State Police Pulls Over Medical Marijuana Patient With Video

[bobandtorey]

Listen to this medical marijuana patient as he is pulled over by Michigan State Police. What do you think about the traffic stop?

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151585851907655

[phaquetoo]

Good Morning Bob!

 

I think the pt did what he was supposed to do, I am hoping the last thing his attny told him after the cop said he was going to search it, was to take his keys with him and lock the doors!!!!!

 

fuvk probable cause, it is quite obvious that the cop dont smell smoked mm, he smells the skunk budds ,,,,,,,

 

a real good video bob, and a great response to the po po.  Id like to just add what i already said, if anyone else runs into this problem when they ask you to leave your car roll up windows and lock doors on your way out,,,,let em take you in and tow your vehicle if your in the right. I would hope this would help to detour this kind of harrasment by leo!

 

Peace

Jim

[bobandtorey]

Good Morning Bob!

 

I think the pt did what he was supposed to do, I am hoping the last thing his attny told him after the cop said he was going to search it, was to take his keys with him and lock the doors!!!!!

 

fuvk probable cause, it is quite obvious that the cop dont smell smoked mm, he smells the skunk budds ,,,,,,,

 

a real good video bob, and a great response to the po po.  Id like to just add what i already said, if anyone else runs into this problem when they ask you to leave your car roll up windows and lock doors on your way out,,,,let em take you in and tow your vehicle if your in the right. I would hope this would help to detour this kind of harrasment by leo!

 

Peace

Jim

Very good Reply Jim i hope people will see this because i still get calls every day from people that STILL open their front doors to their home and to their grow room for Leo to look around 

 

most of the calls they tell me that Leo told me if i didn't open it they where going to brake it down i say it would have been better to repair your door then  to louse  you Home and forfeiting it to Leo 

 

Morning Jim

[phaquetoo]

no one in this home answers the door but me and my ole lady, I will never let them in, they can go get a search warrant, if im gonna get hassled im not going to make it easy on them!

 

Peace

Jim

[bobandtorey]

That was the first thing Leo said to me when we turned ourselves in 

 

Why didn't you just open the door Bob 

[cristinew]

He is lucky  he did not just throw him out of the car and search the car,good thing the att was on the phone,,

[phaquetoo]

That was the first thing Leo said to me when we turned ourselves in 

 

Why didn't you just open the door Bob 

I didnt want to high jack this good thread yet lol!

so do you think things would have been dif if you let them in?

 

clear out your mail box, i wanted to respond via pm!

 

Peace

Jim

[imiubu]

The Police Officer called the driver Daniel and in the comments for that video

it is said that is Danny Trevino.

That may very well explain leo's insistence that he search the vehicle ?

 

How many of us can dial up 'our attorney' for a traffic stop? The driver did say Vince Green, correct ?

 

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130124/NEWS01/301240045/Danny-Trevino-traffic-stop-dashcam

 

Vince Green, another of Trevino’s attorneys, said Trevino was likely disoriented from a previous crash that caused the damage to the car.

“He will be vindicated and the matter will be dismissed,” Green said.

Trevino refused a breath test at the scene and was ticketed. Green said he has not yet seen blood test results. Trevino still faces a misdemeanor driving while visibly impaired charge.

Edited July 11, 2013 by imiubu

[bobandtorey]

i dialed up our attorney once at 4;30 AM and he took my call

[Celliach]

I'm not sure that I heard anything out of the ordinary on this audio recording.  The officer did search the vehicle in the end, didn't he?  What was the point of posting this?  I honestly don't get it as the person pulled over didn't do anything to keep himself from being searched.  It's just a recording of someone giving a cop a hard time while the cop continued to do "his job."

[t-pain]

its always a good idea to record any interactions with police.

[Natesilver]

So any time a law enforcement official "smells" marijuana during an interaction with a cardholder in a vehicle, the officer has the right to search the vehicle?

[ozzrokk]

Celli. so are you saying that the cop was just doing "his job" and "his job" is to inspect for marijuana to make sure someone is under their 2.5 oz.? Can you show me in the "law" where it says they need to "inspect" (search) or even ALLOWED to search  to make sure you are under your 2.5 oz., without having  reason to believe that they are over? If someone had their backseat full of duffle bags that may reason to believe they are over but for the simple smell the card should end it.

 

If you ask me this is the same as police coming to your house and saying someone smelled marijuana and you show them a card and tell them that is why they smelled marijuana. Now that SHOULD END IT but in alot of cases does not. The police then say they need to inspect and make sure you are within your limits but the fact is they should only search IF THEY HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE OVER. IE they maybe see something that makes them believe there are more than 12 plants but not simply for smelling marijuana.

 

You see there in lies the problem alot of patients don't even know the way the law works and neither do the police. Instead it is looked at as giving the cop a hard time SMH......

