Mediaboss Marketing

Be careful not to get busted for marijuana-related offenses this holiday season.

If you are reading this, you're probably doing what the rest of working-class America is up to at this very moment: Sitting around the office waiting for that godforsaken clock to strike five, so they can get the heck out of dodge and kick off a long, gluttonous holiday weekend.

Some of you are packing up the family and hitting the road late Wednesday night to attend turkey dinners hosted by relatives that you haven't seen since last year. Others are simply going home to feed the cat, order a pizza and perhaps plant themselves in front of the television for four days straight.

But there is a wild-eyed legion of so-and-so's out there that will use the official launch of the holiday season as an excuse to get insanely drunk, stoned and engage in all sorts of debaucherous behavior. This is that rowdy bunch who goes all-in when it comes to events like Drunksgiving, Danksgiving and any other party-time label that means taking a break from real life for a few days and just getting wrecked beyond belief. I, of course, am part of the latter the hell raisers who give it their all in pursuit of good times. Only now I use my Acorns investment account to make sure there is plenty of bail money on hand just in case my amusement dies in a fiery blaze of stupidity.

In fact, as I sit here typing out this column from my office in gloomy Southern Indiana, I am also double checking the books (or in this case, the app) to make sure Im flush enough to stay out of trouble come Wednesday evening. You see, I am spending my Thanksgiving Eve getting blasted on the best black market weed I could get my hands on (thanks California!) drinking a few Three Floyds IPAs and watching Alice Cooper in concert. Yeah, I expect it will be madness, and a damn good time to boot.

Come on 5 oclock!

While most people who go out partying during the holidays are well versed in the rules of drinking (know when to say when, don't drink and drive, have a designated driver, well, designated before heading out) marijuana and all of the noise surrounding it is an entirely different beast altogether. This goes double when people start mixing weed with the American roadways. So, I got to thinking: The stoner class could really use some guidance when it comes to holiday travel. They need something to ensure that they make it out of this festive season without getting harassed, arrested and impaled by legal woes that will most certainly not make for a happy new year.

So, as my gift to all the marijuana users of this moderately okie-dokie nation, I have compiled a brief list of tips, tricks and other useful information about traveling with weed that might save some of your behinds.

Your designated driver needs to be pot-free.

Fifteen states have zero-tolerance laws on the books for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). And yes, they include marijuana. Any motorist suspected of driving high in these jurisdictions could be dragged to jail on this charge even if they weren't actually impaired at the time of the traffic stop. In a zero-tolerance state, just having a trace amount of THC in your system means jail, having your vehicle impounded and years of jumping through hoops courtesy of the court system. Also, failure to comply with the officer's request for a roadside drug test, well, that is an automatic admission of guilt, which will inevitably lead to a conviction for DUID, loss of your driver's license and many other unsavory spankings.

Anyone out there partying this holiday weekend (or any other time when Americans are off work) should know that the police will be out in full force. There will even be random sobriety checkpoints sprouting up in some parts. So, it is best to employ a designated driver who doesn't use marijuana. Because if the cops think the driver is high, they are going to investigate further. And since pot is weird in the way that it metabolizes in the body, even an occasional user risks getting popped for stoned driving. Other states have established specific THC limits that a motorist cannot go over without getting arrested. Even in areas where marijuana is legal, pot users can still get busted for driving high if they test over the permitted limit. Thats usually 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood. This is even the case if you are a medical marijuana cardholder. It should be noted that none of the marijuana testing presently available provides accurate results. Police can tell if someone has used marijuana, but they cannot determine impairment. But theyll arrest you anyway.

If a marijuana-free DD isn't available to you and your crew, I recommend sticking to ride-share services like Uber and Lyft.

Get busted for marijuana and say goodbye to your vehicle.

There are state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws that allow police to seize personal property if it was used in a crime. In some cases, all law enforcement has to do is suspect the property (cars, boats, houses, cash) was used in an illegal nature or obtained using outlaw funds to snag it without providing much recourse for its return. If you happen to be driving around with marijuana in a legal state, there is nothing to worry about as long as you are not in possession of more than what is permitted by law one or two ounces usually. However, in prohibition states, getting busted for pot possession during a roadside shakedown even for small amounts means there is a chance that your vehicle could be seized. Still have 18 payments to go before that new Camaro is paid off? It doesn't matter to the state. It's gone, and likely forever. Sure, you will get a forfeiture hearing at some point, which gives the defendant a chance to explain to a judge why they need their property back. And as with anything in life, sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't.

Do you feel lucky?

The police might want to search your vehicle.

