoid fear but it's certainly a possibility, and it's not one that should exist.

[Nil]

But the thing is, I've known for a while now that smelling marijuana has been used for probable cause, and has been highly debated on. Why is just coming up now like it hasn't existed?

[w00t]

Tribes? Are you talking about other nations? Protecting us from other nations is the job of the military, not the police, and searching people's homes unconstitutionally does not fall under the pledge to "protect and serve."

It seems like a small change, but it's one that should never have taken place under the Fourth Amendment. Until the ruling, to break into a home and search it, police needed either a warrant or probable cause. Now that smelling something and hearing something, two factors that can be neither confirmed nor denied in a court of law, are sufficient, any hypothetical corrupt police officer with a blood-grudge or conviction can break into my house, destroy my things, and walk away, or if his conviction serves him, plant evidence in my home.

It may be a paranoid fear but it's certainly a possibility, and it's not one that should exist.

I don't see the military tracking down the guy that steals your car, and I'm pretty sure that's a service you'd want if your car ever gets stolen.

It isn't a change, that's the point. It's been in the books that probable cause can be obtained through the observations of an officer since 1928. Sure, you might not like it when the scent and sound is that of you smoking pot in the back room, but if my house smells like smoke and I'm yelling, I'd sure want those two observances to be grounds for legal entry. It is also worth noting that entry and search are entirely different things. They can enter and arrest you, but anything found in a search before a warrant is issued is inadmissible.

Now, the wonderful thing about modern criminal justice, is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime. A kid fresh out of law school can get an officer's testimony tossed into the "reasonable doubt" bin if it's all the case has to go on.

As for property damage, guess what, it doesn't become legal for them to break your stuff because they had probable cause for entry. You can, and people usually do, sue for unnecessary damage to property. Most modern police departments now film searches, to avoid false claims, as the burden of proof in civil trial is much lighter.

[Dyme]

Those bastards deserve it. Weed is terrible for you. Potatos are much better!