No ID in Arizona? You'll get arrested.

[Uraniun235]

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.

I remember my mom coming back from a parent conference and asking me if I smoked, because one of my teachers said I smelled like cigarette smoke. But I didn't smoke, it was all from my mother's smoking habit getting into my clothes.

And I didn't notice the smell at all.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Are you just making shit up now? Marijuana has a very distinct and recognizable odor. Also, just because it is in a plastic bag doesn't mean anything if said bag isn't sealed properly.

[Alphawolf55]

Smoked marijuana does. 2 grams of unsmoked marijuana in a plastic bag that's completely sealed cannot be smelled outside a car 10 feet from it. They also have completely different smells yet which cops never seem to discern between (and it's actually important in a court at times).

Plus actual studies agree with my assessment http://www.springerlink.com/content/xv9l511898561v5q/

[Kamakazie Sith]

Smoked marijuana does. 2 grams of unsmoked marijuana in a plastic bag that's completely sealed cannot be smelled outside a car 10 feet from it. They also have completely different smells yet which cops never seem to discern between (and it's actually important in a court at times).

Plus actual studies agree with my assessment http://www.springerlink.com/content/xv9l511898561v5q/

Sadly, I don't have login so I can't read the entire study. However, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing this study? Are you saying that those cops who arrested people with packaged marijuana conducted an illegal search and then simply wrote in their report that they smelled marijuana only because they found marijuana after their illegal search?

Sure, that's possible. However, let's say the officer gets a search warrant on a vehicle for marijuana, but none is found. What should be done? What if that officer really did smell marijuana, but all the marijuana was consumed prior to being stopped?

Also, does your study take into account the possibility that those people in the examples had smoked prior to contact with police?

Also, based off of personal experience marijuana itself does have an odor that can become quite strong within the confines of a vehicle if not kept in an air tight container.

[Alphawolf55]

The point of the article is saying that probable cause based on smelling marijuana is bullshit because quite frankly human beings don't have powerful enough noses to be able reliably smell unsmoked marijuana from inside a vehicle. But cops somehow claim to be able to smell trace amounts of marijuana in a car, outside a vehicle while it's raining out.

The point is, a cop shouldn't be able to search your car just because he smells marijuana, it's artbitarily, subjective, it's an excuse for lazy work, it goes against your rights (Supreme Court be damned).

The study had weed in multiple cars. Over 60% of the people in the first trial were unable to directly guess which car had weed, in the second trial none were, when combined with the diesel smell of a car.

And based on my personal experience, I find that I'm only able to smell marijuana when in around 3 feet of it or once it's just been smoked.

The existence of probable cause based on odor is an example of a power the police has that has no real application. Bad cops will just use it to abuse their position, good cops can't honestly be reasonably expected to be able to smell it (hence why we have drug dogs), and it exist only to perpuate a so-called "drug war" that cops refuse to speak out against because it goes against their livlihood. (seriously everytime someone in the area suggest decriminalization it's suprisingly the cops that jump in arms around here claiming chaos and anarchy will follow)

[Kamakazie Sith]

The point of the article is saying that probable cause based on smelling marijuana is bullshit because quite frankly human beings don't have powerful enough noses to be able reliably smell unsmoked marijuana from inside a vehicle. But cops somehow claim to be able to smell trace amounts of marijuana in a car, outside a vehicle while it's raining out.

Maybe those people just smoked it. Am I getting through to you yet? Your study assumes that those people in the car did not smoke it.

The point is, a cop shouldn't be able to search your car just because he smells marijuana, it's artbitarily, subjective, it's an excuse for lazy work, it goes against your rights (Supreme Court be damned).

A cop can't search your house based of the smell of marijuana because your house isn't mobile. You have less expectation of privacy in your vehicle, and search warrants aren't required for vehicles because they are mobile.

The study had weed in multiple cars. Over 60% of the people in the first trial were unable to directly guess which car had weed, in the second trial none were, when combined with the diesel smell of a car.

Yeah, so what? It only shows us that marijuana which hasn't been smoked is not detectable. However, you admitted yourself that marijuana which has been smoked has a very distinct odor.

And based on my personal experience, I find that I'm only able to smell marijuana when in around 3 feet of it or once it's just been smoked.

And based off your own experience are you able to immediately recognize it as marijuana?

