Uh, most rich people don’t have a brigade of photographers following them. I’d wager that moderately well-off, white people are less likely to encounter legal entanglements than poorer or darker folk are.
Although I agree with others that if you use drugs quietly in the privacy of your own home, you are unlikely to be arrested.
Dorms are owned by the college, and the college has some “in loco parentis” privileges over the kids in its dorms. The police can sniff your room if you are living with your parents and they ask the police to come over with their dog, too. (Certainly they can if you are under-age. And certianly they can invite the police into the house. If you are an adult renting a part of the house with doors that close, maybe not.)
Depends.
Public high schools and public colleges are NOT private spaces.
I graduated from High School in 1980 and we had one or two sweeps with dogs seeking drugs.
No students could leave classrooms. When a dog got a “hit”, Administrator used a master key to open the locker. A few kids always got busted.
My kids were in High School in the late 2000’s. Canine drug sweeps happened a lot more often. Always unannounced. Always resulting in arrests. This was a suburban H.S. with mixed race population.
You can have a celeb bragging about his drug use without consequences. On his Hollywood Babble-On podcast, Kevin Smith would openly talk about what he was smoking outside before the show. Heck, he talked about how high he was during a show in Toronto. Never got into trouble.
I haven’t seen that movie, but when it came out, there was at least one Doper who said that s/he worked on Wall Street in the 1980s, and they said that at least at their employer, even rumors of drug use would get someone fired on the spot - do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I realize employers can’t do that now - they have to test the suspected employee first, among other things.
Loach, what you said makes a lot of sense, especially because those people would have been driving afterwards. :eek:
We don’t use such substances, but also wondering how this topic fits into a class warfare narrative especially of rich v middle class. Maybe there’s some truth to the trope about poor people getting arrested/convicted more often for stuff middle class people get away with (and maybe a racial component), but tends to be overstated IMO as a way to explain away the greater propensity for law breaking among lower class people, but not the point here. The point here would be lack of much plausibility IMO to the idea very well off people are less likely to get caught if they use illegal drugs than regular people.
I’d say it’s definitely the opposite if rich and famous, because with famous people there’s a possible 15 minutes of fame involved in bringing them down. But even for just rich and obscure people there’s the innate human desire to pull other people down to one’s level if they seem higher. The dimer wouldn’t get that perverse gratification snitching on another ‘regular guy’ (or gal).
Again, it is not illegal to have done drugs in the past, no matter how recent. It is all about possession. You can talk about it all you want and not get into any trouble for it at least in the U.S. I am not sure about Canada but it is probably similar.
Read the full link. Police can trick people into a warrantless search under certain circumstances but the best defense is to not say anything and don’t open the door.
The OP’s implicit POV is that the seriously wealthy enjoy impunity as a consequence of that wealth.
Whereas as **Loach ** and the others say, by and large they enjoy security by obscurity simply by consuming in the home or hotel instead of in public or their car where they can be spotted by LEOs. Which security by obscurity is available to darn near everyone, rich and poor alike. Provided, as Shagnasty just said, whoever answers the door is smart and self-assured enough to not just let the cops in.
For sure the seriously rich and powerful folks have support staff that can “clean up” minor problems like DUIs or trashing a hotel suite. In some cases even vehicular manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, etc. Which amounts to a sort of impunity you and I don’t have. But as applied to simple possession or consumption of typical controlled substances, they don’t need that extra horsepower to be safe enough from arrest and prosecution.
I did but I don’t understand if the information is applicable under federal law or under state law in a state I don’t reside in.
If the police are doing warantless searches based on probable cause, can you just choose not to answer the door and even if a drug dog signals your apartment, you can refuse to answer? I had neighbors have the drug dogs called on them before, but they answered the door. For me, I would’ve just refused to answer when the knocked.
I know some cops will ask you to open the door, and when they open it they will lean into the door, then claim you assaulted them as an excuse to search.
This video might be dated, overacted, and the cop a bit of a mustache-twirler, but everyone should watch it regardless. The main line to remember is simply “I do not consent to any searches.” This applies to your house, your car, your bag, and your own body.
This post is from someone who’s been here for more than two years? You should know that personal insults are not permitted in GQ. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Before you start yelling about how you know your rights make sure that you actually do. There are no magic words that can protect you from arrest. The 4th amendment assures you of the right against unreasonable searches. There are 200 years of case law dealing with what constitutes an unreasonable search. Those standards and warrant exceptions are different for your house, your car, your bag, and your body. If the circumstances fall under one of the warrant exceptions saying “I do not consent” means nothing.
I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone yell at cops about anything, or that they be needlessly combative in any other way. Of course there are no magic words that prevent you from being arrested and of course there are situations in which “I do not consent to any searches” will not prevent you from being searched. I still think the points shown in the video are useful for people to know.
So what are the laws regarding police just randomly checking peoples doors on their homes or apartments with drug dogs, and if the dogs signal that there are drugs around the police enter w/o your consent?
I know with cars, they changed the rules recently. You can’t keep someone on the side of the road until the drug dogs arrive, but a drug dog signaling for a car means the police can search it without the owners consent. I’m not sure about the home.
I’ve never used dogs and we don’t have them so there is no need for me to have a working knowledge. I do know there are multiple cases that cover different situations.
You are right about the recent case regarding car stops. A stop for a motor vehicle violation is an allowed dention of limited scope and length. It is not allowed to extend the time on the stop beyond how long a normal and reasonable stop would take.
The case that came from seems a little ridiculous to me. In Rodriguez v United States they didn’t have to wait for a dog. A K9 officer made the stop. He wrote a warning then walked the dog around the car. If he used the dog before he wrote the warning using the same amount of time he probably would have won the case.
ETA: I should add that I didn’t read your question correctly. I’m not completely sure which caselaw covers when they can use a dog near your residence. I do know that unlike using a dog on a car there is no probable cause exception to residences. Assuming legal use of the K9, a hit by a dog does not grant the right to search. It can give you probable cause for a search warrant.
In my experience those that actually know their rights are able to assert them like normal humans. If for instance they are asked to consent to a search they simply say “no.”
Those that think they know their rights but really just learn enough to be dangerous tend to repeat phrases they heard on videos. Then they get in trouble for interfering when things don’t go the way their script reads.
I worked on Wall Street in the 80s, at two of the largest investment banking firms, and semi-open drug use (cocaine) was common among those on the trading desks. If you were a “producer,” you could do whatever the hell you wanted, which included drug use and massive sexual harassment.
Of course, if you were a low-level employee, or if you were a trader and your trades were going bad, the rules were different.
Florida v. Jardines covered this, and SCOTUS said, no, the front porch is part of the private protected “curtilage” around the home.
Basically: a cop can walk up to your front door if he wants to knock and ask you some questions, because, well, anyone can do so generally. But he can’t walk up to your front door to conduct a search without a warrant.