[QUOTE=jjimm]
I tried this once in Dublin. It didn’t work.
Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: It’s pouring with rain, so when the light went amber I didn’t stop because I was concerned that I’d skid through the junction. I presume it’s that?
[…]
(There was more jolly banter around this, which concluded with the cop saying, with a smile “you’re late for work now, aren’t you?” - but this was the nub of the conversation.)
[/QUOTE]
And I hope you responded (with a bigger smile) “Yes, I’m late, but you just had to stand in the rain for fifteen minutes.”
No, it would be more like:
(PA – Prosecuting attorney)
(OB – Officer Bob)
(DA – Defese attorney)
(U – you)
PA: Officer Bob, why did you search Mr. X’s car?
OB: In my professional experience, I smelled what I thought was MJ in the car. I had PC, so I searched the vehicle.
DA: I object. OB doesn’t know what MJ smells like.
PA: OB, have you been involved in an arrest on MJ charges?
OB: Yes
JUDGE: overruled.
YOU:
[/QUOTE]
Just in case none of us had ever been to college or a party before, in the police academy they put some marijuana in an empty coffee can and lit it on fire. The second hand smoke wasn’t enough to give any one a buzz or even show up as a blip during a piss test but it was enough that we all were able to smell what burnt marijuana smells like. Attorneys don’t bother asking that question.
[QUOTE=Loach]
Attorneys don’t bother asking that question.
[/QUOTE]
In cases, where it’s crucial–like when it’s the sole basis for probable cause–the prosecutor might ask the question (technically it’s part of the evidentiary foundation). It’s a totally crazy question for a defense attorney to ask unless he’s got a good reason to expect the officer to say no.
[QUOTE=Gfactor]
In cases, where it’s crucial–like when it’s the sole basis for probable cause–the prosecutor might ask the question (technically it’s part of the evidentiary foundation). It’s a totally crazy question for a defense attorney to ask unless he’s got a good reason to expect the officer to say no.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Usually there is a pat couple of questions in the beginning from the prosecutor. “Officer how many years have you worked as a police officer? How many similar cases have you been involved in?” I meant that defense attoneys wouldn’t ask the question.
[QUOTE=Loach]
Just in case none of us had ever been to college or a party before, in the police academy they put some marijuana in an empty coffee can and lit it on fire. The second hand smoke wasn’t enough to give any one a buzz or even show up as a blip during a piss test but it was enough that we all were able to smell what burnt marijuana smells like.
[/QUOTE]
Could you tell from the reactions if there was anybody there who was smelling it for the first time?
Some of the cases make the distinction between the smell of burnt marijuana and the smell of, um, fresh (?) marijuana. Was there any training with pot that wasn’t burning?
Could you tell from the reactions if there was anybody there who was smelling it for the first time?
Some of the cases make the distinction between the smell of burnt marijuana and the smell of, um, fresh (?) marijuana. Was there any training with pot that wasn’t burning?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dead Cat]
Interesting point. I guess “I’d rather you told me, please” would be safer, and not snarky. Basically, it depends a lot on the cop’s attitude. If they really want to ticket you, they’ll probably find a way. If they’re prepared to offer some discretion, you can certainly help yourself out.
[/QUOTE]
I have good luck with
::: smiling::: Some how I have a feeling that you are going to tell me.
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
…So, in short answer to your question, you should not argue, or even discuss the issue with the officer in a way similar to that posed by your post. If asked, politely refuse, and see if the officer thinks he has sufficient grounds to search regardless (they will often ask anyway, just to insulate their action with your permission). If told, simply comply quietly.
[/QUOTE]
I would politely but firmly add, “I don’t consent to this search, officer, and believe that there is no lawful basis for it.” I wouldn’t want the officer to later be able to testify, “Once I started the search, the defendant didn’t object.”
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
I would politely but firmly add, “I don’t consent to this search, officer, and believe that there is no lawful basis for it.” I wouldn’t want the officer to later be able to testify, “Once I started the search, the defendant didn’t object.”
[/QUOTE]
Lack of objection would not have any significance. After all, either the officer has the necessary probable cause for the search, or he doesn’t. If he does, your objection is meaningless. If he doesn’t, and he didn’t ask you if he could search, the results of his search will be inadmissible (most likely, not always). If he asks you, and you say no, and he searches anyway, your original “no” is sufficient.
If he didn’t ask before starting to search, you might try asking politely, “do you have probable cause for this search?” But I’d avoid objecting to what an officer of the law does; it’s a stressful job, and that’s not doing anything to relieve the tension of the moment. We’ve seen plenty of examples of what happens when an officer of the law feels challenged in such situations. :eek:
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Lack of objection would not have any significance. After all, either the officer has the necessary probable cause for the search, or he doesn’t. If he does, your objection is meaningless. If he doesn’t, and he didn’t ask you if he could search, the results of his search will be inadmissible (most likely, not always). If he asks you, and you say no, and he searches anyway, your original “no” is sufficient.
If he didn’t ask before starting to search, you might try asking politely, “do you have probable cause for this search?” But I’d avoid objecting to what an officer of the law does; it’s a stressful job, and that’s not doing anything to relieve the tension of the moment. We’ve seen plenty of examples of what happens when an officer of the law feels challenged in such situations. :eek:
[/QUOTE]
And also realize that these days most of these things will now be on camera. If you think something was done incorrectly then there is a record of it for latter action.
