No ID in Arizona? You'll get arrested.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Given how Arizona houses such racists and thugs like Sheriff Joe - who nobody has acted against - then why the heck should giving them more powers be a good thing considering the low standards of the Arizona police?

Right, because nobody has acted against him.

Federal Investigation

Also, the low standards of the Arizona police? Don't you mean of Maricopa County?

I didn't know that was ongoing, the last thing I remember is from December last year. Conceded (though I'll wait for the result of the investigation before final judgement).

I'm not sure what the evidence is and what if any has been made available to the public, but what would your position be if he is found not guilty?

[Thanas]

I'm not sure what the evidence is and what if any has been made available to the public, but what would your position be if he is found not guilty?

That american police are even more messed up than I previously thought. In Germany anybody making such statements as he and having such a track record and using those methods (while being proud of it) would be most likely thrown into prison and at the very least barred from law enforcement. The interviews he gave would be enough to condemn him and ensure the last part of my previous sentence becoming true.

[Simon_Jester]

I would say removing the requirements for police to develop reasonable suspicion to justify detainment would be crossing that line.

I'm torn on this regulation because I realize that the majority of illegals are good hard working people trying to make a difference for their families. However, being illegal also makes it much harder to identify someone unless they've already been arrested. I don't like the fact that illegal criminals are able to change their name like I change socks with no paper trail to track them.

I can definitely understand that. What bothers me, though, is this:

At the moment, in Maryland, if I leave my house without my wallet (and thus am not carrying my driver's license), that's all right. Obviously I can't drive, and I'm going to run into predictable problems if I try to use a credit card or buy alcohol without ID... but in and of itself, my failure to carry ID is not a crime.

If I go to Arizona, this remains true... but that's largely because the Arizona police won't "reasonably suspect" that I am an illegal immigrant. I don't look like the sort of person who sneaks across the border looking for work. My friend Jorge, on the other hand, is not so lucky. And I can't see a reliable mechanism to define "reasonable suspicion" such that Jorge won't get carded just for walking around.

If he's in the company of an illegal immigrant, does that itself give reasonable grounds to suspect that he is one, demand that he present ID to prove that he isn't, and arrest him if he does not comply? What if he's walking home after dark from a party, in an area where police have previously rounded up illegal immigrants? What if he's just walking down the street to McDonald's for lunch? How reasonable can we expect reasonable suspicion to be in this case?

I don't know the answer to that question, because it depends on how far I can trust the Arizona police. so enacting an ID requirement on people who are "reasonably suspect" of being illegal immigrants disturbs me.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm not sure what the evidence is and what if any has been made available to the public, but what would your position be if he is found not guilty?

That american police are even more messed up than I previously thought. In Germany anybody making such statements as he and having such a track record and using those methods (while being proud of it) would be most likely thrown into prison and at the very least barred from law enforcement. The interviews he gave would be enough to condemn him and ensure the last part of my previous sentence becoming true.

Throw me a bone here. What statements? Did he announce on national television that he hates hispanics or something?

[Cecelia5578]

I'm not sure what the evidence is and what if any has been made available to the public, but what would your position be if he is found not guilty?

That american police are even more messed up than I previously thought. In Germany anybody making such statements as he and having such a track record and using those methods (while being proud of it) would be most likely thrown into prison and at the very least barred from law enforcement. The interviews he gave would be enough to condemn him and ensure the last part of my previous sentence becoming true.

Throw me a bone here. What statements? Did he announce on national television that he hates hispanics or something?

Please tell me you are not defending Arpaio simply on the basis of not having any defaming/bigoted/just plain insane soundbites available. I'm pretty sure his actions have been much more abusive and insane than if he had said that he hates Hispanics on the tv.

[Thanas]

I'm not sure what the evidence is and what if any has been made available to the public, but what would your position be if he is found not guilty?

That american police are even more messed up than I previously thought. In Germany anybody making such statements as he and having such a track record and using those methods (while being proud of it) would be most likely thrown into prison and at the very least barred from law enforcement. The interviews he gave would be enough to condemn him and ensure the last part of my previous sentence becoming true.

Throw me a bone here. What statements? Did he announce on national television that he hates hispanics or something?

Take your pick.

Webcasts of pretrial detainees would be enough alone.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Please tell me you are not defending Arpaio simply on the basis of not having any defaming/bigoted/just plain insane soundbites available. I'm pretty sure his actions have been much more abusive and insane than if he had said that he hates Hispanics on the tv.