The existence of probable cause based on odor is an example of a power the police has that has no real application. Bad cops will just use it to abuse their position, good cops can't honestly be reasonably expected to be able to smell it (hence why we have drug dogs), and it exist only to perpuate a so-called "drug war" that cops refuse to speak out against because it goes against their livlihood. (seriously everytime someone in the area suggest decriminalization it's suprisingly the cops that jump in arms around here claiming chaos and anarchy will follow)

Wrong. You, and your study assumes that those who transport large quantities of marijuana package it properly, and have not smoked it recently. You haven't addressed the possibility of large amounts of marijuana not packaged properly or that which has been recently smoked.

The other problem is the precedence you'd set by not allowing smell to be reason to conduct an investigation. If smell of marijuana can't then how can you justify the smell of alcohol to justify a DUI investigation?

[Alphawolf55]

No you don't get it, there was actual weed in those cars it was done by a scientific body. People were unable to tell which cars had weed and which didn't, it wasn't because someone smoked it previously and got rid of it. Also even if they did smoke it previously it doesn't matter because cops claim to be able to smell un-smoked marijuana not just smoked marijuana. It makes a difference and shows why a warrant is needed if he claims to smell the marijuana plant, and finds nothing we know he's full of shit. If he claims to smell the smoke and finds nothing, or finds something but you prove you didn't smoke then again he's full of shit (also yes someone can smell like marijuana but not smoked it by being around people who did but if it happens enough then the case of probable cause should be thrown out like courts in canada are doing). It's right there in plain paper, just having him go off his own authority means he can and will change his reasons.

I know why they claim you don't need a search warrant for cars but that doesn't make it not-bullshit. We're also expected to expect that businesses can bribe politicians and that's protected speech.

Also don't compare alcoholic DUI to marijuana. A alcoholic DUI can easily be a breathalizer, to prove whether he's drunk or not. you don't need to search a car just cause you think a guy is drunk

Also yeah it's possible that the weed cops smell wasn't sealed probably. Except in this study the bag was open and in the back of a pickup truck.

[jcow79]

No you don't get it, there was actual weed in those cars it was done by a scientific body. People were unable to tell which cars had weed and which didn't, it wasn't because someone smoked it previously and got rid of it. Also even if they did smoke it previously it doesn't matter because cops claim to be able to smell un-smoked marijuana not just smoked marijuana. It makes a difference and shows why a warrant is needed if he claims to smell the marijuana plant, and finds nothing we know he's full of shit. If he claims to smell the smoke and finds nothing, or finds something but you prove you didn't smoke then again he's full of shit (also yes someone can smell like marijuana but not smoked it by being around people who did but if it happens enough then the case of probable cause should be thrown out like courts in canada are doing). It's right there in plain paper, just having him go off his own authority means he can and will change his reasons.

I know why they claim you don't need a search warrant for cars but that doesn't make it not-bullshit. We're also expected to expect that businesses can bribe politicians and that's protected speech.

Also don't compare alcoholic DUI to marijuana. A alcoholic DUI can easily be a breathalizer, to prove whether he's drunk or not. you don't need to search a car just cause you think a guy is drunk

Also yeah it's possible that the weed cops smell wasn't sealed probably. Except in this study the bag was open and in the back of a pickup truck.

I think it's you that is missing the point. The study seemed to miss the obvious real world point of: People that often smuggle weed, often smoke weed. Yeah, maybe the cop didn't smell weed in a bag, but if the driver or passengers all smell like weed because they just got done smoking, then the cop has probable cause and he's going to search the vehicle and find their big ass bag of non-smelly weed.

Of course there's a chance that an officer is going to lie and say he smelled weed and upon searching find weed anyway. But you're going to have a pretty tough time convincing anyone that he didn't really smell the weed especially if he doesn't have a history of smelling weed and NOT finding weed. But chances are a jury is going to say, "Well, the officer says he smelled weed and sure enough, there was a fuck-ton of weed. Good job supercop. You must have the nose of a bloodhound."

And for your information, unsmoked marijuana DOES have a distinct smell. Step inside ANY evidence room and try to tell me otherwise. I've spent enough time in an evidence room to know better. Maybe it's not as potent as smoked weed, or freshly growing weed, but it still has the characteristic weed smell and in large quantities in closed-in environments the smell is VERY obvious. I'm not going to say it smells AS much as smoked weed or growing weed, but if it's left long enough in a closed-in environment and not properly sealed, it's going to be detectable.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No you don't get it, there was actual weed in those cars it was done by a scientific body.

