Supreme Court Sides With Police Who, Lacking Warrant, Followed Smell of Pot into Apartment

Arnold Smoking PotIn situations like this, I often ask: “What Would Arnold Do?” Well, from Predator he claimed: “It’s all bullshit! All of it!” … So I think the police and the Supreme Court are off base on this (and there is no reason why Carl Weathers has to lose an arm). From the AP via WashPo:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King’s apartment.

The court said there was no violation of King’s constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Officers knocked on King’s door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

Read More: AP via WashPo

, , , , ,

  • hunter349

    I think using “I smell pot” as an example of reasonable suspicion is a grey area. If you clearly smell pot in an area it’s understandable how someone could reasonably come to the conclusion that pot is in the area.
    The problem arises in that the “I smelled pot” justification can very easily be abused and used to search a house or car with no other evidence of suspicion. When an incident like that happens it is very hard to disprove that the officer did not smell pot and as such had no reason to search.

    That being said, I understand how the supreme court could come to this ruling. Although I do find it unsettling that there was not more mention of the 4th amendment and whether the police should have obtained a warrant before bursting in. There is a long precedent of odor being an acceptable use of reasonable suspicion. The supreme court is not there to make laws but to decide if an action is legal or not. With such a long precedent of odor being used as reasonable suspicion and the easily made argument that actually smelling pot would make someone suspicious that pot is nearby this ruling is not a surprise.

    If we feel like the use of odor as reasonable suspicion is abused or ineffective we should lobby our local, state, or federal government to pass a law that declares odor an unreasonable excuse for search and seizure. If that happened, the new law would almost certainly have to be worded specifically towards pot and the human nose. A law just banning odor as unreasonable suspicion could easily be seen as outlawing drug and bomb sniffing dogs as a reason for search and seizure.

    • SF2K01

      Imo it’s not that different from any thing else you sense by being outside a person’s residence. If a cop heard screams coming from an apartment, I wouldn’t be surprised that he burst in without a warrant, a crime is clearly in progress. As you mentioned it has a great deal of similarity to police using drug sniffing dogs. No new law should be required as this falls well within reasonable suspicion.

      • Hraði Leiðólfr

        so you are equating violent crimes and the use of marijuana?

        • SF2K01

          I equated the obviousness and immediacy of the crime in progress taking place just behind a closed door. If you have a problem with the analogy simply because the circumstances were violent, make up your own analogy. It’s about the principle of how a cop should operate when suspecting a crime, not the nature of the crime itself. were violent, make up your own analogy. It’s about the principle of how a cop should operate when suspecting a crime, not the nature of the crime itself.

          • Voidthought

            Do you think that the law of the land in general has the right to say what a person can or can’t do with their consciousness? In the land of the free, does the right to experiment with consciousness present a hazard to the norms of society? I understand that some people don’t need to use drugs, and some people also don’t need to breed but they do anyways. Making something illegal is not the answer to control who and who doesn’t participate in illegal activity. That only creates an underground system which flourishes, despite supposed “war on drugs”(which is another financial manifestation), AND creates a economic market from which the people who get caught, finance it! This whole war on drugs is like many others have said, a War of Consciousness.

          • SF2K01

            As a libertarian, I don’t think the government should be regulating drugs like weed. Although I don’t use them myself, I believe an American has every right to smoke it if they choose.

            My post was addressing procedure which should be the same regardless of the crime. As marijuana is currently on the law books, my concern would be that policemen do their job properly (not filling a guy with bullets because he was smoking or unreasonable searches).

      • Jim

         Really?  If you hear screams it obviously a crime?  Nah…a scream from a television, a child being tickled, or passionate lovemaking, have never been misinterpreted.  Right?

        To put it bluntly, if someone charges into my house, they can say all they want.  That however will result in being met with whatever force I feel justified in using to protect my family.

        Oh, and ya know…dogs have NEVER given a false positive…just to inform you, dogs used as detection equipment leaves MUCH to be desired, as their actions are INTERPRETED by their handlers.