Defending him? What the fuck are you talking about, Sailor Moon? Nobody here is defending him.

[Cecelia5578]

Please tell me you are not defending Arpaio simply on the basis of not having any defaming/bigoted/just plain insane soundbites available. I'm pretty sure his actions have been much more abusive and insane than if he had said that he hates Hispanics on the tv.

Defending him? What the fuck are you talking about, Sailor Moon? Nobody here is defending him.

The way you asked if there were any damning quotes by him-the fact that you didn't know of any made me to believe that you were willing to overlook what he did based on lack of soundbites.

My apologies since that wasn't the case.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If I go to Arizona, this remains true... but that's largely because the Arizona police won't "reasonably suspect" that I am an illegal immigrant. I don't look like the sort of person who sneaks across the border looking for work. My friend Jorge, on the other hand, is not so lucky. And I can't see a reliable mechanism to define "reasonable suspicion" such that Jorge won't get carded just for walking around.

Unless I've misread something then race alone isn't going to be enough for reasonable suspicion that you're not a legal immigrant. It'd be more like a subject is stopped for a traffic violation and when trying to communicate the subject is unable to comprehend english.

If he's in the company of an illegal immigrant, does that itself give reasonable grounds to suspect that he is one, demand that he present ID to prove that he isn't, and arrest him if he does not comply? What if he's walking home after dark from a party, in an area where police have previously rounded up illegal immigrants? What if he's just walking down the street to McDonald's for lunch? How reasonable can we expect reasonable suspicion to be in this case?

Unable to speak english is a pretty good indicator. I guess there could be other indicators, but illegal immigrant enforcement is something that isn't a very high priority with my department. In fact, it is near the bottom.

While officers might stop people because they are brown I can't see that being what the legislature intended...unless they intend on being sued eventually.

I don't know the answer to that question, because it depends on how far I can trust the Arizona police. so enacting an ID requirement on people who are "reasonably suspect" of being illegal immigrants disturbs me.

ID requirements are nothing new. The only thing new here is the ability to arrest based off reasonable suspicion...and actually that is crossing the line. Arrests are clearly defined as being based off probable cause and not reasonable suspicion.

[Simon_Jester]

Unless I've misread something then race alone isn't going to be enough for reasonable suspicion that you're not a legal immigrant. It'd be more like a subject is stopped for a traffic violation and when trying to communicate the subject is unable to comprehend english.

If that's the standard they stick to, then this law manages to graze by without being too obnoxious. I question whether they will stick to that standard, though.

While officers might stop people because they are brown I can't see that being what the legislature intended...unless they intend on being sued eventually.

Personally, I think the legislature intended to look tough by passing a law that would make it look like they were "doing something" about illegal immigrants in Arizona. And that they're largely indifferent to what the police actually do on the matter.

I don't know the answer to that question, because it depends on how far I can trust the Arizona police. so enacting an ID requirement on people who are "reasonably suspect" of being illegal immigrants disturbs me.

ID requirements are nothing new. The only thing new here is the ability to arrest based off reasonable suspicion...and actually that is crossing the line. Arrests are clearly defined as being based off probable cause and not reasonable suspicion.

Yeah. That's what I'm getting at. "Reasonable suspicion" that you're an illegal immigrant, as defined by the fact that you can't present ID, is here deemed enough to arrest someone.

I would argue that not only does this cross the line as you say, but that it also crosses a completely different line by making failure to present ID enough for reasonable suspicion that you're a criminal by itself.

[Crossroads Inc.]

While officers might stop people because they are brown I can't see that being what the legislature intended...unless they intend on being sued eventually.

Personally, I think the legislature intended to look tough by passing a law that would make it look like they were "doing something" about illegal immigrants in Arizona. And that they're largely indifferent to what the police actually do on the matter.

As someone who lives in Phoenix Arizona just down from the capital buildings, I can tell you this is indeed the correct answer.

All of the recent "Nutter" laws passed by the Arizona legislature are done purely to make themselves look big and strong to the right wing nutters in the state as election day comes up. My state sadly has a history of passing hard core Right wing laws where they have NO CLUE how to enforce them Case in point, a few years back the State 'passed' a proposal that would make "English the Official language of Arizona"

I read the law through and there was NOTHING in there on how to enforce it, it basically said 'English and only English shall be used for all official State uses." The law was thankfully veto by at the time Governor Napolitano, but it still "passed" With Napoltona gone. The Nutters in my state have no one to check them and have gone on a riot of passing these clearly unconstitutional laws.

