Warrantless search - Rogers County

[tweetr]

Oh, and as an almost incidental aside, my son's brake lights are not broken and are functional too. So there's that!

 

[sh00ter]

LOL....do you think the law cares about us? They'll investigate themselves, find nothing wrong, and then likely start smelling weed more often around his car or yours. LEO's have no inherent duty to serve and protect and can lie all they want per SCOTUS.

I used to work with a guy who said the cops were a private army being paid to enforce the will of rich people upon middle class and working-class people using their own tax money. LOL

They still necessary to keep our wives from being robbed at the store...it is give & take like everything else.

 

[TedKennedy]

https://www.newson6.com/story/5e361...so-receiving-backlash-after-deputy-shoots-dog
This should tell you everything you need to know about Rogers County.

Shrek actually went on TV to defend this.

 

[tweetr]

I guarantee that was not the reason for the search and is in fact a lie. The actual reason almost certainly is a vehicle description.

"3. Search without a warrant of an automobile, and seizure therein of liquor subject to seizure and destruction under the Prohibition Act, do not violate the Amendment, if made upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the officer, that the vehicle contains such contraband liquor. P. 267 U. S. 149."

This search would not comply with my reading of Carrol as there was no probable cause to form a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the officer that THAT car contained "contraband." And, I further add, there was no seizure of [marijuana] from the vehicle because there was no [marijuana] in the vehicle to be seized!

Is marijuana even "contraband" in Rogers County, had they found any?

Carrol is absurdly reasoned, by the way.
"Held:
(a) That the primary purpose is the seizure and destruction of the contraband liquor, and the provisions for forfeiture of the vehicle and arrest of the transporter are merely incidental. P. 267 U. S. 153."

This argument supposes that a statute against "contraband" renders the forteiture of the vehicle and arrest of the person merely incidental! As though the "contraband" is more imperative than the person, who no longer has the right to be secure in his person against such search and seizure! The obvious question is whether the Congress has the power under Artcle 1, Section 8 to nullify or limit the Fourth Amendment (which has never been repealed nor amended.) And in any case the Eighteenth Amendment which gave Congress the power to prohibit "intoxicating liquors", under which authority Carrol was searched and seized (1) is repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment, and (2) applied to "intoxicating liquors", of which "weed" is not one! Carrol's application here is tenuous at best.

 

[GlockPride]

Tulsa county DA says deputies in this county can no longer utilize an odor of marijuana as reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle, according to a couple deputies I know.

 

[JEVapa]

I hear a lot of these kinds of things out of Rogers County.

 

[WoodsCraft]

Tulsa county DA says deputies in this county can no longer utilize an odor of marijuana as reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle, according to a couple deputies I know.

 

[Chief Sapulpa]

I hear a lot of these kinds of things out of Rogers County.

Yet the residents of that county keep re-electing him.

 

[TedKennedy]

Yet the residents of that county keep re-electing him.

What makes you think the election wasn't rigged? I hear a lot about that these days.

 

[tweetr]

Tulsa county DA says deputies in this county can no longer utilize an odor of marijuana as reasonable suspicion to search a vehicle, according to a couple deputies I know.

I need more info on this point. Where should I look?