Marijuana is becoming increasingly more legal in the United States, no doubt. But the herb is still considered an outlaw substance in most of the country. This means law enforcement, especially those bordering legal states and in those areas where prohibition continues to run rampant, are still harassing motorists in hopes of jamming them up for pot possession. But there are a few ways to keep the cops from snooping around in the event of a traffic stop. For starters, never smoke marijuana in the vehicle. All a cop has to do is catch a whiff of weed and a search is on. Not to mention there is always the possibility that you could catch one of those pesky DUIDs. Also, you are going to want to make sure that the car is clean (no fast food bags on the floor or anything). Keep all prescription drug bottles tucked away rather than stored up front. And if you must travel with weed in places where it is illegal, take edibles rather than flower. Again, if an officer even thinks he smells marijuana and they often claim to you could be sitting along the highway waiting for the drug-seeking hounds to be unleashed. There is a rule of thumb that some of the old-time pot smugglers liked to preach back in the day that still holds true. Break only one law at a time. If you're driving from Colorado to Kansas with weed in the trunk, you should probably obey the traffic laws to the letter. Otherwise, youre just asking for bad, bad things.

It is important to know your rights.

Always be polite and courteous, but know that police do not have the right to search your vehicle for no reason. This is protected under the Fourth Amendment. An officer must see or smell something to establish probable cause before he can get serious about initiating a search. But that doesn't stop them from making up their own rules some of the time. I once had a cop wanting to search my vehicle because he thought a McDonald's french fry was a joint. Yeah, police have a tendency to get creative when it comes to busting people for drugs. So, you have to be careful. Always tell probing police that you do not consent to searches. No matter how hard they press, stay consistent with your retort: "Sorry officer, I realize that you're just trying to do your job, but I do not consent to searches." If they suggest that your refusal to cooperate means you have something to hide, simply ask them if you are being detained or whether you're free to go. If they have a reason to hold you, theyll let you know. But keep your mouth shut from this point forward, as anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. If they say you are free to go, then get. And watch your driving so you dont encounter a similar incident on down the line. Just remember, you are totally within your Constitutional rights to refuse a search of your vehicle.

Perhaps a day will come when marijuana legalization is so prevalent that American citizens wont have to worry about getting busted for weed anymore. For now, though, law enforcement is still nailing more than 600,000 people to the wall for pot possession every year. Dont let yourself become a statistic, and make sure you arrive safe and sound at all of your family gatherings.

Gobble-Gobble, you Billion Dollar Babies!

Alice Cooper, here I come.

View original post here:
Marijuana Travel Tips For Surviving The American Roadways This Holiday Season - Forbes

Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.

Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, Every mans house is his castle, and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendments two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure?

The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [195369]), beginning particularly with Mapp v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (19862005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question harboured presumably dangerous persons.

The full text of the amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Visit link:
Fourth Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica

Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search-and-seizure law. This article covers basic issues you should know, beginning with an overview of the Fourth Amendment itself.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The search-and-seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of you, your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if:

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts generally use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

For example, a person who uses a public restroom expects not to be spied upon (the person has an expectation of privacy), and most peopleincluding judgeswould consider that expectation to be objectively reasonable. Therefore, the installation of a hidden video camera by the police in a public restroom would be considered a "search" and would be subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.

On the other hand, if an officer stops a car and, when talking to the driver, happens to notice a weapon on the passenger seat, there's been no search under the Fourth Amendment. That's because, even if the driver somehow considered the passenger seat to be a private place, society isn't willing to extend privacy protections to that particular location. In other words, there's no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the gun because it was in plain view.

A good example of how this works comes from a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bus passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in an opaque carry-on bag positioned in a luggage rack above the passenger's head. The Court held that the physical probing by the police of the bag's exterior for evidence of contraband constituted a search subject to Fourth Amendment limitations. (Bond v. U.S., 529 U.S. 334 (2000).)

The exclusionary rule. If, upon review, a court finds that an unreasonable search occurred, any evidence seized as a result of it cannot be used as direct evidence against the defendant in a criminal prosecution. This principle, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1961, has come to be known as the exclusionary rule.

To this day, many commentators criticize the exclusionary rule on the ground that it unfairly "lets the criminal go free because the constable has erred." But the rule's supporters argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searches. According to this deterrence argument, the police are less likely to conduct improper searches if the resulting evidence can't be used to convict the defendant. (There are, however, exceptions to the exclusionary rulefor one, see Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception.)

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Not only is evidence that's the product of an illegal search generally inadmissible in court, but so too is additional evidence that derived from the initial evidence. This principle is colorfully known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The "tree" is the evidence that the police illegally seize in the first place; the "fruit" is the second-generation product of the illegally seized evidence. Both tree and fruit are typically inadmissible at trial. (For more, see Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.)