There are no guidelines other then "Police may use their own discretion" when asking people for papers. Which naturally leaves it open to immense abuse. I had to laugh when yesterday on the local news, I heard one of the big wigs backing the bill say "This is NOT about race, this is only about securing our boarders.. If someone from Sweden came here illegally, they would receive the SAME scrutiny as someone from Mexico!"

Riiiight, because you know, I am so sure local cops are going to be on the look out for white skinned people who may be from Sweden

[Alphawolf55]

I wouldn't say that it impairs their ability to do a job effectively. It's not hard to get a search warrant, you just fax a judge. Also who cares if it impairs a cops ability to perform services? The rights of civilians are more important then the cops ability to do a good job. Cops should not have every power under the sun to stop, search you, or arrest you to get you for something you MIGHT be doing wrong. It doesn't matter if I have coke in my car, if a cop pulls me over he shouldn't be able to search my car just cause he somehow thinks he smells weed.

Well, nobody is faxing a judge from their patrol car. However, you could get a telephonic warrant, but guess what that judge is going to be told. "Hi Judge. I'm Officer Douchbag with the Asshole Police Department. I have this vehicle stopped for (insert fabricated traffic violation), and I smell (insert fabricated odor). I need a warrant issued for this vehicle to search these areas for (insert drug)."

Judge will say "Sounds like you have probable cause, Officer Douchebag! Warrant approved."

Then when the officer doesn't find anything you're back to the same position. The only difference by requiring a warrant you've now added the time it took to secure that warrant to the time stolen from these victims. Congratulations! You've now just added another useless bit of a red tape that accomplishes nothing.

Plus I forgot to ask this, how is desk duty an appriopiate punishment for waving a gun? In fact how is it a punishment at all?

Going off the video of the incident he removed the pistol from the holster and it was pointed at the ground the entire time. That is not "waving" which implies a reckless disregard for the rules of firearm safety.

Desk duty is a form of punishment because it is boring and nobody wants to do it. It's like latrine duty in the military...I suppose you feel the only valid forms of punishment are the ones that cause harm like days off, or termination?

Except that now that you have the warrant, you have the listed reasons for their propable cause. So if it turns out bullshit, you can prove they arbitarily made up the reason. For example if they smelled weed, found none and you have none in your system.

Additionalyl yes, I would say that desk duty isn't a real form of punishment. It's not really punishment if it doesn't go on their record or if repeated offense lead to automatic termination. Like at my job, swearing once gets you on record, if you swear again in the full year you get automatically fired, being sent to a department that no one likes isn't a real punishment because it doesn't have any real consequences.

[MKSheppard]

From Ace:

Governor Jan Brewer to Obama: Screw you.

She called a press conference to announce her decision and just signed it at the event.

Well played Governor.

I think there are still some issues with the criminalization of day labor and how that might be overly broad and apply to citizens and those authorized to work here. Overall though, seems like good stuff.

John McCain emails to say, "It's a nice a start but personally I won't rest until every illegal immigrant is thrown out of this country or until the day after my GOP primary. Whichever comes first."

The last part I love.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except that now that you have the warrant, you have the listed reasons for their propable cause. So if it turns out bullshit, you can prove they arbitarily made up the reason. For example if they smelled weed, found none and you have none in your system.

No, that wouldn't work either because the officer might actually have detected the odor of marijuana and those in the vehicle had just sold it prior to being stopped. So, the odor was present but the drug was not. Thus, you're still in the same position you were before.

Additionalyl yes, I would say that desk duty isn't a real form of punishment. It's not really punishment if it doesn't go on their record or if repeated offense lead to automatic termination. Like at my job, swearing once gets you on record, if you swear again in the full year you get automatically fired, being sent to a department that no one likes isn't a real punishment because it doesn't have any real consequences.

Just because his punishment was desk duty doesn't mean that he didn't receive a letter in his file. You're making an assumption based off of the media report. His mistake involved a firearm, so I would be surprised if there wasn't some sort of administrative letter placed in his file.

[eion]

Except that now that you have the warrant, you have the listed reasons for their propable cause. So if it turns out bullshit, you can prove they arbitarily made up the reason. For example if they smelled weed, found none and you have none in your system.