No, I understand that just fine.

People were unable to tell which cars had weed and which didn't, it wasn't because someone smoked it previously and got rid of it.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about the real life examples those tests were based on. It assumes that none of those people who were transporting smoked prior to being stopped.

Also even if they did smoke it previously it doesn't matter because cops claim to be able to smell un-smoked marijuana not just smoked marijuana.

I agree that they can. The test probably missed some factors because improperly packaged unsmoked marijuana in a tight space has a very distinct odor.

It makes a difference and shows why a warrant is needed if he claims to smell the marijuana plant, and finds nothing we know he's full of shit. If he claims to smell the smoke and finds nothing, or finds something but you prove you didn't smoke then again he's full of shit (also yes someone can smell like marijuana but not smoked it by being around people who did but if it happens enough then the case of probable cause should be thrown out like courts in canada are doing). It's right there in plain paper, just having him go off his own authority means he can and will change his reasons.

No, it doesn't prove that he's full of shit. That's what you're missing. What if he did smell it but it was all gone or they just barely off loaded it prior to being stopped. How would requiring a warrant do anything but waste time? You haven't shown jack regarding this because unless the judge comes down to the scene himself and takes a sniff then you won't be able to shown that the cop is full of shit.

So, what you're really trying to do is squeeze so tightly that drug interdiction won't be worth the time it takes from start to finish just because a few cops might lie. Nice. I see you're a fan of government inefficiency.

I know why they claim you don't need a search warrant for cars but that doesn't make it not-bullshit. We're also expected to expect that businesses can bribe politicians and that's protected speech.

Your claims don't make it bullshit either. In fact, you probably have no idea what the ratio is between good honest cops and honest arrests built up from reasonable suspicion to probable cause via an investigation and a corrupt cop just trying to ruin someones day. No idea at all.

Also don't compare alcoholic DUI to marijuana. A alcoholic DUI can easily be a breathalizer, to prove whether he's drunk or not. you don't need to search a car just cause you think a guy is drunk

Wrong. A DUI stop and arrest must follow this path.
Traffic violation > reasonable suspicion that alcohol is involved (smell, behavior, etc) > Field Sobriety Tests > Intoxilyzer

The breathalizer or the PBT is not admissable in court.

Also yeah it's possible that the weed cops smell wasn't sealed probably. Except in this study the bag was open and in the back of a pickup truck.

Oh, there we go! So, depending on wind direction and speed you have some unknown variables. So, it is in fact possible that an officer could smell a bag of open marijuana if the enviromental conditions are right. Thank you for being forthcoming.

[Alphawolf55]

Oh come on, now you're just picking at straws.

Me: They couldn't smell the marijuana if it was tightly sealed

You: Well what if it wasn't sealed.

Me: It wasn't sealed and they still couldn't smell it.

You: The wind might have moved the smell.

Hell one of my points earlier that you refuted was that cops claim to be able to smell weeds in conditions that aren't likely like rainy days, snow storms or even when it's windy. That just proves they can't be reasonably expected to smell it.

When the bag is sealed, you claim the majority of people of people don't seal it. When the bag isn't sealed, now the environment is to be blamed but the same overall point is still there. Studies show that the idea that cops ca' reliably smell marijuana plants just isn't true. Either provide a counter-study or concede the point.

You could say "Maybe they got rid of it previously" but now you're going for contrived situations". The fact remains, that studies show that people can't reliably smell marijuana, this means that the majority of the time when a cop says he smells a marijuana plant coming from a car he's either full of shit or he thinks he smells it but doesn't (when people think a substance is around they start smelling the substance regardless of it being there). Now smelling the burnt marijuana is possible, but if you find no weed, you could easily test the person to see they did any pot, if they didn't then you could claim someone around them was smoking. Now you're admitting though that the smell clings and that it isn't reasonable to believe just because a person smells of weed means he has it or even smoked it.

The warrant proves the actual reason, it means the cop can't change his reason later on. Seriously it takes like ten minutes to get a warrant, are drug violators really that big of an issue? Or is the far more likely reason is that cops need to make drug arrests to warrant their departments budgets?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh come on, now you're just picking at straws.

