That dumb bitch could talk the stink off of a pile of horseshit! She needs a muzzle and a good swift smack alongside her head….

 
That was worth 20 minutes of my time!
ya can't fix stupid

I don't know about the legality of that search but that dumb lady really needs to shut up.

I don't know about the legality of that search but that dumb lady really needs to shut up.

In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625 (1988), the United States Supreme
Court held that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in garbage placed outside the house
for trash collection.

The trash doesn't have to be off the owner's property, either -- i.e. rolled out the the street for pickup.  An apartment or condo resident who puts trash down a chute for collection within the building is not protected by the 4th Amendment.  A trash toter in a person's yard likewise affords no expectation of privacy. 

In United States v. Long, 176 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 1999), the court concluded, even if the trash
bags were within the curtilage of the residence, they were readily accessible and visible from a
public thoroughfare, thus defeating a Fourth Amendment claim.

Curtilage can include the yard or fenced area around a home or residence.

https://www.gregvarnerlaw.com/courts-allow-police-to-search-your-trash-but-the-police-dont-like-it-if-you-search-their-trash/

The trash doesn't have to be off the owner's property, either -- i.e. rolled out the the street for pickup.  An apartment or condo resident who puts trash down a chute for collection within the building is not protected by the 4th Amendment.  A trash toter in a person's yard likewise affords no expectation of privacy.  Curtilage can include the yard or fenced area around a home or residence.

https://www.gregvarnerlaw.com/courts-allow-police-to-search-your-trash-but-the-police-dont-like-it-if-you-search-their-trash/

There may be state laws or court precedence which provide additional protection to things like trash depending on the jurisdiction however that was not the search I was thinking about.

I am talking about the officer searching the whole house just because he smells weed under the guise that he has to make sure no one else is in the house.

There may be state laws or court precedence which provide additional protection to things like trash depending on the jurisdiction however that was not the search I was thinking about.

I am talking about the officer searching the whole house just because he smells weed under the guise that he has to make sure no one else is in the house.

A local jurisdiction can't override higher court rulings or state laws.

The smell of weed thing is changing, now that many places are legalizing pot for medicinal and recreational use.  There are more and more cases of searches done at traffic stops being dismissed based on nothing more than the supposed smell of pot.

State after state has ruled that the odor of burning marijuana is no longer grounds for a search or suspicion that other drugs are present.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smell+of+pot+no+longer+grounds+for+search&atb=v314-1&ia=web

A local jurisdiction can't override higher court rulings or state laws.

The smell of weed thing is changing, now that many places are legalizing pot for medicinal and recreational use.  There are more and more cases of searches done at traffic stops being dismissed based on nothing more than the supposed smell of pot.

State after state has ruled that the odor of burning marijuana is no longer grounds for a search or suspicion that other drugs are present.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smell+of+pot+no+longer+grounds+for+search&atb=v314-1&ia=web

Yes they can. States can enact laws which provide stricter protections than what the bill of rights guarantee. They cannot pass laws which reduce rights.

While a smell of marijuana may be enough to justify applying for a search warrant in that jurisdiction I do not see how the officer can then do a quick search of the place before asking for the warrant under the guise of "someone else might be home". That is what I was getting at, at that point the cop is just bypassing the search warrant essentially.

And then if the cop found another resident home, then what? Kick that person out? Under what justification could you remove all residents from a home just because of a smell of weed? I think that crosses into unlawful search and seizure.

The main purpose of the drug war was to justify illegal searches and seizures

Yes they can. States can enact laws which provide stricter protections than what the bill of rights guarantee. They cannot pass laws which reduce rights.

While a smell of marijuana may be enough to justify applying for a search warrant in that jurisdiction I do not see how the officer can then do a quick search of the place before asking for the warrant under the guise of "someone else might be home". That is what I was getting at, at that point the cop is just bypassing the search warrant essentially.

And then if the cop found another resident home, then what? Kick that person out? Under what justification could you remove all residents from a home just because of a smell of weed? I think that crosses into unlawful search and seizure.

Try reading my post more closely.

A local jurisdiction can't override higher court rulings or state laws.

Then you say, "Yes they can. States can enact laws..."

No focus.

I think that crosses into unlawful search and seizure.

What you think and what the law actually says seem to be at odds quite often.

Try reading my post more closely.

A local jurisdiction can't override higher court rulings or state laws.

Then you say, "Yes they can. States can enact laws..."

No focus.

Ok, let me be more specific. A local jurisdiction cannot do something that contradicts case law or state law but it can pass laws which provide more protections for citizens than provided by state laws or case law. So for example a case law my say a citizen has right X. A local jurisdiction could pass a law that says the citizen has right X and right Y.

Your comment that a local jurisdiction can't override a higher court doesn't make any sense given my initial statement: "There may be state laws or court precedence which provide additional protection". So even if a state court held that rubbish does not have an expectation of privacy, a local jurisdiction could enact a law which does prevent cops from searching trash.

FOCUS

I think that crosses into unlawful search and seizure.

What you think and what the law actually says seem to be at odds quite often.

Feel free to make the case that searching a home on the justification that you are getting a search warrant to search the home is somehow constitutionally sound. And I mean generally, not some unique special situation. I'll wait while you try to articulate that one.

[snipped]
I'll wait while you try to articulate that one.

Since you "waited" nearly a month to respond to my comment, I don't believe any additional time lag from you would be for my benefit.

 

Since you "waited" nearly a month to respond to my comment, I don't believe any additional time lag from you would be for my benefit.

 

So in other words you don't have a rebuttal. 

So in other words you don't have a rebuttal. 

No, in other words, you're not a very talented troll.

No, in other words, you're not a very talented troll.

Pot calling the kettle black 

No, in other words, you're not a very talented troll.

Amusing, in a thread titled never talk to polices, some HPD troll is frustrated you will not talk to him..............

Amusing, in a thread titled never talk to polices, some HPD troll is frustrated you will not talk to him..............

but, but, but ....

He's here to help!

 

but, but, but ....

He's here to help!

Very stupid cop (no redundancy intended) to think anyone would believe that of HPD or cops in general.

Amusing, in a thread titled never talk to polices, some HPD troll is frustrated you will not talk to him..............

Because never talk to the police is stupid and bad advice. No different than someone who says always talk to the police.
Frustration is not an element here.

Because never talk to the police is stupid and bad advice. No different than someone who says always talk to the police.
Frustration is not an element here.

Ask a lawyer, and he'll tell you the same stupid, bad advice, as will a cop if he's honest and cares about justice.