    • Haystack

      I’m surprised it was even controversial. Pot odor just strikes me as a textbook case of probable cause. 

      Of course the police can potentially abuse it, when is that not the case? 

      In a sense it’s surprising to me that you can get away with as much as you can when it comes to drugs. It’s easy to imagine that, in a different sort of society, walking around with a marijuana leaf T-shirt or other stoner gear might be considered probable cause for a search.  

      • Hadrian999

         smelling pot is impossible to attack at trial, hearing screams can be attacked using witnesses, broken windows or a damaged door, can be verified or dis proved, smelling pot is the equivalent of giving cops a free pass around the 4th amendment, all a cop has to say is ” well there was a smell, it’s just gone now”

        • Haystack

          I think they would have to worry about opening themselves up to lawsuits by breaking into homes on the basis of pot odors, then not finding pot. If there’s no pot there, then there was no smell, and ergo no probable cause. Pot doesn’t just “go away”–if the police search doesn’t turn it up, they’d have a hard time convincing a court that it was there to begin with. 

          I agree that the ambiguity gives cops leeway to work around people’s civil rights. This just doesn’t strike me as very different from the leeway they already have. Police can always make up some reason for pulling over a car, or exaggerate a suspect’s “belligerence” and the courts will take their word over the defendant’s 9 times out of 10. 

    • Hadrian999

       the question is what keeps cops cops from “smelling pot” whenever they want to roust somebody weather there really is a smell or not

    • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

      Why would you keep, or worse, smoke pot in your car of all places. Thats about as dumb as leaving open cans of beer in your car. If you’re going to be encased in 2 tons of fun going 40+ MPH you probably should have any intoxicants in your car, let alone your system. 

  • Anonymous

    I think using “I smell pot” as an example of reasonable suspicion is a grey area. If you clearly smell pot in an area it’s understandable how someone could reasonably come to the conclusion that pot is in the area.
    The problem arises in that the “I smelled pot” justification can very easily be abused and used to search a house or car with no other evidence of suspicion. When an incident like that happens it is very hard to disprove that the officer did not smell pot and as such had no reason to search.

    That being said, I understand the supreme courts ruling. There is a long precedent of odor being an acceptable use of reasonable suspicion. The supreme court is not there to make laws but to decide if an action is legal or not. With such a long precedent of odor being used as reasonable suspicion and the easily made argument that actually smelling pot would make someone suspicious that pot is nearby this ruling is not a surprise.

    If we feel like the use of odor as reasonable suspicion is abused or ineffective we should lobby our local, state, or federal government to pass a law that declares odor an unreasonable excuse for search and seizure. If that happened it the new law would almost certainly have to be worded specifically towards pot and the human nose. A law just banning odor as unreasonable suspicion could easily be seen as outlawing drug and bomb sniffing dogs as a reason for search and seizure.

  • Anonymous

    Imo it’s not that different from any thing else you sense by being outside a person’s residence. If a cop heard screams coming from an apartment, I wouldn’t be surprised that he burst in without a warrant, a crime is clearly in progress. As you mentioned it has a great deal of similarity to police using drug sniffing dogs. No new law should be required as this falls well within reasonable suspicion., a crime is clearly in progress. As you mentioned it has a great deal of similarity to police using drug sniffing dogs. No new law should be required as this falls well within reasonable suspicion.

  • Haystack

    I’m surprised it was even controversial. Pot odor just strikes me as a textbook case of probable cause. 

    Of course the police can potentially abuse it, when is that not the case? 

    In a sense it’s surprising to me that you can get away with as much as you can when it comes to drugs. It’s easy to imagine that, in a different sort of society, walking around with a marijuana leaf T-shirt or other stoner gear might be considered probable cause for a search.  

  • Dust

    What about like burning sage, or something else that happens to smell like pot? Do those people deserve to have their places searched without a warrant for “illegal smells”?

  • Dust

    What about like burning sage, or something else that happens to smell like pot? Do those people deserve to have their places searched without a warrant for “illegal smells”?