No, I'm not. Your article doesn't support your claim that smell isn't a good enough reason for a search of a vehicle. You're trying to use it to support your claim that cops lie, however, it doesn't support that claim at all. All your evidence shows is that under certain conditions the odor of unsmoked marijuana isn't detectable. Great...but what about in cases where it is detectable.

Me: They couldn't smell the marijuana if it was tightly sealed

You: Well what if it wasn't sealed.

Me: It wasn't sealed and they still couldn't smell it.

You: The wind might have moved the smell.

Yes, odor is carried by air. Why is this a dodge? If they carried out the test up wind or with no wind then why would anyone detect the odor of marijuana?

Hell one of my points earlier that you refuted was that cops claim to be able to smell weeds in conditions that aren't likely like rainy days, snow storms or even when it's windy. That just proves they can't be reasonably expected to smell it.

It proves that sometimes they can smell it and other times they can't. It doesn't prove that marijuana isn't detectable by odor. In fact, because it has such a distinct and recognizeable odor is probably why it is one of the few drugs that a police officer can search a vehicle for once that odor is detected.

When the bag is sealed, you claim the majority of people of people don't seal it. When the bag isn't sealed, now the environment is to be blamed but the same overall point is still there. Studies show that the idea that cops ca' reliably smell marijuana plants just isn't true. Either provide a counter-study or concede the point.

Does your study show examples were the odor of marijuana was detected but no marijuana existed? I'm not going to concede just because you cite a study then misrepresent what it is actually saying.

You could say "Maybe they got rid of it previously" but now you're going for contrived situations". The fact remains, that studies show that people can't reliably smell marijuana, this means that the majority of the time when a cop says he smells a marijuana plant coming from a car he's either full of shit or he thinks he smells it but doesn't (when people think a substance is around they start smelling the substance regardless of it being there).

Then you need to copy and paste the relevant information here because so far you have not done that.

Now smelling the burnt marijuana is possible, but if you find no weed, you could easily test the person to see they did any pot, if they didn't then you could claim someone around them was smoking. Now you're admitting though that the smell clings and that it isn't reasonable to believe just because a person smells of weed means he has it or even smoked it.

So what? Are you saying that it is unreasonable to search a vehicle for narcotics if that person smells like a narcotic. I see what your position is really about. This isn't about the legality of the situation or whether it is reasonable or not. It's about the fact that you don't like the drug war. Well, get in line, mother fucker. However, until that day comes when marijuana is no longer illegal it is not unreasonable to give the police the ability to enforce those laws under reasonable guidelines

The warrant proves the actual reason, it means the cop can't change his reason later on. Seriously it takes like ten minutes to get a warrant, are drug violators really that big of an issue? Or is the far more likely reason is that cops need to make drug arrests to warrant their departments budgets?

You are simply naive. Let me ask you. What do you think would happen if a police officer got a warrant for a search of a vehicle and the probable cause was based off the odor of marijuana, but cocaine was found. I can tell you. Absolutely nothing. That seizure wouldn't be thrown out. What if nothing was found. What do you think would happen then? Again, nothing. Because you would need to prove that the officer lied.

[Alphawolf55]

How am I misrepresenting the study when the conclusion of the study IS that probable cause based on odor is a ridiculous notion because people can't smell marijuana plants reliably and cops claiming they can reliably are full of shit.

The reason it's a dodge is because you claimed cops could reasonably smell marijuana in a wide variety of circumstances, you just admitted they can't based on the environment.

Let me ask an honest question, you stop a pair of teenagers at 2 am at night, it's the middle of a wooded area and there's really nothing open, they were giving a little fast and you pull them over. One of them is wearing a marijuana t-shirt. They're acting a little dumb. They refuse to consent to a search of the trunk of the car and they look nervous as if they're hiding something. Now signs point to these two kids probably having drugs but you don't smell it but signs point to it. Now what do you think the average cop would honestly do?

And yes it is unreasonable to give police a power that they can't use reliably. We give police the right to search vehicles without warrants based on the idea that they can smell marijuana, studies show that police can't smell marijuana that well. So now the police have a power based on an ability they don't actually possess, The reasonable thing would be for them to admit it, either ask for increase of funds for drug dogs or just tell society "Hey change the rules of law or hey get rid of this ridiculous hard to enforce law". Instead as you've shown they stick to their guns and stick to their claims against all reasonable evidence.

