dwight smokum
Active Member
if they catch you in vehicle with misdemeanor amount of pot?
can cops search yer home
- Thread starter dwight smokum
- Start date
420monster
Well-Known Member
Nope now say that see you carry it into your house or follow you and see you unload 300lbs yes but you can be sure your on the watch list now but I can sell 2 tons outside my home and it would not be anuff by itself to search my home one fine bag from my home would be more than anuff tho
Sent from my SM-J100VPP using Rollitup mobile app
Sent from my SM-J100VPP using Rollitup mobile app
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Pretty much, they need probable cause, which is what 420Monster's describing.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Oh, in that case? They might push it if they suspect you're distributing.
420monster
Well-Known Member
That won't stop them from a knock and talk tho then they can lie there way to probable cause never open the door ever if they could come in they would knock with there foot and some ar15s
Sent from my SM-J100VPP using Rollitup mobile app
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
Yeah, most likely, if they see you, they'll plan a raid and act unassuming until then.
420monster
Well-Known Member
Back on topic tho the most basic answer no not at all
haha sorry alittle drunk on a stoner forum T_T blasphemy!Sent from my SM-J100VPP using Rollitup mobile app
Kind Sir
Well-Known Member
I wanted to take a simple course regarding our rights and whatnot. Without having to go to college, are there places that'll teach you your rights? Having knowledge of factual legalities would be stellar.
420monster
Well-Known Member
Barry cooper vol1 never get busted Barry cooper vol 2 never get raided,and flex your rights.com
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Not without consent or a warrant. If, for example, you were in the driveway smoking and ran inside, then they could probably get a warrant, but they can't just chase you inside.
Here are some Supreme Court cases to know:
Jardines V Florida
Soldal V Cook County
Hampton V Hanrahan
Bivens V 6 Unkown Named Agents
Here is an example of how the 4th Amendment works:
I knew someone who had an illegal automatic weapon and was arrested for it. The cop that arrested him had previously arrested him for an illegal weapon, and he knew he would have an illegal weapon this time. But here is the situation. They were in a car, the guy with the illegal weapon was the passenger in the car and the driver was drunk. The cop pulled them over, and had probable cause to search the car and the driver because of the situation, but he had no right to search the passenger. He said clearly and in front of the dash cam "I do not consent to a search", so the District Attorney dropped the charges.
In Jardines V Florida:
Jardines was growing Marijuana in his house and the Police for some reason thought he was growing Marijuana in his house but had no confirmation. So they brought a Dog to his house and had it sniff around the property. Then when it indicated there were drugs in the house, they got a warrant and came back to the house to get the Marijuana plants.
It was ruled that when they brought the Dog to his house that this was an illegal search that should have had a warrant associated with it, and because there was no warrant the search was unconstitutional/illegal.
And for anyone worried that they can see heat from your lamps and find your grow, the Supreme Court ruled that they need a warrant in order to use thermal imaging on a house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
And here is a case where they put GPS on someone's car, and the Supreme Court said that, while your whereabouts on public streets are not private, your car is your personal private property and can not be searched (including a GPS being attached to it) without consent or probably cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
Here are some Supreme Court cases to know:
Jardines V Florida
Soldal V Cook County
Hampton V Hanrahan
Bivens V 6 Unkown Named Agents
Here is an example of how the 4th Amendment works:
I knew someone who had an illegal automatic weapon and was arrested for it. The cop that arrested him had previously arrested him for an illegal weapon, and he knew he would have an illegal weapon this time. But here is the situation. They were in a car, the guy with the illegal weapon was the passenger in the car and the driver was drunk. The cop pulled them over, and had probable cause to search the car and the driver because of the situation, but he had no right to search the passenger. He said clearly and in front of the dash cam "I do not consent to a search", so the District Attorney dropped the charges.
In Jardines V Florida:
Jardines was growing Marijuana in his house and the Police for some reason thought he was growing Marijuana in his house but had no confirmation. So they brought a Dog to his house and had it sniff around the property. Then when it indicated there were drugs in the house, they got a warrant and came back to the house to get the Marijuana plants.
It was ruled that when they brought the Dog to his house that this was an illegal search that should have had a warrant associated with it, and because there was no warrant the search was unconstitutional/illegal.
And for anyone worried that they can see heat from your lamps and find your grow, the Supreme Court ruled that they need a warrant in order to use thermal imaging on a house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
And here is a case where they put GPS on someone's car, and the Supreme Court said that, while your whereabouts on public streets are not private, your car is your personal private property and can not be searched (including a GPS being attached to it) without consent or probably cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And according to these cases:
The 4th Amendment includes the right of a person to retreat into their own home and there be safe from unwarranted Government intrusion. They also can not come in a side garden, or gated area, or front porch without a warrant. They may enter the porch only to knock and if no one answers or invites them in, then they have the right to leave. In the words of the court, paraphrased: If the nations trick or treaters can do it, so can the Police.
The 4th Amendment includes the right of a person to retreat into their own home and there be safe from unwarranted Government intrusion. They also can not come in a side garden, or gated area, or front porch without a warrant. They may enter the porch only to knock and if no one answers or invites them in, then they have the right to leave. In the words of the court, paraphrased: If the nations trick or treaters can do it, so can the Police.
Last edited:
boilingoil
Well-Known Member
Right or wrong I had a friend get pulled over and they found some weed on her and they most certainly went to her house. Not hard around here to get a Judge to sign a warrant.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
If you ever get even just a regular traffic ticket, accept it when the cop gives it to you, but take it to trial every single time. And Plea under Rule 5.1, which means you are challenging the law with the constitution. Bring a copy of Rule 5.1 printed out for the judge, then let them know that you are to be presumed Innocent, maybe have something ready for the judge to show them your 5th and 14th amendment rights, along with Coffin V United States (1895), and the 9th Amendment which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
And make them prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt and in completion.
Forma Papauris basically means 'as a poor person' and you are just asking the court to recognize that you can't pay the other parties court fines.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SuE-gmBwPLUj4kNDM8jg7NsgkBFrX9o5oDaELv5sZf0/edit?usp=sharing
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
And make them prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt and in completion.
Forma Papauris basically means 'as a poor person' and you are just asking the court to recognize that you can't pay the other parties court fines.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SuE-gmBwPLUj4kNDM8jg7NsgkBFrX9o5oDaELv5sZf0/edit?usp=sharing
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
If a warrant is gotten Maliciously or is an Over-broad warrant or is otherwise an invalid warrant, you can get all evidence from that warrant taken out of the case.
This case is insane, but it shows a cop getting and using an illegal warrant
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-704.pdf
And Police are criminally liable for acting on invalid or malicious warrants.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Just start by reading Supreme Court cases, after you read a few you will start to understand how they bounce Congressional Laws off of Case Law, and that all of it is based on Constitutional Law. Then once you get the hang of how they are using them to interpret each case, then you can start doing the same thing.
It is also good to read one case, then when you see a judge in that case cite an older case with an interesting implication, then go read that whole case also. And keep going back and back to see what it is all based on and if there are things that have been lost to time, but that still apply to the current interpretations of law.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Here is the best place to start, read these and Burwell V Hobby Lobby
First is the laws, then is the Hobby Lobby case, which interprets those laws.
US Religious Law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21C
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."
First is the laws, then is the Hobby Lobby case, which interprets those laws.
US Religious Law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21C
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
"It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).2 If the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715–716 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb–2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition).
Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb– 2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc– 3(g)."