  • Hadrian999

     the question is what keeps cops cops from “smelling pot” whenever they want to roust somebody weather there really is a smell or not

  • ProgressiveInMA

    Time to move to Massachusetts where the smell of marijuana is no longer reasonable cause for a police search :)

    Also, pot has been decriminalized here, and I suspect it is only a mater of time (my bet is within the next five years) before it will be completely legal…

  • ProgressiveInMA

    Time to move to Massachusetts where the smell of marijuana is no longer reasonable cause for a police search :)

    Also, pot has been decriminalized here, and I suspect it is only a mater of time (my bet is within the next five years) before it will be completely legal…

  • Darthtim23

    I think the police acted very reasonably indeed, and in fact should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to rid this proud nation of the evil and terrible mind-bending killer Cannabis and win the War on Drugs.

  • Darthtim23

    I think the police acted very reasonably indeed, and in fact should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to rid this proud nation of the evil and terrible mind-bending killer Cannabis and win the War on Drugs.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

     Remember early South Park’s Jimbo and Ned hunting: “It’s comin right for us!!!” was their rallying cry before opening fire on critters they weren’t supposed to be hunting…to establish a self defense clause and escape poaching charges.

     Now we get “They’re destroying the evidence!!!” …which once uttered, now equates to a carte blanche for breaking in to any home or business, warrantlessly, with no probable cause until after the fact.

    Way to go SCOTUS…once again you underwhelm.

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

       But destroying the evidence in one manner is the most fun thing about the stuff.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

     Remember early South Park’s Jimbo and Ned hunting: “It’s comin right for us!!!” was their rallying cry before opening fire on critters they weren’t supposed to be hunting…to establish a self defense clause and escape poaching charges.

     Now we get “They’re destroying the evidence!!!” …which once uttered, now equates to a carte blanche for breaking in to any home or business, warrantlessly, with no probable cause until after the fact.

    Way to go SCOTUS…once again you underwhelm.

  • GoodDoktorBad

    There is nothing reasonable about this. Law or no law. This is slavery -enforced. Period. Personal use and enjoyment of a PLANT is in no way immoral -just illegal. The law is in not synonomous with morality. Lets see, how many heinous policies and attitudes have been “legal” in our recent past?
    This is marginalization, slavery, prejudice, murderous crusade, brutality, “witch trials”, control, criminal stupidity, hypocritical, vile.
    I read some of these apologist comments and it makes me want to puke. Cops push aside their own humanity when they do things like this to OTHER HUMANS. “Just doing my job” doesn’t cut it. Wake up… 

     

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing reasonable about this. Law or no law. This is slavery -enforced. Period. Personal use and enjoyment of a PLANT is in no way immoral -just illegal. The law is in not synonomous with morality. Lets see, how many heinous policies and attitudes have been “legal” in our recent past?
    This is marginalization, slavery, prejudice, murderous crusade, brutality, “witch trials”, control, criminal stupidity, hypocritical, vile.
    I read some of these apologist comments and it makes me want to puke. Cops push aside their own humanity when they do things like this to OTHER HUMANS. “Just doing my job” doesn’t cut it. Wake up… 

     

  • Anonymous

    Whatever it takes to stop this muderous evil plant.  How many kids have to overdose on Pot before we realize that the Government is indeed correct….oh wait no one has died..ever?  Sounds like Judicial slavery then. 

  • Anonymous

    Whatever it takes to stop this muderous evil plant.  How many kids have to overdose on Pot before we realize that the Government is indeed correct….oh wait no one has died..ever?  Sounds like Judicial slavery then. 

    • Informed

      I’m not a ‘user’. But check your facts jack. Physically impossible to overdose on Cannabis. Why don’t we all go on an read a little scientifically backed research on the actual use of this drug. Much less harmful than most prescription drugs on the market. Not to mention alcohol, cigarettes, preservatives, pesticides? Have you by chance done any research yourself? I think not. However, I do respect your opinion, but believe one must be informed before stating obviously incorrect information. Have a good day.alcohol, cigarettes, preservatives, pesticides? Have you by chance done any research yourself? I think not. However, I do respect your opinion, but believe one must be informed before stating obviously incorrect information. Have a good day.