No, that wouldn't work either because the officer might actually have detected the odor of marijuana and those in the vehicle had just sold it prior to being stopped. So, the odor was present but the drug was not. Thus, you're still in the same position you were before.

I wonder if anyone is working on a device that can detect the smell, other than a dog of course. We already have devices that can detect and localize gunshots, so I would imagine the legal groundwork is laid. Then you wouldn't have to rely on the officer's judgment, the device either detects marijuana or it doesn't, much like how radar guns have replaced an officer's estimation of a car's speed.

[Ryan Thunder]

I wonder how difficult it would be to couple one of those gunshot detectors to a clock and GPS locator so you could actively keep track of when and where shots were fired from...

[Gil Hamilton]

What I've been hearing around is that half of this is certain Arizonan right wing politicians being Tough on Crime with a ridiculous bill and the other half as being something to placate southern ranchers.

One thing to consider is that recently, there was the murder of a prominent rancher along the border, Robert Krentz, who was actually very well known for actually being a good Samaritan to illegal immigrants. He was murdered recently and while I haven't heard if they determined who actually did it, the southern ranchers all are convinced it was illegal aliens. Spill over from the drug wars in Mexico and coyotes and theives who raid their ranches then hop back south out of US jurisdiction all cause ranchers alot of trouble and tend to be well armed.* It's reached the point that the ranchers are starting to shoot at anything that moves. One of the compromises to keep the ranchers from militia'ing up was this bill, because the last thing the Arizonan government wants is pictures of some dead Mexican child on CNN after a rancher and his men blew away their family and having to arrest them.

That's the long and short of it. This bill seems to exist as some means to prove that the Arizona government is doing something, even if it is short sighted and going to be abused out the ying-yang and STILL won't stop the sort of incidents that they are trying to avoid. The ranchers are convinced that the government isn't going to help them and that they are going to have to take arms and Arizona REALLY doesn't want to end up having to suppress them with law enforcement for what alot of people see as defending themselves from asshats from Mexico.

(*I think law enforcement thinks it was a drug scout that the rancher accidentally ran into while the other ranchers favor the notion that it was bandits from Mexico who steal their equipment then sell it for profit south of the Border where law enforcement can't chase them. Both are real problems in the area this guy was working in)

[ObsidianTailor]

I am against any kind of state-required ID, but I don't see the problem with holding someone when they've been picked up for other reasons if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not in the country legally. "Reasonable suspicion" would probably be defined as a complete lack of the comprehension of English. Other than that, I am not sure if there is a way to determine someone's legal status.

Yes, ambiguous laws can be used in abuse by either sinister or just plain stupid police. The latter group abuses straightforward laws. A cop buddy of mine once told me this story: A black man got pulled over and immediately informed the officer that he had two weapons in the glove compartment. The cop told him to get out and stand aside. The cop got a PENCIL and carried the two guns by their trigger guards to his squad car and then radioed the station to run the guy's license and record. The cop would have already known that the man had a concealed carry permit (running the plates will inform police of it), so this was odd, as if carrying guns on pencils was not odd enough. Of course, the guy was clean, so the cop gave him his guns back and they left the scene. I believe the cop had pulled him over for something like not signalling. The victim then called the station and told them the story. The young cop was under my friend's authority and he barely kept his job after a suspension. Anyways, the best thing to do in those situations is to cooperate and report it. RIGHT AWAY.

[General Zod]

I am against any kind of state-required ID, but I don't see the problem with holding someone when they've been picked up for other reasons if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not in the country legally. "Reasonable suspicion" would probably be defined as a complete lack of the comprehension of English. Other than that, I am not sure if there is a way to determine someone's legal status.

You realize there's any number of tourists or visitors who are in the country legally that can barely speak any English at all, right? Your idea of reasonable suspicion is terrible, quite frankly. More importantly, you can't exactly tell who can speak English or not just by looking.

[Gil Hamilton]

I am against any kind of state-required ID, but I don't see the problem with holding someone when they've been picked up for other reasons if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not in the country legally. "Reasonable suspicion" would probably be defined as a complete lack of the comprehension of English. Other than that, I am not sure if there is a way to determine someone's legal status.

