The fundamental problem with the Police State- "odor of marijuana not probable cause"
Court: Odor of Marijuana Not Enough for Police to Act Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Massachusetts’ highest court is siding with pot-smokers against the police.
From The Boston Globe: The state’s highest court ruled Tuesday that the odor of marijuana smoke is not enough for officers to order a person out of a parked car, now that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts.
“Without at least some other additional fact to bolster a reasonable suspicion of actual criminal activity, the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity to justify an exit order,” the court ruled in a 5-to-1 decision."
And, of course, I cant resist an opportunity to educate:
The real issue here is the imposition of government on the realm of the Private Citizen. Our legal system where the Legislative (law making), Executive (enforcement) and Judicial (deciding, balancing) was intended, is intended, for the PEOPLE TO EXERCISE, NOT GOVERMENT.
Has Party A wronged Party B? Then A can Petition Government for redress against B but should not do so unless and until B refuses to make good.
But here comes Totalitarian Govt usurping the place of the People by sticking its nose in where no substantial harm is being done. Some kid has a bag of pot in his car? WHO THE F IS HE HURTING?
NO ONE. no one to bring a complaint. But theres the scam, the Police State fabricates a "need" based on Public Security (its not their job to make public security) to step in.
Has anyone brought a complaint about the kid with pot? NO. So, leave him alone and go chase REAL CRIMINALS, there are probably a few in City Govt.
A parallel to consider is the notion of "standing" in court, does the one coming to the Court have "standing" or a first hand reason to be involved (a bystander just watching an accident not injured has no part in a suit for injury or property damage). Do the Cops have any reason to get involved? Yes, when the motive is "tickets for PROFIT"
Is drinking and driving dangerous? Yes and No. Yes to the drinker, maybe to someone else. So what if A is D/D, has it HURT ANYONE ELSE?
If not, then there is no complaint, for which is inherently harmful:
d.) D/D , causing an accident and injuring someone else
D is inherently harmful and actionable, but the Jack Booted Police state doesnt get its jollies by only concentrating on D.
Like Chuck Norris character Mc Quade said
"Kid, if I locked up everyone who took a swing at me, half of Texas would be behind bars"
Instead of whining that this one prosecution (which will waste a lot of money and not go very far) was to no avail, realize its an opportunity to devote Govt/Police resources to REAL CRIME.
But the blind in one eye and deaf in the other can see thats not the M.O of Government, its more like "allow the Mexicans to traffic tons of drugs across the border, distribute them across the nice new NAFTA highway we built, allow the high and mid level dealers to thrive on the guise of "we need to monitor them for years to have enough evidence to prosecute" and instantly harass the Ordinary Citizen in the street for having some g.d pot smoke in his car.
This proves beyond a doubt that their goal is harassment of Citizens and total police state takeover.
Wanna stop the problem? Two simple steps:
1.) CLOSE THE BORDER
2.) tell the dealers "were watching and know youre doing it" That will put and END to the problem. But the State doesnt WANT THE PROBLEM TO END BECAUSE ITS PROFITABLE.
Posted by Dave
at 9:25 AM PDT