DEA lands in buddys backyard

[Aeroguerilla]

def wasnt dea, when you hear it through the grapevine the story gets twisted. national guard. they got lucky

 

[Moldy Dreads]

Josh was always a bright kid....

 

[VT_Fire]

are they serious with the ibuprofin? c'mon

 

[SmokyMtnToker]

NONSENSE!!

NONSENSE!!

This is true.. if they see something in your backyard. They have the right to enter. If they come knocking and they smell smoke, they also have the right to enter. What someone else said about not growing inside and out at the same time is very good advice. Regardless of that the DEA is bored as hell, especially in places other then cali. Here if they fly over backyards they will see plants in so many they wouldnt know where to start.

Please show the law that allows warrantless searches because of alleged contraband seen on property. It does not exist.

Let's say that your neighbor hates you. he decides to plant a few pot plants on the edge of your property and when they get bigger they are seen from above. Do the cops have the right to ASSUME that there is a nexus between the plants and your home? NO!!

If that WERE the case, the warrant requirement would be useless, as all a lying cop would have to say is that he saw ' suspected' plants and that alone gave him probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime inside the home. NOT!!!

What WOULD happen IF the stinking feds wanted to really make a case would be this; they would see suspected plants, gather evidence and then go for a warrant to enter the LAND and search. Simply landing a copter and then breaking and entering a private dwelling is NOT legal and could never lead to a conviction.

Loom at these cases and see that the people on here that GUESS and ASSUME all are wrong:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...rt_warrantless_aerial_search_bryant_marijuana

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/36/14/563188/


And too many more for my time..If you read the actual court cases, it is always the case that if a copter sees plants, they then apply for a warrant...NOt simply land and enter a private home ASSUMING that the people who own the home planted the plants. That assumption is NOT probable cause, and never will be.

In every case I studied for this , without exception, the cops could ONLY get away with plants in PLAIN VIEW from any angle..above or otherwise. AND, there has never been a case I could find where a court upheld a warrantless search of a private hom based only upon the alleged finding of plants on the property.

There is some question about ' curtilage' which is the area around a home that gets less protection under the law, such as a garage or outbuilding...those get less protection than a private hom, and in some cases people have been found guilty without a warrant because the cops had reason to approach the outbuildings for other reasons.

In other words, the cops cannot LEGALLY search a private home without a warrant just because some plants were supposedly seen from above. No way, no how.

Show me a case that resulted in a confirmed conviction with no warrant and ONLY the observation of plants from above. it ain't there, and that means that the DEA will not charge anyone for actions like those described by the OP...maybe they get away with stealing the plants, but no charges will come from the search of the house. Period.

 

[VT_Fire]

Sounds like your boy needs to get a lawyer aero. Hopefully you're right Smoky and no charges will come from this...

 

[quadracer]

Please show the law that allows warrantless searches because of alleged contraband seen on property. It does not exist.

Let's say that your neighbor hates you. he decides to plant a few pot plants on the edge of your property and when they get bigger they are seen from above. Do the cops have the right to ASSUME that there is a nexus between the plants and your home? NO!!

If that WERE the case, the warrant requirement would be useless, as all a lying cop would have to say is that he saw ' suspected' plants and that alone gave him probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime inside the home. NOT!!!

What WOULD happen IF the stinking feds wanted to really make a case would be this; they would see suspected plants, gather evidence and then go for a warrant to enter the LAND and search. Simply landing a copter and then breaking and entering a private dwelling is NOT legal and could never lead to a conviction.

Loom at these cases and see that the people on here that GUESS and ASSUME all are wrong:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...rt_warrantless_aerial_search_bryant_marijuana

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/36/14/563188/


And too many more for my time..If you read the actual court cases, it is always the case that if a copter sees plants, they then apply for a warrant...NOt simply land and enter a private home ASSUMING that the people who own the home planted the plants. That assumption is NOT probable cause, and never will be.

In every case I studied for this , without exception, the cops could ONLY get away with plants in PLAIN VIEW from any angle..above or otherwise. AND, there has never been a case I could find where a court upheld a warrantless search of a private hom based only upon the alleged finding of plants on the property.

There is some question about ' curtilage' which is the area around a home that gets less protection under the law, such as a garage or outbuilding...those get less protection than a private hom, and in some cases people have been found guilty without a warrant because the cops had reason to approach the outbuildings for other reasons.

In other words, the cops cannot LEGALLY search a private home without a warrant just because some plants were supposedly seen from above. No way, no how.

Show me a case that resulted in a confirmed conviction with no warrant and ONLY the observation of plants from above. it ain't there, and that means that the DEA will not charge anyone for actions like those described by the OP...maybe they get away with stealing the plants, but no charges will come from the search of the house. Period.