Edited July 11, 2013 by ozzrokk

[Dr. Bob]

The tape was interesting to me.  

 

What would be justified due to the smell of marijuana would be to have probable cause the driver was under the influence, resulting in a road side test or even a blood draw.

 

Smelling marijuana in a card holding patient is NOT probable cause to believe there was an illegal AMOUNT of marijuana in the car giving probable cause for a search.  Does 1 oz smell differently than 3 ounces?  Where is probable cause the law is being broken, prompting the search of the car?

 

Dr. Bob

[ozzrokk]

The tape was interesting to me.  

 

What would be justified due to the smell of marijuana would be to have probable cause the driver was under the influence, resulting in a road side test or even a blood draw.

 

Smelling marijuana in a card holding patient is NOT probable cause to believe there was an illegal AMOUNT of marijuana in the car giving probable cause for a search.  Does 1 oz smell differently than 3 ounces?  Where is probable cause the law is being broken, prompting the search of the car?

 

Dr. Bob

B I N G O      We got a winner..... Ding ding ding ding  come get your prize Dr Bob......

 

 Something more , like impairment, would be needed for probable cause on the under the influence part.

 

Edited to add that it would be probable cause for the test but impairment would be required to convict them.

Edited July 11, 2013 by ozzrokk

[Murph]

soon as LEO says He is trying to go the "polite way" (to obtain consent) you know He's Lying - I disagree for a LEGAL, CARD CARRYING MM PROGRAM REGISTRY CITIZEN, smell of something LEGAL gives the LEO probable cause to search. Nothing Legal can give LEO probable cause by its very definition.

 

But, given Marijuana is still illegal, it a gray area. Do NOT consent. 

 

If they search they search. Even in the video the Guy is talking too much as your not going to win an argument with a LEO on the street. Just Keep your Mouth Shut.

 

Remember now  one must have a  container, with the MM, locked in the trunk  (make sure of this as this alone is a Misdemeanor even if your legal) and if no trunk I would suggest no one have anything.

But, the alternative is it must be out of reach of the Driver which would assume in the farthest back part of the vehicle.

I have a LOCKABLE small container. I do this so LEO if they obtain it have another Hurdle to jump. And it is kept locked in the trunk or locked Bed of the Vehivcle. It is airtight, so not smell and I even have a Coffee can it will fit in if need be. This is small and can hold 2.5 Oz. 

 

Just be careful people - comply with letter of the Law - not your opinion or thoughts about the Law  -- the Letter of the Law.

 

Peace

M

[bobandtorey]

So any time a law enforcement official "smells" marijuana during an interaction with a cardholder in a vehicle, the officer has the right to search the vehicle? YES

[bobandtorey]

soon as LEO says He is trying to go the "polite way" (to obtain consent) you know He's Lying - I disagree for a LEGAL, CARD CARRYING MM PROGRAM REGISTRY CITIZEN, smell of something LEGAL gives the LEO probable cause to search. Nothing Legal can give LEO probable cause by its very definition.

 

But, given Marijuana is still illegal, it a gray area. Do NOT consent. 

 

If they search they search. Even in the video the Guy is talking too much as your not going to win an argument with a LEO on the street. Just Keep your Mouth Shut.

 

Remember now  one must have a  container, with the MM, locked in the trunk  (make sure of this as this alone is a Misdemeanor even if your legal) and if no trunk I would suggest no one have anything.

But, the alternative is it must be out of reach of the Driver which would assume in the farthest back part of the vehicle.

 

I have a LOCKABLE small container. I do this so LEO if they obtain it have another Hurdle to jump. And it is kept locked in the trunk or locked Bed of the Vehivcle. It is airtight, so not smell and I even have a Coffee can it will fit in if need be. This is small and can hold 2.5 Oz. 

 

Just be careful people - comply with letter of the Law - not your opinion or thoughts about the Law  -- the Letter of the Law.

 

Peace

M

have you read the ruling people Vs Brown inn  their it  says they can get a warrant just from the odder of marihuana

[Dr. Bob]

B I N G O      We got a winner..... Ding ding ding ding  come get your prize Dr Bob......

 

 Something more , like impairment, would be needed for probable cause on the under the influence part.

 

Edited to add that it would be probable cause for the test but impairment would be required to convict them.

What, I was right????  Guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes.

 

Seriously, I think we posted together on that one to the glaring problem.  I do not agree that actual demonstrated impairment is required for probable cause for impairment.  If a police office detects the odor of alcohol (attorneys correct me) I think they have probable cause to TEST for impairment on the roadside.  I would think the same would be for the odor of marijuana.  But not a search of the vehicle.  

