Pardon, but unless you have some kind of non-anecdotal cite, I’m going to have to call bullshit.
Cops are promoted based on tests given by (usually) independent agencies. Those tests are scored, and those taking the tests are placed on a list according to their scores, those positions are filled based on need.
Officers are often encouraged, usually by their commanders, to challenge the testing process based on their number of successful CONVICTIONS, definately NOT their number of arrests. Arrests have to stand up in court, they face all kinds of challenges before they reach conviction, not the least of which is how the search was conducted, and depending on the charge, are pled down anyway.
Fact is, exigency can, depending on location, be enough for a warrantless search, and as robertligouri points out, if the cops are corrupt enough to plant evidence on some random person, they’re corrupt enough to trump up exigency. Luckily, the majority of cops aren’t those kind of cops.
All that said. They should have a warrant, or a REALLY good reason. Smelling ether ain’t a good enough reason.
Please, please explain to me how my right to allow the police to search my home without a warrant has any effect on your right to refuse to do the same.
Don’t I also have the right to waive my rights as I see fit?
What part of that equals dictating what I can and cannot allow regarding myself and/or my personal property? The right to demand a search warrant is sacred, no doubt about it, and that’s absolutely one of the things our military members fight to defend. But right != requirement. Having the right to demand something means that I also have the right not to. You can’t pick and choose which forms of freedom to defend – it’s all or nothing.
Thank you so much… your apology means a lot! Like I said, I know you truly meant no offense; you’re right - it is a regional difference. Having said all that, we have fought a small, but good fight. Yes!
Cheers to you, myskepticsight… and I hope that all goes well in regards to what may be happening in your neighborhood. Take care of yourself!
One practical reason not to consent: They can practically tear your house apart looking for whatever it is they are looking for. They may end up breaking some of your stuff (even accidently). It may take hours to do a thorough search. I personally wouldn’t want to spend the rest of the evening watching strangers paw through my stuff (especially my porno collection).
I would certainly refuse a search if I thought they were going to do that - but if they just say “Can we let our dog come in and sniff around a bit?”, I have no problem with that.
Well I hope for your sake that you can keep 100%, and I do mean 100%, track of everything that goes on in your house. You don’t have any roommates or children right? Because how can you be absolutely certain that none of them smoke pot?
I look at it this way: If I’m innocent, then they won’t find anything, so they don’t need to search. If I’m guilty, then it’s not in my interests to allow a search. Either way, agreeing to a search can only harm me and not help me in any way.
That’s why most keep a chain-lock on the door, and talk to the police through it. Police couldlie and say you consented, but if they break down your door, it’s going to look pretty bad.
Just about every one here has something to hide- maybe when you were searching online for legit porn you got redirected to a teeny porn site, maybe you have prescription drugs outside the date or the bottle, perhaps a ripped or burned copy of music or a movie outside copyright, who knows? I have had drugs planted on me by the LAPD.
Never consent to a search. Never keep talking after they read you your rights- say only “am I free to go?” and “I want to speak to my/an attorney”. You should cooperate with the police as a witness- you stop being a witness once they ask to search or they read you your rights. If you are unsure of what your status is, ask “Am I free to go”. Generally, you can decline “invitations” to go down to the police dept also, unless they have a warrant.
What I don’t understand here is how it’s not a public safety issue if they do smell ether or natural gas. I know they could be lying, but if we assume that they’re not, then what rights would they have to enter a building without permission?