Have you ever read the Oliver case? It deals with this exact issue.

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Acting upon a tip that defendant was growing marijuana on his property two Kentucky State Police Officers drove onto defendant’s land, past his house, up to a gate which was marked with a “no trespassing” sign. The officers left their vehicle and walked along a footpath around the gate onto defendant’s property and continued down the road for nearly a mile. At that distance from the house, the two officers spotted a large marijuana crop on defendant's property. The defendant was later charged with drug offenses for this cultivation.

At trial the defendant challenged the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. After appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the Hester open fields rule, and decided that the officers' actions did not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held:

[A]n individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home...The [Fourth] Amendment reflects the recognition of the Framers that certain enclaves should be free from arbitrary government interference. For example, the Court since the enactment of the Fourth Amendment has stressed ‘the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic.’ Id at 178.

The Court cited policy reasons for preserving the open fields rule, stating that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance." Id at 178. The Court also cited practical considerations as weighing on its decision, since open fields "usually are accessible to the public," and "no trespassing" signs are generally ineffective at "bar[ring] the public from viewing open fields in rural areas," and "the public and police lawfully may survey lands from the air." Id at 178-179. Because of these considerations, the Court declined to accept the defendants' expectation of privacy as one that "society recognizes as reasonable." Id at 178-179.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States

 

[Muleskinner]

are they serious with the ibuprofin? c'mon

are you kidding? of course! This is America! Ibuprofen was enough for the government to reach into a 13-year-old girl's panties.

 

[Pythagllio]

Muleskinner, the Supreme Court said otherwise not very long ago.

quadracer, there wasn't a search of a residence in Oliver, now was there?

 

[BurmeseDragon]

It is not every day that the DEA gets to grab some new skin for the butcher shop and well, take a little dope.

 

[Muleskinner]

Muleskinner, the Supreme Court said otherwise not very long ago.

yes, I'm glad they did but the US Govt was happy to reach into her pants until years of lawyers fighting their way to the Supreme Court finally won.

 

[quadracer]

Muleskinner, the Supreme Court said otherwise not very long ago.

quadracer, there wasn't a search of a residence in Oliver, now was there?

If anything it supports what Smoky was saying. They obtained a search warrant after they discovered the marijuana plants in a field behind his house.

They had to trespass to get to the grow site, but it was permissible in the court. The cops still had to obtain a search warrant to search Oliver's house (which is what Smoky was saying).

The case establishes that the right to privacy does not exist in open fields.

Oh the steady decline of civil liberties in the name of an all-powerful, all-prosecuting government.

 

[Pythagllio]

You might have a point if there were a search of a residence in Oliver, but there was not. The fact that there was a search warrant issued does not mean that there was a search of a residence included, and nowhere in Oliver is anything other than the outdoor search mentioned. What you're missing is that the search in Oliver was done outside the residence and its curtilage. A person's back yard is almost always within a residence's curtilage. Once you move into curtilage the open field's doctrine is irrelevant.

 

[quadracer]

You might have a point if there were a search of a residence in Oliver, but there was not. The fact that there was a search warrant issued does not mean that there was a search of a residence included, and nowhere in Oliver is anything other than the outdoor search mentioned. What you're missing is that the search in Oliver was done outside the residence and its curtilage. A person's back yard is almost always within a residence's curtilage. Once you move into curtilage the open field's doctrine is irrelevant.

yeah that's where the Supreme Court ruling doesn't make sense to me. When does an area fall into curtilage? If my house is in the middle of an open field, do I have no expectation of privacy outside of my dwelling?

Are there court cases which further define what is considered curtilage?

 

[Goldy]

The fact is they do it because they can. Its so easy for them. Weed "crime" has something like a 97% conviction rate (over here anyway). They know theyl almost definitely win any case and pretty much no-one will do shit to stop them. they walk all over us "peaceful" smokers. meth dealers etc most often have gang affiliates which is increased risk for those who are doing the raiding..imagine how many weed crops would be untouched if the dea knew theyd be tracked down and..punished..killed etc. Me thinks a lot less crops would be lost.

How is it that they continuously tread all over us and we do nothing..with alcohol prohibition there were riots etc..maybe we should follow..get some attention..the im a peaceful weed smoker wouldnt hurt a fly ideal isnt working.

 

[jbleezy]

I had the same thing happen to me at a friends house. We had 12 4footers in 40gallon trash cans. We had both our scripts on the fence and when my friend told me that a black helicopter has been flyin over latly I coulnt believe it, the next day when I was there i heard a helicopter I went outside it looked Like it was goin to land in the field it was so close we both held out papers in the air, the heli flew away and I never seen it again, I never heard of this happening to anyone else untill I read this post