Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

Not gonna get into a pissing contest over this particular stop, but I will tell you about vehicle stops and MJ odors in general.

In general, the odor of MJ alone may not establish probable cause for a search of a car. However, if a trained K9 "alerts" on the car in the handlers judgment, that and the smell the officer detected will likely be enough to establish PC.

And keep in mind, a dog can alert on odors a human will never sense. So, if someone was riding with your son in his car a week ago, and had the odor of marijuana on his person, that might still be detected by the dog. And possibly by an officer depending on circumstances. It's possible. It could also be possible a seed or some shake from the weed might have fallen off that person on to the floor, seats, etc. One would likely not even notice it or recognize it but a dog could easily smell it. That's also entirely possible...I know because I've seen it on numerous occasions.

Once that PC is established a warrantless search may be conducted into any place within the vehicle where the contraband might be concealed (in this case, marijuana). So the officer could pretty much search the person and vehicle along with contents of the vehicle. They wouldn't be allowed, for example, to look thru his phone...because MJ can't be hidden in a phone.

Good info, thanks.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

"Can I search your car? What do you mean no? I smell weed, I'm gonna do it anyway. STOP RESISTING!" POW POW POW POW POW POW -Average cop these days

This gets my vote for likely the most stupid post I've ever seen here. Yeah...the "average" cop. SMDH

Leave it to a thread like this to bring out all sorts of stupidity. You can just count on it.

 

[tweetr]

Not gonna get into a pissing contest over this particular stop, but I will tell you about vehicle stops and MJ odors in general.

In general, the odor of MJ alone may not establish probable cause for a search of a car. However, if a trained K9 "alerts" on the car in the handlers judgment, that and the smell the officer detected will likely be enough to establish PC.

And keep in mind, a dog can alert on odors a human will never sense. So, if someone was riding with your son in his car a week ago, and had the odor of marijuana on his person, that might still be detected by the dog. And possibly by an officer depending on circumstances. It's possible. It could also be possible a seed or some shake from the weed might have fallen off that person on to the floor, seats, etc. One would likely not even notice it or recognize it but a dog could easily smell it. That's also entirely possible...I know because I've seen it on numerous occasions.

Once that PC is established a warrantless search may be conducted into any place within the vehicle where the contraband might be concealed (in this case, marijuana). So the officer could pretty much search the person and vehicle along with contents of the vehicle. They wouldn't be allowed, for example, to look thru his phone...because MJ can't be hidden in a phone.

I still haven't been able to establish whether marijuana is even "contraband" Oklahoma or Rogers County. The deputies never asked him for a medical marijuana card.

 

[TedKennedy]

This gets my vote for likely the most stupid post I've ever seen here. Yeah...the "average" cop. SMDH

Leave it to a thread like this to bring out all sorts of stupidity. You can just count on it.

And yet it wouldn't have been posted if not for that questionable traffic stop.

 

[OneMoreEvan]

This gets my vote for likely the most stupid post I've ever seen here. Yeah...the "average" cop. SMDH

Leave it to a thread like this to bring out all sorts of stupidity. You can just count on it.

I like how you called my response stupid but did not attempt to refute it. Why don't any of the "good ones" stop the "Few bad examples" from being straight up dookie human beings? Because there are no "good ones just doing a hard job" If one of my associates murders someone, and I don't do anything to stop it, I am an accomplice and therefore guilty by association, right? Now apply that same logic to police.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

^^ Couldn't say for sure.

Another thing to keep in mind is a person is afforded a much lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle than they would be in their home, for example.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

So maybe a better question would be, "Why was your son stopped in the first place?"

 

[rockchalk06]

I'm not making any judgement, because I wasn't there, don't know you or your son's story.

That said, is your son under 18? I didn't see it posted in the above posts. I applaud him for not torqueing off on them during the stop, not many people can do that, but you are not the supposed victim here, he is. Is he willing to pursue this to the end by himself, or are you pushing him to follow through? If he is not 100% on board, you are wasting your time, money and breath. Your rights were not supposedly violated, his were.

Again, I'm not passing judgement. Just making an assessment from from a neutral position. Good luck whatever path you take.

 

[tweetr]

^^ Couldn't say for sure.

Another thing to keep in mind is a person is afforded a much lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle than they would be in their home, for example.

Understood.
To my mind privacy is not the question here so much as the Fourth Amendment and evaluation of probable cause.
In further discussion, evidently the deputies cited "nervousness" as reason to call in the dog. That too is utterly specious, as one may reasonably be expected to be "nervous" upon finding himself the subject of such a stop and search!

 

[TedKennedy]

^^ Couldn't say for sure.

Another thing to keep in mind is a person is afforded a much lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle than they would be in their home, for example.

Had a cop comment about how dark the Honda windows were. I replied, "They're not as dark as yours".

Got a stupid look, but at least he didn't pursue it further.

I like my privacy whether in my car, truck or home.