I live in Virginia and yes, I was referring to a regular traffic stop. In terms of probable cause here, it seems to be based on what you say. Most people here believe that an officer smelling something is probable cause (kind of like the billowing smoke) but in my research and understanding based on an explanation from an attorney (could be dishonest I know), if an officer in VA says he smells marijuana or something and you do not refute it, he now has probable cause. The key when an officers says he smells something is to basically say "huh, well I don't smell anything officer" and this no longer presents probable cause, the reason being that a smell can't be taken to court and just because something smells like marijuana doesn't mean it is marijuana. This reasoning seems kind of stupid to me but apparently that is the correct action when smell or a smoke cloud comes billowing out of your car. Once again though this all depends on the officer playing by the rules also, which is why I'll state again; when dealing with police, use a video camera if you want 100% fair representation if charges should arise from your interaction.
Refusing search?
- Thread starter wieduwilt
- Start date
:dw: You should not pay that attorney any money.
Sounds like the Ostrich defense. If I pretend the officer is wrong, they will just go away. I don't see that being a highly (excuse the pun) effective strategy. I could be wrong.
There's no way I would EVER consent to a search. But then again, the LEO has a gun, and in the end he/she will do whatever he/she wants to do.
CW
CW
you failed in your research and the attorney was full of shit. here read this it is specific to Virginia:
Police Chief Magazine - View Article
Strong Smell of MarijuanaIn June 2003 police officers in Richmond, Virginia, were patrolling a neighborhood known for drug trafficking. They noticed a group of people gathered on a street corner, including Deute Humphries. One officer noticed that Humphries patted his waist, and the officer suspected that Humphries was instinctively feeling for his weapon.
The officers stopped their patrol car about 20 feet from Humphries. When they got out of the car, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana. One officer noticed out of the corner of his eye that Humphries turned quickly and walked rapidly away from the officers. The officer followed Humphries, asking him to stop, saying to him that he needed to talk to him. Humphries did not respond and continued to walk away quickly.
The officer quickened his step to catch up, and once he was within 10 feet of Humphries he smelled "the same strong odor of marijuana . . . coming off of [his] person," and the officer again instructed Humphries to stop. Humphries ignored the officer and began to walk up to a house, where he knocked on the door.
The officer paused at the foot of the stairs of the house and noticed that the smell of marijuana was still strong and was coming from Humphries. When someone opened the door, Humphries walked in, defying the officer's command that he stop and not enter the house. The officer followed Humphries and arrested him.
The officer took Humphries outside and smelled the odor of marijuana on his breath. He patted him down and recovered a 9mm semiautomatic handgun from Humphries's waistband. The officer then conducted a full search incident to arrest, and found 26 Percocet tablets and a small amount of crack cocaine in his pockets. He charged Humphries with possession of Percocet with intent to distribute, simple possession of Percocet, possession of crack cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under federal law.
Before trial, Humphries moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him, but conceded that he may have had reasonable suspicion to stop and question him. The federal district court granted Humphries's motion and suppressed the evidence, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling.1
The appellate court stated that it has "repeatedly held that the odor of marijuana alone can provide probable cause to believe that marijuana is present in a particular place."2 The court went on to give examples of its prior rulings that included one in which the smell of marijuana emanating from a "properly stopped vehicle" constituted probable cause to justify a search of the automobile.3 Other examples included a 1974 case in which officers saw boxes inside a van and smelled marijuana, permitting the seizure of the boxes,4 and another where the strong smell of marijuana coming from an open apartment door "almost certainly" provided the officer with probable cause to believe that marijuana was present in the apartment.5
Police Chief Magazine - View Article
Strong Smell of MarijuanaIn June 2003 police officers in Richmond, Virginia, were patrolling a neighborhood known for drug trafficking. They noticed a group of people gathered on a street corner, including Deute Humphries. One officer noticed that Humphries patted his waist, and the officer suspected that Humphries was instinctively feeling for his weapon.
The officers stopped their patrol car about 20 feet from Humphries. When they got out of the car, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana. One officer noticed out of the corner of his eye that Humphries turned quickly and walked rapidly away from the officers. The officer followed Humphries, asking him to stop, saying to him that he needed to talk to him. Humphries did not respond and continued to walk away quickly.
The officer quickened his step to catch up, and once he was within 10 feet of Humphries he smelled "the same strong odor of marijuana . . . coming off of [his] person," and the officer again instructed Humphries to stop. Humphries ignored the officer and began to walk up to a house, where he knocked on the door.
The officer paused at the foot of the stairs of the house and noticed that the smell of marijuana was still strong and was coming from Humphries. When someone opened the door, Humphries walked in, defying the officer's command that he stop and not enter the house. The officer followed Humphries and arrested him.
The officer took Humphries outside and smelled the odor of marijuana on his breath. He patted him down and recovered a 9mm semiautomatic handgun from Humphries's waistband. The officer then conducted a full search incident to arrest, and found 26 Percocet tablets and a small amount of crack cocaine in his pockets. He charged Humphries with possession of Percocet with intent to distribute, simple possession of Percocet, possession of crack cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under federal law.
