Who Will Be High Times' Stoner & Stonette of the Year?

Before you vote for Stoner & Stonette of the Year, check out this brief video that includes clips …

Thu Sep 04, 2008 more videos 10

sponsored links
high times presents

State Supreme Court Narrows Probable-cause Grounds in Pot Case

Law-enforcement officers who smell marijuana coming from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Fri, Jul 18, 2008 11:53 am


Source: seattletimes.nwsource.com

 

Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

 

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.

 

Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won't greatly affect the way they make arrests.

 

The ruling stems from a traffic stop in April 2006 in Skagit County.

 

Jeremy Grande was riding in a car driven by Lacee Hurley when they were pulled over by State Patrol Trooper Brent Hanger, court documents said. Hanger stopped the car for windows too darkly tinted, he testified.

 

Hanger said he smelled pot in the car, so he arrested and handcuffed Grande and Hurley, court documents said.

 

A search of Grande revealed a glass pipe with marijuana in his pocket, according to court papers. Hanger searched the car and found a joint in an ashtray, which Hurley said belonged to her, court documents said. Both were charged with marijuana possession. Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, court documents said.

 

The case initially came before the Skagit County District Court, which found there was no probable cause for Grande's arrest. But the state appealed the ruling and the county's Superior Court reversed the order, court documents said. The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

 

Summing up the state Supreme Court's decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: "Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual." In the case of the Skagit County traffic stop, the court found the mere presence of the odor of marijuana was not enough probable cause to warrant the arrest of Grande.

 

Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.

 

"The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks," Zuckerman said. "You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point ... and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that."

 

Zuckerman said Grande was delighted with the decision.

 

The decision doesn't mean an officer must walk away from a vehicle that smells of pot. Trooper Hanger did have probable cause to search the car, the state Supreme Court decision said, just not to arrest Grande.

 

"What this means is officers are going to have to be a little more keen in their investigative skills," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

 

"Normally, if you come across the odor of marijuana ... there's something else going on that helps you identify who the responsible person or persons is."

 

Thursday's decision overturned a 1979 state Court of Appeals decision that the smell of marijuana in a car established cause to arrest passengers and driver. But that decision was made three weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court held that the search of a person must be supported by probable cause that's specific to that person.



» add a comment

to below

Jul 22 2008, 7:20 am

damn Dude , take a breath .

mitch feinberg

Jul 21 2008, 8:06 pm

actually it is a violation of the bill of rights and the repeal of prohabition could be used as a precedent there is no difference in alcahol and marajuana actually marajuana is healthier for people and alcahol is good for killing infection in peoples body people live longer with alcahol and marajuana i still believe in god and eternal life you live as long as you want the weed helps you to feel better you live longer i have filed a protection of rights case in the united states district court CV408 093 it covers legalization of drugs acess to prescripton drugs government propaganda social security and welfare zoning violations in the court system and legislation contaminants in food misuse of satelite and radio waves artificial intelligence lazers animal labrotories everything the government does is to cover up the cia and to fix the election the federal courts should have jurisdiction to investigate and prove that precedents are being violated any precedent against drug prosicution works the same as legislation its a violation of the constitution after its precedented in court i would keep appealing your case then the case is still pending and could protect you i have been trying to get a story in the news concerning this case it looks like the governmen is controlling the tv news and the court system the judges are elected you can get a list of the elected judges from the voter registration office or board of elections you can also put your name on the ballot one case in court or one person in office could get the government to stop in the bill of rights we have a right to carry a gun and a right to protection from illegal search so any law they make to search people violates the bill of rights every drug charge droped in court is a precedent and the precedent in the lower courts still works like legislation everyone pray together to keep the government from taking peoples money and drugs and from killing animals and peoples kids mitchfeinberg@yahoo.com if you have any precedents or evidence for this case send me an email its in the united states court of appeals and i will keep appealing until i get the right judge and win

John Doe

Jul 21 2008, 6:59 am

This was a good decision to a problem that seriously needed some attention . The term "probable cause" has been to vague in this area for to long .

jimmy

Jul 20 2008, 10:57 am

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 4th amendment all mean nothing to them. Some states originally refused to ratify the constitution without such provisions. The problem is YOU. You get stoned, listen to music, eat, and take a weed nap. Is anything going to change if WE remain apathetic??? You talk and talk about making it legal, but who is willing to get pissed and fight???

“you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.”

-Mao Zedong

to below

Jul 20 2008, 6:30 am

"killed someone due to being high" she admitted that to the court . You're trying to hard .

ArmySoldier666

Jul 19 2008, 10:23 am

To below:

She was High and driving. If she was just high she wouldn't of been arrested. She might have been put in cuffs and taken down to the pig station but they wouldn't be able to book her for anything.

to below

Jul 18 2008, 5:21 pm

I beg to differ . They just doen't use that particular terminology .
Local case in point ."vehicular manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controled substance " ..... a kid got hit by a car and the chick driving was "high" ( her term )

J.B.

Jul 18 2008, 4:00 pm

I 100% agree with all of ya! If it wernt for buds, all they would have to do is bust drinkers and drivers, but HEY! Alchol stimulates the economy through the way of bars, which birngs me back to my point, WHY DO BARS HAVE PARKING LOT'S IF IT'S ILLEGAL, yet i dont see any head shops with very large parking lot's? no one has ever been charged with, killing someone due to being high!

Bigballin719

Jul 18 2008, 1:28 pm

YEAH YEAH! I live in Colorado, and I was arrested on the same shit 2-2 1/2 years ago. I was driving, so in any case I would have still been arrested I believe. But the whole reason for my booking was exactly "Sir I smell the distinct smell of marijuana on you, please stop out of the car and place your hands behind your back"

Pot legal = Safer US of MOTHERFUCKING A!

gribble

Jul 18 2008, 1:10 pm

its about damn time... ive been searched 1 too many times just because i like to get high...

dj dirty skillet

Jul 18 2008, 1:02 pm

If weed was legal, the cops would have nothin to do. They have lots of fun harrassing stoners like you and I. But what do I know I'm just a criminal?

JPZ

Jul 18 2008, 12:54 pm

thank god this passed my bedroom smells like death and i don't want to get arrested for Murder....

ga peach

Jul 18 2008, 12:51 pm

rv its so true. Think of all the jobs it would add and how it would increase the economy, but hey I am just a absent minded pot smoker what do I know.

rv

Jul 18 2008, 12:31 pm

think of all the time police would have to get real criminals if marijuana were legal

» add a comment

search

sponsored links
seed center
headshop

THE PARENTS GUIDE TO MARIJUANA BOOK

Award-winning teacher and scientist Dr. Mitch Earleywine follows his best-selling book Understanding Marijuana with an artful and accessible new work, The Parents' Guide to Marijuana. With over 100 pages of information, this book details how to encourage healthy decisions while strengthening honest relationships. The Guide trains parents to listen carefully in order to fit relevant, casual chats into everyday …

more headsop products

The Latest At Norml
translate