Ooo, Ooo That Smell…

|

First, they came for the people with paper money that smelled of pot, and I did nothing, because I was too stoned…

From MSNBC:

Timothy Richards of Columbus, Ind., went to the Decatur County Sheriff's Department to pay the $400 to get his brother-in-law out of jail.

A dispatcher noticed that the cash smelled funny and asked a state trooper to investigate. Authorities say Richards allowed the trooper to search his car and was arrested when the trooper found some marijuana and a pipe.

Police didn't confiscate the cash, so Richard's brother-inilaw got out of jail. He returned a few hours later with $250 to get Richards out.

Whole thing here.

Davey & Goliath-style moral: Next time, use a debit card (or at least that one hasn't been used to draw lines of coke or, this being Indiana, meth).

[Tip o' the spliff to Mighty Marty Conte]

Advertisement

NEXT: A Fairness Doctrine for Education

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck the pigs.. etc.. etc..

    But damn, what a dumbass.

  2. This post was really crying out for a money laundering reference in the title.

    I know I’ve read somewhere about just how disgusting active currency is — i.e., that bundles of it has the strong stink of all the filthy people who’ve handled it — but I really have to wonder where that currency was such that $400 of it stank of pot while Richards himself did not. Isn’t it considered unsafe to stash your dough with your, um, stash?

    Oh, and I second the “dumbass” observation.

    Anon

  3. I long for the day when civics classes in school teach kids that they don’t have to consent to a car search.

    I third the dumbass vote; the cop basically faked him out. There ain’t no way that money smelled like weed, i guarantee you.

    That was a pure lie. That’s as bad as the car salesman telling Homer that the bullet holes in the car were “speed-holes” that made it go faster. Or the Grinch telling Cindy Lou Who the presents needed to go back to the workshop for fixing.

  4. How many people smell the money they get from someone else?

  5. There ain’t no way that money smelled like weed, i guarantee you.

    NOIP-
    I disagree. You should see this dollar bill I used to roll about, oh I dunno, maybe 1,500 doobies during the college days. Its completely saturated with resin and crystals and smells quite pleasant. Due to that fact, its been a cherished keep sake to remind me of my days of “youthful indiscretion!” I wouldn’t spend it if it was my last dollar, however, I may light it up….

  6. He was a dumbass because he allowed the police to search his car. Why do people do that?

    Everyone needs to know that they should never voluntarily consent to a search.

    Somebody needs to send him a copy of the video “Busted” from flexyourrights.org.

  7. I long for the day when civics classes in school teach kids that they don’t have to consent to a car search.

    Um, is it still legal to refuse to consent to a warrantless search? I know i says so in the Bill of Rights, but I thought that the 4th amendment was overturned.

    Oh, wait, I remember, refusing to consent is legal, but it does constitute “probable cause.”

    Or something like that. If I’m wrong, it’s only temporary. Eventually this post will be a synopsis of case law on the 4th amendment in some future day.

  8. If the dumbass had some high-grade skunk then I can see the money smelling like it, if he kept it hidden with his stash.

    The thing is, even if the guy refused the car search, wouldn’t the cops just detain his car until they could fetch Scruffy the super-sniffer dog? Once a cop has a hard-on for you, consider yourself fucked (proper).

    The moral: DON’T CARRY IN YOUR CAR

  9. The moral: DON’T CARRY IN YOUR CAR

    unless you’re on a cool road trip. Then you drive the speed limit and pray that the locals don’t single you out.

    “Could you please step out of the vee-hi-cull.”

  10. My road rules:

    Cut hair
    Visine, visine, visine
    Dryer sheets
    Drive speed limit (agreed)
    No bumper stickers of classic rock bands
    Don’t be blasting “Immigrant Song” with the windows rolled down!

  11. The thing is, even if the guy refused the car search, wouldn’t the cops just detain his car until they could fetch Scruffy the super-sniffer dog?