That's my problem with police, they aren't corrupt in the idea they break the law. I actually think 99% of them are good people at heart (if a bit of authority complex) But they refuse to ever give up anything. Have you ever notice how with almost any attempt to repeal or change a law to make it lax is blocked by the police? Drug laws, speeding limits, almost anything that tries to get changed it's mostly the police that block it. Whats is this? Do they truly believe that all these illegal things are for our own good? Or is maybe that like any department they want as much funds as possible and they know that without laws to enforce their budgets would go down? (I mean lets face it, without drug laws and some traffic violations there wouldn't be as much for cops to do, not enough violent crimes and police honestly can't be expected to find most thieves). But in my experience whenever you point out this conflict of interest, cops always deny it exist.

Cops deny that conflict of interest, they deny that the job of being a cop attracts the wrong type of people at times (lets face it a-lot of people become cops for the wrong reason) everyone has a bad cop story yet cop claim that it's just a few good cops rather then admit maybe admit there's actual problems with the force (even if it's just how they deal with civilians ). They don't act like people until they've gotten in trouble then they claim they're only human. The whole thing just bugs me.

[jcow79]

The Full study
Did you even read the study yourself? Because parts of the study actually refute most of what you are saying. Yes, in the specific scenario it was hard to detect bagged marijuana stored in the trunk of the car while smelling from the cabin of the car by people who were previously unfamiliar and untrained with marijuana and it’s smell. They were familiarized with the odor prior to the testing only. Why was the study not done with people trained and familiar with this odor like oh say….police officers? The study even mentions that people trained in odor and taste tend to do better on these tests.
But everything else in the study confirms that non-burning marijuana still has a very distinct odor. That odor can be detected very easily and reliably by the human nose.

Results
All nine participants reliably and unequivocally reported the garbage bag containing
marijuana to have a marijuana-like smell, and none reported the control garbage bag as having such an odor (Binomial test, p < .002).

The other study only demonstrated that diesel fumes may have a masking effect on marijuana. The experiment didn’t even actually closely resemble the real life scenario it was supposed to be testing and made mention of that.
Are you still going to deny that marijuana has a distinct odor? Are you insisting that if it is not burning that it is odorless? For one, there are many varieties of the plant. Some of them are actually called SKUNK weed. It’s called skunk weed because of the strong odor. You appear to be dismissing firsthand knowledge, experience, and training.
All that really needs to be said about this is that it's settled law. You would no more dismiss an officers sense of smell as you would his sight or hearing.

The Supreme Court and the Sense of Smell
The Supreme Court has long recognized the value of an officer's sense of smell in detecting the possible commission of a crime or identifying evidence of a crime. In 1932 the Court held that "prohibition officers may rely on distinctive odors as a physical fact indicative of a possible crime."17 Likewise, the distinctive odor of burning opium detected by an affiant qualified to recognize it was a sufficient basis on which a magistrate could issue a warrant.18 And a qualified officer's detection of the smell of fermenting mash in a location was a "very strong" factor in establishing probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.19
The Supreme Court has said that the standard for probable cause cannot, and should not be, defined with precision or quantification. Whether it exists depends on the specific facts and variables of each circumstance. Officers must rely on each of their five senses, plus a good dose of common sense and knowledge that comes from experience, in determining when probable cause exists. Likewise, they must be able to articulate and explain each of the facts they took into account, and why each fact or circumstance contributed to their conclusion that probable cause existed so as to justify a search or seizure. And it helps if they have a good sense of smell. ■
17 Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1 (1932).
18 Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948).
19 United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965).

Link

[Alphawolf55]

At this point we're at he-said, she-said. In my experience (and trust me when all your friends are drug dealers you have get a lot it). I find the majority of the weed sold doesn't produce a strong smell by itself of course there's stuff like skunk but the majority of weed is dank and swag which are said to have a very low odor. Hell Sith himself admitted that numerous circumstances could mask the smell and yet my point is cops still claim to be able to smell it in any circumstance.

Hearing and sight vs a sense of smell are quite different. Like I said I don't think cops totally lie, I think they do believe they smell drugs but I think they suspect drugs are around before the comes before the smell they just think there's drugs so they smell drugs (happens to me all the time, one of my friends was trying to quit but I always thought he smelled like weed because I refused to believe he quit until he proved it was impossible for him to have smoked). Now the mind isn't going to see things quite as easily. Like I could think someone delivered pizza and then claim I smell pizza, it's a-lot harder for me to mistakenly believe I see pizza when I don't.