Before trial, Humphries moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him, but conceded that he may have had reasonable suspicion to stop and question him. The federal district court granted Humphries's motion and suppressed the evidence, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling.1
The appellate court stated that it has "repeatedly held that the odor of marijuana alone can provide probable cause to believe that marijuana is present in a particular place."2 The court went on to give examples of its prior rulings that included one in which the smell of marijuana emanating from a "properly stopped vehicle" constituted probable cause to justify a search of the automobile.3 Other examples included a 1974 case in which officers saw boxes inside a van and smelled marijuana, permitting the seizure of the boxes,4 and another where the strong smell of marijuana coming from an open apartment door "almost certainly" provided the officer with probable cause to believe that marijuana was present in the apartment.5
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but my understanding of the law was that it was the direct denial that the suspicious person doesn't smell any marijuana. Most people who are smoking marijuana and an officer says hey you smell like pot, they're probably just going to say nothing or even admit. What I'm saying is that you have to openly say that you don't not agree that the smell the officer is smelling is marijuana.
Like I said I could be wrong and this little reason is why I said it sounds kind of stupid, but that's the way I understood it.
Like I said I could be wrong and this little reason is why I said it sounds kind of stupid, but that's the way I understood it.
You've been smoking too much marijuana. As a Trooper here in VA, I can tell you first hand that the smell of mary jane in the car DOES give me all the proboable cause I need to search the vehicle, and all current occupants for paraphernalia AND marijuana. This search IS NOT limited to any specific portion of said persons or vehicle. And as I stated earlier, for those that cannot read, I still ask consent EVEN IF I HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. It is a tool to verify other suspicions outside of my probable cause. Police officers are trained to take the totality of a situation and piece together the puzzle. Most dopers don't get this.
So if I check you through radar or even pace you at 100mph and you say "I don't think I was going 100mph, does that mean I no longer have probable cause to write you a ticket for that offense?
there is no "could be wrong" about it bub. you are flat out wrong. did you not read what I posted??? it is an exact VA case which was appealed to the VA state supreme court and they upheald the search and said SPECIFICALLY that the smell was enough. reading comprehension > you
No you do because you have other proof I was going 100mph. Look I'm just saying that it is the suspicious person's direct disagreement with the officer smelling marijuana or anything. Like I said it sounds stupid, but then again I can see some legal loopholes in the sense that the smell of marijuana is arguable and like I said, a smell can't be brought to court. Really this is just going to depend on the officer, I'm sure that even if it is true, it would be very easy for an officer to gain access to a car that has a certain smell coming from it. So for ease of argument, in the end the smell is probable cause or will likely lead to some other source that provides probable cause.
Didn't get my post in before reading the last: Okay then, smell is probable cause.
Didn't get my post in before reading the last: Okay then, smell is probable cause.
Last edited:
In my book it is. Look, flexing your rights does not fly around here.
IDK what agency you work for, but if that's an agency policy, they really need to reevaluate things before they end up with a civil rights lawsuit shoved in their face.
Good thing you aren't a TX LEO. You'd piss your pants the first time you encounter someone with a concealed handgun or carrying a truck load of machine guns.
If you are not big on peoples rights why are you a cop? In my book you are a Ahole.
No our company policy is "When in doubt, pull it out" haha
I've worked graveyard Southeast along with my 18st homeboys and grape street crips. I don't think a gun or two would scare me too much.
he is not a cop. he is some kind of mall cop wannabe I doubt he even carries a weapon
I got pulled over a few years ago for speeding, the cops were very friendly at first but asked to search the car, I declined and said its not my car (it was my GFs) and I told them I don't want to be liable if something was in the car that I was not aware of. They quickly changed their attitudes and gave me a hard time and a ticket for doing 51 in a 45 but they didn't search the car. I had no idea at the time that they couldn't search the car if I said no but lucky for me thats the law. I had been carrying my glock which was loaded and my carry permit was no good in the state I got pulled over in (MD). This was one of the scariest moment of my life, and decided to never drive to MD again with a handgun if it wasn't locked up in the trunk.
Last edited:
You are correct, I am a mall cop.
You guys can't be serious. Question for other officers here, do you really just take no for an answer? I find that so hard to believe.
When I'm 21, I will be openly carrying everywhere I can, and concealing everywhere else when able. I have major trust issues with people.
I would not have a problem telling an officer I am carrying a firearm and showing him the proper items to prove my carrying permit is valid. This would be in the best interest of me and the officer.
On a side note, I don't see why the officers give such a hard time when somebody refuses a search. I guess they think they are entitled to it? I can't see how it's that irritating. Also, there's perfect logic in not wanting to be held liable for whatever is in a car that is not yours. Also, who knows what the previous owner hid in there and never took out prior to selling the car.
Users who are viewing this thread