    No, they’d just go to a judge and ask for a search warrant. 99% of judges accept refusal to allow a search as probable cause. Throw in Johnny Law’s statement that he smelled MJ and it’s reinforced*.

    The advantage to demanding they get a search warrant is that it is possible to get the search evidence suppresed by the trial judge**. It also makes anything not covered by the warrant off limits.

    *Oh, and most cops are inveterate liars about this and other things. Judges know it, but it’s the oil that keeps the system working their way.

    **If you have a good lawyer.

  12. Okay, maybe I need to brush up on my Constitutional rights (real or imagined)..

    I thought cops could hold you and your car “for a reasonable amount of time” for them to conjure a K-9 unit. That’s not the case? Once you refuse the initial search “request”, you can get in your car and drive off?

  13. “for a reasonable amount of time”

    Judges are on call 24 hours a day. It takes about six seconds (hyperbole alert) to get a warrant if they can convince one that they have probable cause. And judges are notoriously liberal in granting probable cause and cops are outlandish liars.

    They do not have to have the warrant (they can have been told by phone or radio that it hs been issued) or show it to you. You simple have to take their word for it. The only way they can get in trouble is if the warrant actually had not been issued at the time they were conducting the search.

    This may vary from state to state, but it is true in Florida.

    Yes it’s true you can “leave” if you have “not been detained” but good luck getting very far if they want you.

  14. Yes it’s true you can “leave” if you have “not been detained” but good luck getting very far if they want you.

    Yep. Basically, the police can search ordinary citizens whenever they want.

    I’ve heard that when they search your car they can, if they want, dismantle it.

    But I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free! 😉

  15. The best story of this sort was the guy arrested for breaking into parking meters who tried to pay his bail with a sack full of quarters.

  16. ISAAC claims: No, they’d just go to a judge and ask for a search warrant. 99% of judges accept refusal to allow a search as probable cause.

    SH: This is an astonishing claim which can’t be backed up, even if we allow for Hyperbole Math.

    Any warrant issued for the reason you state would be tossed with even a routine appeal process.

  17. Any warrant issued for the reason you state would be tossed with even a routine appeal process.

    That does not stop such warrants from being issued. The hurdle for “probable cause” is much lower than most people think.

    And it is why it is absolutely essential that you never consent to a search. Even if you “know” you are “innocent”. Everybody “knows” (just randomly ask any of your neighbors) that the police wouldn’t be bothering you if you weren’t guilty.

    Note that this is also why I added the qualifications:

    “…Throw in Johnny Law’s statement that he smelled MJ and it’s reinforced*.

    The advantage to demanding they get a search warrant is that it is possible to get the search evidence suppressed by the trial judge**. It also makes anything not covered by the warrant off limits.

    *Oh, and most cops are inveterate liars about this and other things. Judges know it, but it’s the oil that keeps the system working their way.

    **If you have a good lawyer.”

    Insufficiency of probable cause is one of the reasons to suppress. However I stand by my claim that judges are remarkably open to arguments as to probable cause and cops are outlandish liars.

    Of course the other tactic is that the cop tells the kid that “things’ll go better for you, if you consent to a search”. Another lie, they won’t. Evidence obtained from “voluntary” searches is rarely suppressed. And “consenting” to a search is essentially surrendering all you rights.

    Most kids are railroaded into a plea bargain long before they go thru any “appeal process.”

    The point I was really trying to make is that cops will push things as far as they can, and judges are terribly compliant. Knowing and demanding your rights are important. But it’s pretty tough to demand your rights when your being intimidated by a heavily armed steroid addled maniac who thinks he’s protecting society from the evil he thinks you represent. You will never be disappointed if you expect the worst from cops.

    Oh, and SteveInClearwater, thanks for all the good work you do.

  18. Oh and lest I be misunderstood, I did not mean to say this is how it should be.

    I am merely trying to this is the way it is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.