This is one of a handful of police procedures that are ripe for abuse. Any officer wishing to justify a suspicion can claim that they “smell marijuana” and search a vehicle, home, etc. There is basically no way to contradict them. It’s not like we have smell recordings.
Another good example is field sobriety tests (walk on this line, count a number of steps, etc.), which have been shown to be highly subjective and inaccurate even when done correctly. Policing is maybe the last modern discipline that ignores evidence-based best practices.
If I’m ever on a jury for a case that relies on police testimony as its lynchpin, I’ll hang it single handedly if I have to. Show me some evidence.
Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration carries no weight for me. Fight me. (not you personally)
Edit: Removed the word “hearsay” because I was using it wrong.
I’ll fight, police testimony without video corroboration isn’t hearsay, it’s perjury until proven otherwise!
Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration is hearsay. Fight me. (not you personally)
IIRC technically the video would be more likely to be hearsay than the cop testifying.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Video and audio recordings are sometimes hearsay evidence by definition, statements made outside the court. But there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule and often recordings are admissible.
Note, I am not a lawyer and am basing most of this on LegalEagle videos like this oneand some reading I’ve done on the subject.
Yeah it seems I used the word wrong. I accept your correction, but I hope the point I was trying to make is still clear. 🙂
Oh totally. I’m just being pedantic. 😅
I thought hearsay is anything that is not testimony. So video is technically hearsay
I was using it to mean “not any more reliable than a statement from any person I don’t intrinsically trust” - but I see your point and accept your correction if such is the case.
Police testimony means nothing to me without some form of corroboration, and if it’s their description of how or why they killed someone, that corroboration should be video or very convincing non-police witnesses.
deleted by creator
I saw a cop on the news a few years ago saying he smelled alcohol on someone’s breath as justification for stopping someone. Not sure that was factual.
There’s always some bullshit reason they can use to stop someone and then bullshit charges they can apply.
Not sure that was factual.
Did the cop have breath-radar? How the fuck did he pull someone over for bad breath?
Pulled over for some other reason, like speeding or a busted tail light and then smelled alcohol on the driver’s breath while dealing with that.
That’s plausible. Many scenarios are possible.
This guy was walking down the street. And being black in a high class white snobby suburb.
“I smelled marijuana once, but i didn’t inhale, so I can speak to this with authority.” - Brett Kavanaugh probably
oink
I thought this was already decided by another court. Does precedent mean nothing?
Precedent in different states doesn’t bind the rulings of other states. A federal district court could establish precedent for all of the district. National precedent would come from the SCOTUS.
Other court rulings maybe raised as a persuasive reason though.
No, a state court’s decision from a different state does not have precedential authority in the instant state.
That’s not true at all. You can absolutely argue federal laws at the state level and use other courts rulings and precedent.
The linked articles cover decisions issued by state courts. They are not controlling on other states. What exactly are you trying to say?
Just because it’s legal to have doesn’t mean it’s legal to consume while driving so I’m kinda conflicted on this one. Smelling weed alone shouldn’t be justification. Smelling burning weed, on the other hand…
Cops claim they smell weed so they can search your car, and you cant argue they didnt have probable cause since they can’t record a smell.
If i get pulled over and there is blood dripping from my trunk, that is valid probable cause, andbthe dashcam footage will capture it. Cops can just claim they smelled weed and search you and you are now Sol
Cops use “smell of marijuana” and “smell of burning marijuana” literally everyday to profile people and give themselves excuses to pull over and search minorities.
True; but those pieces of shit would come up with other excuses if they lose this one anyway.
Its easier for illegal seizure when they can blanket cover their ass that there is some underlying thing that allowed them to be able to take whatever they wanted like when you’re randomly driving to go and purchase a vehicle from somebody and you happen to have all of that funds in cash but the police can seize it take it from you and you can’t even contest it took far later and some how its my responsibility to prove the money isn’t illicit
I don’t like even smelling burning weed being okay. Then I can drive my stoner friends around all the time and they can smoke in my car.