Of course it's settled law, I'm not refuting what the law is, I'm merely giving an example of a power police have, that I believe doesn't really make society better and doesn't make much sense upon examination. The original topic was that Sith claimed that it's better for cops to have more tools at their disposals to use in their daily job whether it gets abused by others or not. He claimed by getting rid of such tools it impedes a cops ability to correct a situation. My point is that 1) Not having the ability wouldn't really lead to any worse situations, 2) It's a tool based on some misconceptions.

[Alphawolf55]

But because I'm tired, I'll concede that certain marijuana does have a smell and I'm not finding it impossible that a cop could smell it, just not to the extent that they claim.

[Kamakazie Sith]

How am I misrepresenting the study when the conclusion of the study IS that probable cause based on odor is a ridiculous notion because people can't smell marijuana plants reliably and cops claiming they can reliably are full of shit.

No, Alphawolf. The conclusion is that under certain circumstances the odor of marijuana might not be detectable. However, the conclusion is not that people can't smell marijuana plants reliably.

The reason it's a dodge is because you claimed cops could reasonably smell marijuana in a wide variety of circumstances, you just admitted they can't based on the environment.

Don't be a dishonest fuck. I never said that a cop can smell marijuana regardless of the circumstances. I did say that marijuana has an odor and can be identified via that odor. However, only a retard would think that it isn't a reliable means of detection just because the particulets that carry the odor might not make it to the observers nose due to wind conditions. Do you realize you sound like a complete moron right now? Would you say a dog has a shitty sense of smell because it can't smell you when you're up wind from it?

Let me ask an honest question, you stop a pair of teenagers at 2 am at night, it's the middle of a wooded area and there's really nothing open, they were giving a little fast and you pull them over. One of them is wearing a marijuana t-shirt. They're acting a little dumb. They refuse to consent to a search of the trunk of the car and they look nervous as if they're hiding something. Now signs point to these two kids probably having drugs but you don't smell it but signs point to it. Now what do you think the average cop would honestly do?

They'd let them go.

And yes it is unreasonable to give police a power that they can't use reliably. We give police the right to search vehicles without warrants based on the idea that they can smell marijuana, studies show that police can't smell marijuana that well.

They can use it reliably though. Just like they can make arrests for domestic violence reliably utilizing their training, knowledge, five senses, and other skills.

You haven't posted a single bit of information from your studies to back your claim that police officers can't smell marijuana that well. You haven't defined what "well" is. You haven't done shit in this thread except make bullshit assertions.

So now the police have a power based on an ability they don't actually possess, The reasonable thing would be for them to admit it, either ask for increase of funds for drug dogs or just tell society "Hey change the rules of law or hey get rid of this ridiculous hard to enforce law". Instead as you've shown they stick to their guns and stick to their claims against all reasonable evidence.

Unsubstantiated nonsense. And anyone that has been around marijuana will tell you that it does have an odor even if it is unsmoked.

That's my problem with police, they aren't corrupt in the idea they break the law. I actually think 99% of them are good people at heart (if a bit of authority complex) But they refuse to ever give up anything. Have you ever notice how with almost any attempt to repeal or change a law to make it lax is blocked by the police? Drug laws, speeding limits, almost anything that tries to get changed it's mostly the police that block it. Whats is this?

Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that it is mostly the police that try to block those changes? How do you define "mostly" anyway? Do you have any examples?

Do they truly believe that all these illegal things are for our own good? Or is maybe that like any department they want as much funds as possible and they know that without laws to enforce their budgets would go down? (I mean lets face it, without drug laws and some traffic violations there wouldn't be as much for cops to do, not enough violent crimes and police honestly can't be expected to find most thieves).

That depends on the city. In a city such as SLC, UT there is plenty to do for patrol without needing to worry about getting a drug arrest. Some days are so busy that they never have time to do anything else besides respond to calls for service.

But in my experience whenever you point out this conflict of interest, cops always deny it exist.

So what? What does that have to do with your argument here today?

Cops deny that conflict of interest, they deny that the job of being a cop attracts the wrong type of people at times (lets face it a-lot of people become cops for the wrong reason) everyone has a bad cop story yet cop claim that it's just a few good cops rather then admit maybe admit there's actual problems with the force (even if it's just how they deal with civilians ). They don't act like people until they've gotten in trouble then they claim they're only human. The whole thing just bugs me.