      • Informed

        I apologize for the repetition toward the end. Was not intentional. repetition toward the end. Was not intentional. 

        • Informed

          Lol. I also apologize I replied to a post I did not intend to, sorry  Anonymous. Also not sure why it is double posting.

          • Anonymous

            Ah made me laugh, it was worth it. 

  • TwistedH8

     You Americans are getting fucked right over! from every angel. Never give up your guns or you’re proper fucked!

  • TwistedH8

     You Americans are getting fucked right over! from every angel. Never give up your guns or you’re proper fucked!

  • TwistedH8

     You Americans are getting fucked right over! from every angel. Never give up your guns or you’re proper fucked!

  • Hraði Leiðólfr

    so you are equating violent crimes and the use of marijuana?

  • Informed

    I’m not a ‘user’. But check your facts jack. Physically impossible to overdose on Cannabis. Why don’t we all go on an read a little scientifically backed research on the actual use of this drug. Much less harmful than most prescription drugs on the market. Not to mention alcohol, cigarettes, preservatives, pesticides? Have you by chance done any research yourself? I think not. However, I do respect your opinion, but believe one must be informed before stating obviously incorrect information. Have a good day.alcohol, cigarettes, preservatives, pesticides? Have you by chance done any research yourself? I think not. However, I do respect your opinion, but believe one must be informed before stating obviously incorrect information. Have a good day.

  • Informed

    I apologize for the repetition toward the end. Was not intentional. repetition toward the end. Was not intentional. 

  • Informed

    Lol. I also apologize I replied to a post I did not intend to, sorry  Anonymous. Also not sure why it is double posting.

  • Anonymous

    I equated the obviousness and immediacy of the crime in progress taking place just behind a closed door. If you have a problem with the analogy simply because the circumstances were violent, make up your own analogy. It’s about the principle of how a cop should operate when suspecting a crime, not the nature of the crime itself. were violent, make up your own analogy. It’s about the principle of how a cop should operate when suspecting a crime, not the nature of the crime itself.

  • Hadrian999

     smelling pot is impossible to attack at trial, hearing screams can be attacked using witnesses, broken windows or a damaged door, can be verified or dis proved, smelling pot is the equivalent of giving cops a free pass around the 4th amendment, all a cop has to say is ” well there was a smell, it’s just gone now”

  • Anonymous

    Ah made me laugh, it was worth it. 

  • Voidthought

    Do you think that the law of the land in general has the right to say what a person can or can’t do with their consciousness? In the land of the free, does the right to experiment with consciousness present a hazard to the norms of society? I understand that some people don’t need to use drugs, and some people also don’t need to breed but they do anyways. Making something illegal is not the answer to control who and who doesn’t participate in illegal activity. That only creates an underground system which flourishes, despite supposed “war on drugs”(which is another financial manifestation), AND creates a economic market from which the people who get caught, finance it! This whole war on drugs is like many others have said, a War of Consciousness.

  • Informed

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

    Just some information those nice people in the senate/government/anti-drug campaigners/FDA/DEA/ect/ect///..have never (at least not that they will admit to) read. 
    Just to cite my favorite part, 1500LBS yes POUNDS of Cannabis consumed ALL AT ONCE to provide a lethal dose. One bottle of good ol’ NO. 7 to give me alcohol poisoning.

  • Informed

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

    Just some information those nice people in the senate/government/anti-drug campaigners/FDA/DEA/ect/ect///..have never (at least not that they will admit to) read. 
    Just to cite my favorite part, 1500LBS yes POUNDS of Cannabis consumed ALL AT ONCE to provide a lethal dose. One bottle of good ol’ NO. 7 to give me alcohol poisoning.

  • Anonymous

    As a libertarian, I don’t think the government should be regulating drugs like weed. Although I don’t use them myself, I believe an American has every right to smoke it if they choose.

    My post was addressing procedure which should be the same regardless of the crime. As marijuana is currently on the law books, my concern would be that policemen do their job properly (not filling a guy with bullets because he was smoking or unreasonable searches).

