Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court likes dogs who are good at meth (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well...no. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, KenBee, mungley, Sychotic1, Janet 707

    The existence of meth residue is undeniably probable cause for a search, though.  There's no distinction between a "present crime" and a crime committed in the past.  Let me give you an example...if X murders a victim and buries their body in the woods, but leaves a bloody item of clothing in their car, no one would argue that a sniff for the victim's blood somehow wasn't evidence of a "present crime" because the victim was murdered hours or days before.  

    •  twice recently there have been sheriff's who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mungley, happymisanthropy

      traffic stopped because they themselves smelled the strong odor of MJ (it was harvest time in norcal) as they passed going the opposite direction.

      Subsequent stops revealed massive quantites of mj and cash...cash they keep, sometimes. oft times plead the case down...but keep the cash.
          In one car the pot was in clear turkey baster bags ( said to reduce the smell for drug dogs 4 leggs, yet they piled it uncovered in the back seat...duh.

      So a deputy dog's nose, a two legged dog was enough to stop, search arrest. No follow up as usual in the local rag.

      Not really germaine to the case unless a lawyer ramps it up and challenges the initial traffic stop based on his smeller.

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 04:00:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site