So really this is more of a personal issue and you're willing to compromise the ability for police to efficiently perform their duties just so you can stick it to them? I'm glad you're finally being honest about this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

At this point we're at he-said, she-said. In my experience (and trust me when all your friends are drug dealers you have get a lot it). I find the majority of the weed sold doesn't produce a strong smell by itself of course there's stuff like skunk but the majority of weed is dank and swag which are said to have a very low odor. Hell Sith himself admitted that numerous circumstances could mask the smell and yet my point is cops still claim to be able to smell it in any circumstance.

Where do cops claim that? Cite the source where cops claim to be able to detect the smell of marijuana regardless of the circumstances. I'd love to see that. Then even if you are able to produce evidence of this claim then you'll need to show why that renders the detectable odor of marijuana inadmissable as probable cause.

Hearing and sight vs a sense of smell are quite different. Like I said I don't think cops totally lie, I think they do believe they smell drugs but I think they suspect drugs are around before the comes before the smell they just think there's drugs so they smell drugs (happens to me all the time, one of my friends was trying to quit but I always thought he smelled like weed because I refused to believe he quit until he proved it was impossible for him to have smoked).Now the mind isn't going to see things quite as easily. Like I could think someone delivered pizza and then claim I smell pizza, it's a-lot harder for me to mistakenly believe I see pizza when I don't.

There are other acts which lead a police officer to believe drugs might be present such as cars leaving a known drug house, hand exchanges between known drug dealers, etc. However, you still have failed to prove that a police officer is unable to smell marijuana. All you've shown is that in certain circumstances the odor of marijuana might not be detectable. Great...what does that have to do with the price of rice in china?

Of course it's settled law, I'm not refuting what the law is, I'm merely giving an example of a power police have, that I believe doesn't really make society better and doesn't make much sense upon examination. The original topic was that Sith claimed that it's better for cops to have more tools at their disposals to use in their daily job whether it gets abused by others or not. He claimed by getting rid of such tools it impedes a cops ability to correct a situation. My point is that 1) Not having the ability wouldn't really lead to any worse situations, 2) It's a tool based on some misconceptions.

Does allowing police to have this power make it worse? If not then I don't see the problem. At least they'll have the ability to efficiently investigate a crime in progress without having to worry about waking up a judge everytime they have something. Not to mention the number of traffic stop related seizures would require that judges in some areas sign thousands of warrants a day. It's not like there are a lot of judges per officer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

But because I'm tired, I'll concede that certain marijuana does have a smell and I'm not finding it impossible that a cop could smell it, just not to the extent that they claim.

Alphawolf...most marijuana has a odor that is very distinct. In fact, I haven't encountered any personally that didn't have an odor. You lock that up in a vehicle for a substantial period of time and that odor will increase in potency.

[Elfdart]

Back on subject: between Arizona's version of the old Passbook Laws of South Africa, and the concealed/carry law that is so popular among Teabaggers, this looks more and more like an attempt to intimidate Hispanics into not voting.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Back on subject: between Arizona's version of the old Passbook Laws of South Africa, and the concealed/carry law that is so popular among Teabaggers, this looks more and more like an attempt to intimidate Hispanics into not voting.

You arn't too far off you know. I don't know if its hit the national media, but some of the wackos in Az are already talking about implementing a law to "Make sure only Americans vote in elections" whatever the hell that means.

[PeZook]

You arn't too far off you know. I don't know if its hit the national media, but some of the wackos in Az are already talking about implementing a law to "Make sure only Americans vote in elections" whatever the hell that means.

What? It's like requiring that only a natural born American citizen can run in presidential electio...

Ah, I understand now. "Making sure only Americans vote in elections" is Arizonian for "Making sure no brown people vote in elections"?

But more seriously, are there really people who think illegal immigrants can vote?

[Akhlut]

Back on subject: between Arizona's version of the old Passbook Laws of South Africa, and the concealed/carry law that is so popular among Teabaggers, this looks more and more like an attempt to intimidate Hispanics into not voting.

You arn't too far off you know. I don't know if its hit the national media, but some of the wackos in Az are already talking about implementing a law to "Make sure only Americans vote in elections" whatever the hell that means.