  • Haystack

    I think they would have to worry about opening themselves up to lawsuits by breaking into homes on the basis of pot odors, then not finding pot. If there’s no pot there, then there was no smell, and ergo no probable cause. Pot doesn’t just “go away”–if the police search doesn’t turn it up, they’d have a hard time convincing a court that it was there to begin with. 

    I agree that the ambiguity gives cops leeway to work around people’s civil rights. This just doesn’t strike me as very different from the leeway they already have. Police can always make up some reason for pulling over a car, or exaggerate a suspect’s “belligerence” and the courts will take their word over the defendant’s 9 times out of 10. 

  • Adam

    This is bullshit; this ruling makes the 4th Amendment basically worthless and the police aren’t even trying to hide their priorities anymore, which is not to follow and uphold the law, but to act as a quasi-Praetorian Guard for the plutocrats that run the show here. 

    Utter, utter bullshit.

  • Adam

    This is bullshit; this ruling makes the 4th Amendment basically worthless and the police aren’t even trying to hide their priorities anymore, which is not to follow and uphold the law, but to act as a quasi-Praetorian Guard for the plutocrats that run the show here. 

    Utter, utter bullshit.

    • Haystack

      If you’re that upset, then you obviously aren’t smoking enough. 

      • Adam

        You don’t find this upsetting? Regardless of how you feel about marijuana, this seems to give the police carte blanche to use “probable cause” whenever the fuck they feel like it.  “Sorry chief, I thought I heard a disturbance inside the apartment, but it turns out they were just watching tv really loud; oh, and I shot the first guy who opened the door, because the show they were watching made it sound like there was a major drug deal going down.  He should recover though.”  I’m exaggerating a little, but instances like this happen all the time in this country; this ruling just makes it worse and basically rapes the 4th amendment.

  • Haystack

    If you’re that upset, then you obviously aren’t smoking enough. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

     I just think it’s funny a pot article gets nearly 5 times more commentary than and the AIDS cure article. Even the Booze-driven violence article has more commentary. Makes me wonder…. Is it because people are more drawn to negatives and thus, proving the hyper-negative media that they are right for focusing on it or do that many more people zero in on excuses to be intoxicated. Either way the priorities of the internet masses are sometimes questionable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

     I just think it’s funny a pot article gets nearly 5 times more commentary than and the AIDS cure article. Even the Booze-driven violence article has more commentary. Makes me wonder…. Is it because people are more drawn to negatives and thus, proving the hyper-negative media that they are right for focusing on it or do that many more people zero in on excuses to be intoxicated. Either way the priorities of the internet masses are sometimes questionable.

    • superfluous

      easier to comment on something you can relate to. i’ve never smoked AIDS, and i’m no doctor.

      let’s say the supposed AIDS cure was made illegal for no apparent reason whatsoever. would that provoke you?

      i agree that the priorities of the internet masses can be questionable, though… 

      • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

         Well have you ever had an orgasm? The orgasm brain study only got 4 comments. Orgasms seem pretty relatable to me. But that’s just me.

        • superfluous

          orgasms aren’t illegal. however, if that same story included some bronze age wisdom about the sinful (and thus illegal) nature of orgasms, then that story probably would get more comments.

          besides, brain studies are thirteen a dozen – and very often tell me nothing new. i think what’s needed for a lot of commenting to take place is some kind of wedge issue/controversy – like, say, “brain scans prove existence of human soul” or “terrorists have higher than average IQs” – or a grey area case where people will argue about the correct interpretation (“should the police have acted like this or that?”).

          a story that “is” unambiguously either positive or negative tends to be less thought-provoking.
          yeah, i guess there’s more involved than just relating to the subject..