For one thing, the provision doesn't say anything about the police stopping them first. The police could "reasonably suspect" any person on the streets of Tucson and ask for an ID, then bag them for not being able to produce one. Not speaking English very well doesn't work in some places in Arizona. If you drive south in Tucson from the downtown area, you'll reach a line where all of a sudden, all the signs are in Spanish, everyone is speaking Spanish, and if you ask for directions, it had probably ought to be in Spanish if you want to get anywhere. Most people in South Tucson are legal American citizens, but I assure you alot less than that number don't speak English very well at all. I had a student last semester from South Tucson and the guy rarely talked, entirely because his English was REALLY shaky. He was also one of best when it came to lab work. However, if a cop "reasonably suspected" him one day, he might very well get hauled in.

No, I can tell you EXACTLY the logic behind the phrasing "reasonably suspicious" rather than "probable cause". Again, this ties into the rancher thing on the border. Alot of cops on the border and Border Patrol authorities before this bill felt that their hands were tied when it came to aggressively enforcing the border. Strictly speaking, 10 people hiking in the mountains along the border aren't doing anything illegal. The police don't have probable cause to arrest them and if they turned up to check their IDs, hikers might not have them. What this leads to is that Border Patrol can't really do anything to caravans of illegals who've CLEARLY hopped the border along the well known drug routes until they actually get caught doing something (or get stopped by the ranchers, who phone in that they've caught some illegals). The language of this law exists, I think, so that Border Patrol can swoop in and nab people who otherwise haven't done anything illegal except being here in the first place without the standard of proof that was binding them before. Border Patrol damn well at this point can recognize bandits and drug runners from desperate refugees and people looking to get here to work.

What's twisting everyones nipples is that this law was written so vague and half-assed that it WILL be abused. While Maricopa County cops are by far the worst, you really want to avoid any cops*. Given the history of some departments, the big outrage people have on this is that "reasonably suspicious" WILL be defined as "brown and poor looking". My PI was nervous when he heard this because he's an immigrant too, though I assured him that "nerdy Swiss physicists" were pretty low down on the list of minorities to be oppressed. That is true, and that guy on the news that said that this will be enforced regardless of race was lying. I don't believe than anyone including the people who drafted the bill don't think that racial profiling is a large component to this. The argument is whether or not you think that it is justified or not.

(*in general, the one encounter I had with a cop here in Tucson, he was a really nice guy who felt that I should turn my headlights on due to some rain, when as a native of Pittsburgh, it hadn't occured to me that rain is a much bigger deal here. He had a laugh about that and told me that the headlights were more for my protection from other drivers, who absolutely go to shit on the road when there is even a little rain)

[ObsidianTailor]

I am against any kind of state-required ID, but I don't see the problem with holding someone when they've been picked up for other reasons if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not in the country legally. "Reasonable suspicion" would probably be defined as a complete lack of the comprehension of English. Other than that, I am not sure if there is a way to determine someone's legal status.

You realize there's any number of tourists or visitors who are in the country legally that can barely speak any English at all, right? Your idea of reasonable suspicion is terrible, quite frankly. More importantly, you can't exactly tell who can speak English or not just by looking.

The tourists would have passports with visas. And why would authorities hold someone "just by looking?" I said "...when they've been picked up for other reasons."

For one thing, the provision doesn't say anything about the police stopping them first. The police could "reasonably suspect" any person on the streets of Tucson and ask for an ID, then bag them for not being able to produce one. Not speaking English very well doesn't work in some places in Arizona. If you drive south in Tucson from the downtown area, you'll reach a line where all of a sudden, all the signs are in Spanish, everyone is speaking Spanish, and if you ask for directions, it had probably ought to be in Spanish if you want to get anywhere. Most people in South Tucson are legal American citizens, but I assure you alot less than that number don't speak English very well at all. I had a student last semester from South Tucson and the guy rarely talked, entirely because his English was REALLY shaky. He was also one of best when it came to lab work. However, if a cop "reasonably suspected" him one day, he might very well get hauled in.

I was not directly commenting on the provision itself, just in general. There is a difference between not having a command of the language and speaking with an accent or in what is termed "broken English." I have no doubt that some cops will abuse this provision. But if any state had a law stating that law enforcement was not barred from inquiring and investigating legal status within certain guidelines, I'd have no problem with it. I am not sure of the guidelines—or lack thereof—in this AZ situation, but it doesn't sound promising.