Example: Improperly Seized Evidence

Officer Wiley arrests Hy Lowe for selling phony telephone cards. A judge rules that Officer Wiley illegally entered Lowe's home and improperly seized a map showing the location where Lowe hid the phone cards. Officer Wiley then found the phone cards in that location. Because Officer Wiley obtained the map through an illegal search, it and the phone cards are inadmissible. The phone cards are the fruit of the unlawful search.

Not always end of story. Some defendants believe that if they can show that a search was illegal, the case must be dismissed. Not true. If a prosecutor has enough other evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the case can continue. Also, the illegally-seized evidence can generally be considered by a judge when deciding on an appropriate sentence following conviction and admitted in civil and deportation cases. In some circumstances, a prosecutor can use such evidence to impeach (attack the credibility of) a defendant who testifies at trial.

To learn more about search-and-seizure law, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman (Nolo). If you might need to talk to a criminal defense attorney, or want to know how the law may differ slightly in your state, you can turn to Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory to find a lawyer near you.

Continue reading here:
When Can't the Fourth Amendment Protect My Privacy? | Nolo

The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses against unreasonable searches, and is an important right. Americans want to feel safe in their homes and do not want police constantly involved in their daily lives. On the other hand, Americans want to be safe from crime and terrorism. There is a difficult and controversial balance between these two perspectives, and there has been since this nation was founded. Let us look at three important cases dealing with Fourth Amendment issues.

In the 1961 case, Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court decided that any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment would be deemed inadmissible in court. Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect. Police knocked at her door, but she did not answer. Eventually, police forced their way in. Once they breached the doorway, Dollree demanded to see their warrant. She placed the warrant in her bra. The warrant was destroyed when the police tried to retrieve it. The police found pornography in the home (a crime in that archaic time) and charged Mapp with possession of lewd material. The prosecuting attorney did not have the warrant to present as evidence. Ohio convicted Mapp, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible.

The 1967 Supreme Court case Katz v. United States is another major fourth amendment case. Charles Katz sent illegal betting wagers through a public pay phone booth. The FBI recorded his calls, and the recordings were used as evidence against him in trial. The Supreme Court decided that this evidence was inadmissible as Katz believed he has a reasonable expectation of privacy when making the phone calls. The Supreme Court dictated that any conversation made with a reasonable expectation of privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment and that wiretapping constitutes a search.

Terry v. Ohio is a 1968 Supreme Court decision upholding stop-and-frisk policing. John Terry and two other men were walking around suspiciously in front of a building. A police officer approached them and found a pistol in Terrys pocket. He ordered the three men inside the building and patted them down. He found a weapon on one of the other men. Terry and his armed friend were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that Terrys search was reasonable and justified by the need to protect the police and others nearby. Since this case, there have been many other cases addressing the issue of when it is okay for an officer to search a suspect.

The Fourth Amendment is an important protection. If you feel your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, you need effective legal representation. Many cases hinge on Fourth Amendment rights being handled properly. The police have a duty to behave by the standards set by the constitution, but sometimes they do not always follow the rules. The De Bruin Law Firm has experience helping people in difficult situations. Let us help you with your case, contact Greenville Defense Attorney Aaron De Bruin about your case today.

View original post here:
Landmark Fourth Amendment Cases | Criminal Defense Attorney

Courts are frequently called upon to apply the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to police procedures. Marylands Court of Special Appeals this week reviewed whether the use of fare inspections on a light rail train violated the Fourth Amendment in a case called Kenneth Carter v. State of Maryland.

The opinion indicates that Maryland Transit Authority police gathered on the platform of a Baltimore light rail station, for the purpose of doing a fare inspection to see if passengers had paid for their fare. There was no evidence of any signs posted in the stations that such fare sweeps may be done. Failure to pay the fare is a crime subject to a $50 fine. When the train pulled into the station, an officer entered each train and announced that each passenger had to show their ticket proving they had paid the fare.

Carter approached an officer and admitted he had no ticket, and was directed to another officer on the platform who obtained his identification. A record check showed a possible warrant outstanding for Carter, who then tried to flee and was tackled. During the melee the police found that Carter had a gun, and it turned out he was a convicted felon. At trial, defendants motion to suppress evidence because of an illegal detention was denied, and he was convicted of firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

The appellate Court noted that in determining whether an investigatory detention by police had occurred, it would look at such factors as the use or show of force or authority by the police so that a reasonable person would believe they were not free to leave or refuse to answer questions. Here, the appellate Court found that by announcing to all passengers that they could not leave the train until producing proof of fare payment, Carter had in fact been detained even before he admitted he had no ticket.

Since one of the officers at trial admitted that they used fare checks as a means of enforcing outstanding warrants, the appellate Court declared this police misconduct in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, and the convictions were reversed.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.

Post Views: 228

See more here:
Fare Inspections and the Fourth Amendment - Montgomery County Sentinel