I thought that was the way the current system operated anyway. I am pretty sure that only US citizens (and possibly resident aliens; I'm not so sure about that group, though) are allowed to vote legally. what does this legislation aim to accomplish, aside from trying to intimidate Hispanics?

[General Zod]

Back on subject: between Arizona's version of the old Passbook Laws of South Africa, and the concealed/carry law that is so popular among Teabaggers, this looks more and more like an attempt to intimidate Hispanics into not voting.

You arn't too far off you know. I don't know if its hit the national media, but some of the wackos in Az are already talking about implementing a law to "Make sure only Americans vote in elections" whatever the hell that means.

I thought that was the way the current system operated anyway. I am pretty sure that only US citizens (and possibly resident aliens; I'm not so sure about that group, though) are allowed to vote legally. what does this legislation aim to accomplish, aside from trying to intimidate Hispanics?

Intimidation? It basically means they can arrest them if they show up to a voting booth without an ID on hand.

[The Spartan]

And it begins:
Link to Colorado Independent

The new birthers: Arizona truck driver arrested, forced to show birth certificate
By John Tomasic 4/26/10 7:00 AM

A Latino truck driver outside Phoenix was taken into custody by law enforcement at a weigh station. He pulled in to have the truck looked at, was apparently approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and asked for ID. He showed them his commercial driver’s license. They asked him for more ID. He told them his social security number. They cuffed him took him to the central office in Phoenix and called his wife to bring his social security card and birth certificate. The truckdiver is identifying himself to media only as “Abdon” and he is an American citizen born in the USA.

The ICE agents said this was all just standard procedure. But the agents might just as well have been local police or highway patrol, who are now required by the controversial law Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday to follow the same “standard procedure” and question individuals about their immigration status during routine stops. Welcome to the new Arizona, where there are sure to be whole websites dedicated to these kind of stories soon.

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.

Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He’s legit. It’s the first time it’s ever happened.”

Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option.

Jackie says, “It doesn’t feel like it’s a good way of life, to live with fear, even though we are okay, we are legal…still have to carry documents around.”

A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure.

Arizona now has the toughest immigration-related laws in the country, making it a state crime to be in the country without the proper visa. The new law has raised howls from civil rights groups for putting the onus on local police to enforce laws tougher than federal immigration statutes. Immigration and rights activists argue the law is a misguided reaction to admittedly major security and trafficking problems on the border. They say the new state law is an unconstitutional and anti-American recipe for racial profiling abuses that will create divisions and heighten the reluctance of Latino community members to seek police assistance even for everyday matters of security and law enforcement.

By the way there's also video footage at the link.

(FYI: the report in the link is set up the same way with the original quoted similarly)

[Crossroads Inc.]

You arn't too far off you know. I don't know if its hit the national media, but some of the wackos in Az are already talking about implementing a law to "Make sure only Americans vote in elections" whatever the hell that means.

What? It's like requiring that only a natural born American citizen can run in presidential electio...

Ah, I understand now. "Making sure only Americans vote in elections" is Arizonian for "Making sure no brown people vote in elections"?

But more seriously, are there really people who think illegal immigrants can vote?

I thought that was the way the current system operated anyway. I am pretty sure that only US citizens (and possibly resident aliens; I'm not so sure about that group, though) are allowed to vote legally. what does this legislation aim to accomplish, aside from trying to intimidate Hispanics?

Both of your pretty much answered your own questions. Just like how the right convinced people that "Gays CAN marry, and so we have to double ban it by making constitutional bans" So too the right has convinced a great many in Arizona that, come election day, thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants "Somehow" are voting in our elections down here.

Oh sure there is never proof, and one would think if a thousand odd votes showed up with no link to a voter registration it would raise questions. But when have facts stopped the Right? Just how you will find people here convinced every unsolved crime was done by an illegal, and that hit and run accident, or every drug crim is linked to illegals, so to you find people Convinced that illegals, somehow, are able to sneak in and vote in massive numbers.

Like the immigration business, its been boiling for years, with all the new "Victories" the right has in Arizona, it seems ot have embolden people into being more open about "Doing something about it"

As for exactly WHAT would be 'done about it' From the wackos I see in local news as well as on the radio, it seems a process similar to the just passed "Papers Please" bill.. That basically if you goto vote, and don't have Five forms of ID and a birth Certificate, they would arrest.

Speaking, purely in hypotheticals right now.