[General Zod]

The tourists would have passports with visas. And why would authorities hold someone "just by looking?" I said "...when they've been picked up for other reasons."

Thing is though, there's already laws covering that. If they can't verify your identity, then they can detain you for up to 48 hours until they confirm it. This law really doesn't serve any legitimate purpose that isn't covered by any other law except to give the police more excuses to scrutinize anyone with brown skin.

[Tsyroc]

(*in general, the one encounter I had with a cop here in Tucson, he was a really nice guy who felt that I should turn my headlights on due to some rain, when as a native of Pittsburgh, it hadn't occured to me that rain is a much bigger deal here. He had a laugh about that and told me that the headlights were more for my protection from other drivers, who absolutely go to shit on the road when there is even a little rain)

I started using my lights in the rain the majority of the time after living in Florida for a few months. It's a required practice there. In Tucson I use my lights a lot in the early morning because I'm driving home from the East and my truck really does not stand out in the glare. Around here I do tend to see having the lights on as more of a defense mechanism more so than to actually help me see. Even at night the main streets are usually lit up enough that you can see fairly well without headlights.

More on topic. Just last month one of my co-workers was pulled over by a TPD officer in an unmarked police car for "making too wide of a turn". Basically my co-worker is young, Hispanic and could nominally be considered to look like a gang banger if you consider having a very short buzz cut, and being a Hispanic male a gang thing. The officer who pulled him over said, "Oh, I haven't seen you before". Since my co-worker had his room mate and groceries in the car it probably wouldn't have gone much further than that except that he always carries a gun in his glove box. He answered truthfully when the officer asked him if there were any weapons in the car but the officer still cuffed him while running him through the computer. He was allowed to go after about a half hour. The officer left the gun unloaded on the back seat of the car and told my co-worker to wait until he left.

Another co-worker of mine is Mexican (who's a legal resident of the US) and she lives out by Three Points. She's been pulled over numerous times by the border patrol while she's been on her way to work. I think she even said that one of the times her husband (who's white) was in the passenger seat. She started joking this week that because of the new law she needs to put "We Support the Border Patrol" bumper stickers on her vehicles.

[Alphawolf55]

Except that now that you have the warrant, you have the listed reasons for their propable cause. So if it turns out bullshit, you can prove they arbitarily made up the reason. For example if they smelled weed, found none and you have none in your system.

No, that wouldn't work either because the officer might actually have detected the odor of marijuana and those in the vehicle had just sold it prior to being stopped. So, the odor was present but the drug was not. Thus, you're still in the same position you were before.

Additionalyl yes, I would say that desk duty isn't a real form of punishment. It's not really punishment if it doesn't go on their record or if repeated offense lead to automatic termination. Like at my job, swearing once gets you on record, if you swear again in the full year you get automatically fired, being sent to a department that no one likes isn't a real punishment because it doesn't have any real consequences.

Just because his punishment was desk duty doesn't mean that he didn't receive a letter in his file. You're making an assumption based off of the media report. His mistake involved a firearm, so I would be surprised if there wasn't some sort of administrative letter placed in his file.

Except there's one problem with that. Marijuana by itself doesn't have that strong of an odor, at least not enough that an officer could reasonably be expected to smell it outside a car, it especially doesn't leave a strong trace smell. The act of smoking it does leave a strong smell but that would make it possible to drug test. I've always been skeptical of cops who somehow claim to be able to smell marijuana that's been sealed up when most people I know can't even smell it if it's in the car with them.

[jcow79]

Except there's one problem with that. Marijuana by itself doesn't have that strong of an odor, at least not enough that an officer could reasonably be expected to smell it outside a car, it especially doesn't leave a strong trace smell. The act of smoking it does leave a strong smell but that would make it possible to drug test. I've always been skeptical of cops who somehow claim to be able to smell marijuana that's been sealed up when most people I know can't even smell it if it's in the car with them.

You're kidding, right? For one, smelling it after it has been smoked is easily identifiable. And marijuana has a VERY distinct smell even when not burning. One of my best friends once had a roommate that was growing a few plants in a closet in their house. You could smell the damn things from their porch. You don't need a fancy detector to smell weed. The human nose is plenty strong to identify it. It's been said before, if a cop is going to lie about smelling it, he's going to lie. But smelling weed is a pretty strong indicator there is weed around.

The people you "know" can't smell it because they're around it so much they have grown accustomed to the smell.