Warrantless search - Rogers County

[Ready_fire_aim]

Given the story, I would bet it was either something involved with training/practice or vehicle description matching someone they’re after.

Really the whole thing sounds fairly normal to me. I’ve been through similar experiences a couple of times. Let it be a lesson to your son to keep his nose clean when out driving around! (At all times for that matter)

 

[tweetr]

Y'all might want to read this case. Smell of MJ is still a valid reason to search in Oklahoma.

STATE V. ROBERSON​

2021 OK CR 16 | 492 P.3d 620
Case: S-2020-550Decided: 6/17/2021

Thanks. I'll look that up.

 

[trekrok]

Given the story, I would bet it was either something involved with training/practice or vehicle description matching someone they’re after.

Really the whole thing sounds fairly normal to me. I’ve been through similar experiences a couple of times. Let it be a lesson to your son to keep his nose clean when out driving around! (At all times for that matter)

I'm not a happy camper if I end up in handcuffs while they are fishing.

 

[Big50]

Again... I don't think you're the Constitutional expert you seem to think you are. There are many ways in which police may conduct searches without a warrant. You are correct that it's not legal to perform a search without probable cause or a warrant in order to find PC, though. I doubt that happens very often...and if it does it doesn't hold up in court.

Let me give you an example (true story):

I was patrolling early one morning...about 0300. I stopped a car for a minor violation...don't recall what. When the driver opened his glove box he had a stack of currency about 4" tightly wrapped in a zip-loc baggie in there. It was a lot of money and it seemed odd to me. Nothing wrong or illegal, but I saw it and nothing prohibits me from asking questions about it. The driver is not obligated to answer.

I asked him where he got the money? "Work". Why is it in your glovebox? "I'm going to look at an apartment." Right now? "In about 30 mins." At 3:30 in the morning? That's odd. "Yeah...that's when the guy's available."

OK...not a thing in the world wrong with looking at an apartment at 3:30 in the morning. But it's VERY unusual...especially in the rural area where this occurred.

Went back to the stop and he couldn't produce proof of insurance. He also had an address that was an hour away and couldn't explain why he was in this particular area when he said he was looking at an appt much closer to where he lived.

In Colorado, failure to provide proof of insurance is a misdemeanor offense (or it was then). I knew the guy's story was bulls**t and I knew he was up to no good based on my experience. So I arrested him. Unusual to arrest someone for that, yes. But perfectly reasonable and legal.

I had to secure his car. And because he had a very large amount of cash I did what's called an inventory search of the vehicle in his presence to account for all his valuables...like the cash. He said he had a lot of work tools in the trunk...very valuable stuff. When I searched the trunk I found many items commonly associated with burglaries.

I forwarded the report to the detectives and they were able to clear 30-some odd burglaries traced to this guy and recover hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of property.

You can be a Constitutional purist all you want. But nothing in the Constitution prohibits honest police work and a lot of things you're complaining about have been upheld in the courts for decades.

So when you first arrested him what was the charge?

 

[tweetr]

Y'all might want to read this case. Smell of MJ is still a valid reason to search in Oklahoma.

STATE V. ROBERSON​

2021 OK CR 16 | 492 P.3d 620
Case: S-2020-550Decided: 6/17/2021

Interesting and relevant citation. Thanks! Anyone interested can download the pdf here:
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=appellate&bc=1049353063&cn=S-2020-550&fmt=pdf
It does address the smell of marijuana.
It also specifies facts of that case which justify the search of Roberson's vehicle as precisely opposite to the facts of my son's case. E.g. the officer was justfied in entering and searching Roberson's vehicle because Roberson told the officer he had "a small amount" of marijuana in his vehicle.

My son told them he did NOT have any marijuana in his vehicle.
And so on. All the opposite facts of this case.

 

[Roadking Larry]

I think the best bet is to record any and every encounter with law enforcement, for your safety as well as theirs. Full audio/video if possible or at least audio.

 

[tweetr]

OK... Never mind. I tried to explain everything to you based on my 15+ years of police/investigative work. But obviously your experience as a Constitutional purist gives you far greater insight into how law enforcement works in terms of the 4th Amendment.

I'll just head on outta here because you obviously don't want to understand what I'm telling you.

Have a nice evening.

Goodness, no need to get snippy! I appreciate your input, even where I disagree. No problem on this side of the conversation!

 

[tweetr]

This is a good summary article too:

The Oklahoma Drug Attorney Guide to Drug Sniffing Dogs
https://oklahomainterstatedruglawyer.com/the-oklahoma-drug-attorney-guide-to-drug-sniffing-dogs/

 

[Letfreedomring]

So when you first arrested him what was the charge?

 

[THAT Gurl]

Oh Lord!! I thought that link was from an attorney who used to post here. (No I ain't naming names -- he's been disbarred. So if you don't know, I ain't telling. Don't EVEN bother PMing me!)