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

    Why would you keep, or worse, smoke pot in your car of all places. Thats about as dumb as leaving open cans of beer in your car. If you’re going to be encased in 2 tons of fun going 40+ MPH you probably should have any intoxicants in your car, let alone your system. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

    er, SHOULDN’T. I agree there needs to be a warrant for a house, but once you step outside, you make it everyone else’s problem. And if it’s in your car and your on public roads, well… you deserve what you get.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

    er, SHOULDN’T. I agree there needs to be a warrant for a house, but once you step outside, you make it everyone else’s problem. And if it’s in your car and your on public roads, well… you deserve what you get.

  • chinagreenelvis

    To just about everyone who has commented on this article: Perhaps you should read the actual article.

    Smelling the pot was not the “probable cause.” The sound of destruction of evidence was.

    Please feel free to continue your debate, but please debate the correct premise.

  • chinagreenelvis

    To just about everyone who has commented on this article: Perhaps you should read the actual article.

    Smelling the pot was not the “probable cause.” The sound of destruction of evidence was.

    Please feel free to continue your debate, but please debate the correct premise.

  • superfluous

    easier to comment on something you can relate to. i’ve never smoked AIDS, and i’m no doctor.

    let’s say the supposed AIDS cure was made illegal for no apparent reason whatsoever. would that provoke you?

    i agree that the priorities of the internet masses can be questionable, though… 

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

     But destroying the evidence in one manner is the most fun thing about the stuff.

  • Jim

     Really?  If you hear screams it obviously a crime?  Nah…a scream from a television, a child being tickled, or passionate lovemaking, have never been misinterpreted.  Right?

    To put it bluntly, if someone charges into my house, they can say all they want.  That however will result in being met with whatever force I feel justified in using to protect my family.

    Oh, and ya know…dogs have NEVER given a false positive…just to inform you, dogs used as detection equipment leaves MUCH to be desired, as their actions are INTERPRETED by their handlers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Yashendwirh Marena Hoskins

     Well have you ever had an orgasm? The orgasm brain study only got 4 comments. Orgasms seem pretty relatable to me. But that’s just me.

  • superfluous

    orgasms aren’t illegal. however, if that same story included some bronze age wisdom about the sinful (and thus illegal) nature of orgasms, then that story probably would get more comments.

    besides, brain studies are thirteen a dozen – and very often tell me nothing new. i think what’s needed for a lot of commenting to take place is some kind of wedge issue/controversy – like, say, “brain scans prove existence of human soul” or “terrorists have higher than average IQs” – or a grey area case where people will argue about the correct interpretation (“should the police have acted like this or that?”).

    a story that “is” unambiguously either positive or negative tends to be less thought-provoking.
    yeah, i guess there’s more involved than just relating to the subject..

  • Guest

     This isn’t about the pot at all.. this is about our constitutional rights as american citizens against illegal search and seizure, which is specifically for occasions like this.  this completely throws case law out the window, which is how things are supposed to run here.. so if a woman has an abortion and someone decides there is something wrong with that, then we can just take it to court and turn over Roe vs Wade. wtf?  this is outlandish.  and did i read kentucky?  isn’t that home to rand paul? humm thought they loved the constitution out there.. guess it’s open for interpretation at this point.  your guess is as good as mine.

  • Guest

     This isn’t about the pot at all.. this is about our constitutional rights as american citizens against illegal search and seizure, which is specifically for occasions like this.  this completely throws case law out the window, which is how things are supposed to run here.. so if a woman has an abortion and someone decides there is something wrong with that, then we can just take it to court and turn over Roe vs Wade. wtf?  this is outlandish.  and did i read kentucky?  isn’t that home to rand paul? humm thought they loved the constitution out there.. guess it’s open for interpretation at this point.  your guess is as good as mine.

  • Adam

    You don’t find this upsetting? Regardless of how you feel about marijuana, this seems to give the police carte blanche to use “probable cause” whenever the fuck they feel like it.  “Sorry chief, I thought I heard a disturbance inside the apartment, but it turns out they were just watching tv really loud; oh, and I shot the first guy who opened the door, because the show they were watching made it sound like there was a major drug deal going down.  He should recover though.”  I’m exaggerating a little, but instances like this happen all the time in this country; this ruling just makes it worse and basically rapes the 4th amendment.

21