 

Check on this but I do believe there is some exception to this issue with a search of the vehicle.  I believe I remember hearing something from my lawyer friend about doing a 'safety of the officer' inspection, but will need to look into that more.  You know, a search for weapons or something.  Don't hold me to it though.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

Celli. so are you saying that the cop was just doing "his job" and "his job" is to inspect for marijuana to make sure someone is under their 2.5 oz.? Can you show me in the "law" where it says they need to "inspect" (search) or even ALLOWED to search  to make sure you are under your 2.5 oz., without having  reason to believe that they are over? If someone had their backseat full of duffle bags that may reason to believe they are over but for the simple smell the card should end it.

 

.

 

No I wrote "his job" in parentheses because I was being sarcastic.  I'm sure he thinks it was "his job" to hassle the person on the audio.  

 

I just don't see the point of posting it since the guy being a smarta$$ with the cop didn't accomplish anything.  He still got searched, and arrested from what I understand.  It's not a good example of how to act in my opinion.  He would have been better getting out of the vehicle as soon as he was pulled over and locked all the doors.  That way the LEO wouldn't have the chance to smell anything, and would need a warrant to get into the locked vehicle.

Instead of being a smarta$$, he would have been better off keeping his mouth completely shut and not saying anything.  

 

Actually, I think this is a pretty good example of how not to act in a traffic stop.

[Dr. Bob]

aw crap, your edit just sunk in.  You beat me to the point again.  probable cause for a test for impairment.

 

Dr. Bob

[Kingdiamond]

This LEO sounded very polite and informed on the aspects of the law whether or not after he found whatever medication that was in the car was confiscated after this conversation I cant speak of but this officer didn't seem like most cops who go to work with a dick attitude.

[LongHairBri]

more and more, state supreme courts are deciding "smell" is not enough for probable cause and more likely a tool to abuse

 

here's 2 just this year, Washington and Maryland

 

 

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/08/wa_supreme_court_pot_smell_not_cause_for_warrantle.php

 

The strong odor of marijuana coming from a stopped vehicle is not sufficient cause for a warrantless search, the Washington Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority on Thursday.

 

Six years of pro bono work by attorney Sharon Blackford paid off, as the court reversed rulings that had been made at the District Court, Superior Court, and Court of Appeals, all of which had upheld the search under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the search warrant requirement.

 

"We hold the search State v. Tibbles... was not justified by exigent circumstances and the evidence obtained as a result of the search should have been suppressed," the court ruled. "Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals."

 

According to the Supreme Court ruling, officers who detect the smell of marijuana coming from vehicles must first either obtain a search warrant, or actually arrest the suspect, at which time a vehicle search would become permissible under the "search incident to a lawful arrest" rule.

 

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Md_-Court-of-Appeals-rules-that-ether-smell-doesn_t-equal-probable-cause-82099317.html

 

Drug search leading

to conviction deemed illegal in 5-2 decision

 

Having a strong body odor of ether, a solvent that smells like the drug PCP, and being in a high-crime area at night are not reason enough for a police officer to search someone, Maryland's highest court ruled.

 

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last week that police had violated Robert Bailey's Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching him.

 

Bailey was standing in the shadows of a town house in Landover in 2006 when police approached him and asked him twice if he lived in the house, court records show. Bailey didn't answer.

 

When Prince George's County police Officer Rodney Lewis came within a few feet of Bailey, Lewis smelled ether coming from Bailey. Lewis said he knew what PCP smelled like because he had come into contact with the drug hundreds of times, court records show.

 

Lewis also said that Bailey appeared incoherent, a common characteristic of people who take PCP.

 

Police frisked Bailey and found a glass vial of liquid PCP. He was charged and found guilty of drug possession in circuit court. The Prince George's County man has a long history of drug arrests.

 

But Bailey, whose attorney could not be reached for comment, appealed on the argument that the vial should not have been entered as evidence because the police had conducted an illegal search.

 

Bailey argued that the smell of ether, a legal substance, didn't provide police with probable cause to search him.

 

The Court of Appeals, in a 5-2 decision, agreed with Bailey, saying the evidence was illegally obtained and ordered the state to pay for court costs.

 

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Glenn Harrell criticized the majority's ruling, calling it "unrealistic." Harrell said the totality of the circumstances -- that Bailey was in an area known for high drug activity, was standing in the shadows of a house at 11:35 p.m., had "glassy" eyes, ignored questions from the police about where he lived and "reeked" of ether -- gave police probable cause to search him.

 

"To conclude otherwise is to overlook the relevant principle that courts should respect an officer's ability to draw on his or her own experience and training," Harrell said.

 

The Prince George's County Police Department did not return calls for comment.

 

 

 

they'll just fill that line in the script with some other fabrication to get around the law. with department funding relying on DEA federal grants and proceeds from drug forfeitures, they're not just "doing their job", but doing what they can to keep it.

 

grants are issued on the number of arrests, not convictions. even if the charges are dropped, they still get high marks just for making the arrest

[Dr. Bob]

To me it sounded like he was on a fishing expedition.  But that is just me.  I'm not as kind and understanding as Cel is.  

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Nice post LHB