Car Searched After Stop for a Noise Violation

[jaegermonster]

Hi guys. This is my situation: I got pulled over for loud music, the officer swore up and down he smelled marijuana, i denied of course becuase i REALLY was only smoking a cigar! He says he will go easy on me if i give up the marijuana, when i tell him there is none, he gets me out of the car and checks my pockets and discovers 3 lortabs,in which i truely forgot were in my pants when i put them on before i left the house!He places me under arrest for possesion and tickets me for the noise violation. Well, when i read the police report it mentions NOTHING about marijuana!! He states:"I placed Mr.
Anonymous under arrest for the loud music violation and while conducting a routine body search found what appeared to me as the drug,lortab.
Does this sound like bullshit or what? He's trying to cover up the illegal search and seizure(becuase there was no marijuana) by saying he searched me because i was under arrest! But who gets arrested for loud music? It's not like i kept the music up. I turned it down immediatly when i saw him and then he followed me for half a mile with the music down before he stopped me!
Anyone got any helpful info or thoughts no this issue for me? It will be much appreciated. thanks

signed,
Mr. Anonymous

[LawResearcherMissy]

You were busted fair and square on the noise violation - the officer isn't required to let you go simply because you turned it down as soon as you saw him. I expect he followed you for a bit to take the time to run your plates before stopping you. Nothing illegal about that.

Aas for the search, if the cop smelled pot, he had probable cause to search. That he found something other than what he was searching for is irrelevant - toting hydrocodone around is just as illegal as pot, he's not required to ignore one illegal substance simply because he was looking for another.

If the order of events in the report is different from your own recollections, you might consider consulting an attorney in your area.

[BOR]

Hi guys. This is my situation: I got pulled over for loud music, the officer swore up and down he smelled marijuana, i denied of course becuase i REALLY was only smoking a cigar! He says he will go easy on me if i give up the marijuana, when i tell him there is none, he gets me out of the car and checks my pockets and discovers 3 lortabs,in which i truely forgot were in my pants when i put them on before i left the house!He places me under arrest for possesion and tickets me for the noise violation. Well, when i read the police report it mentions NOTHING about marijuana!! He states:"I placed Mr.
Anonymous under arrest for the loud music violation and while conducting a routine body search found what appeared to me as the drug,lortab.
Does this sound like bullshit or what? He's trying to cover up the illegal search and seizure(becuase there was no marijuana) by saying he searched me because i was under arrest! But who gets arrested for loud music? It's not like i kept the music up. I turned it down immediatly when i saw him and then he followed me for half a mile with the music down before he stopped me!
Anyone got any helpful info or thoughts no this issue for me? It will be much appreciated. thanks

signed,
Mr. Anonymous

IF the loud music was an arrestable offense, and you were indeed arrested for it, then he can search your pockets as incident to an arrest.

Simply smelling MJ may create authority for a passenger compartment search, however it would not give the officer cause to search in your pockets until such was found in the compartment, which is why he articulated the specific arrest for the loud music.

[cdwjava]

Simply smelling MJ may create authority for a passenger compartment search, however it would not give the officer cause to search in your pockets until such was found in the compartment, which is why he articulated the specific arrest for the loud music.

Smelling marijuana in the car is almost certainly going to justify a search of the person, too. It is reasonable to assume that indicia of smoking marijuana will be on the individual and not just inside the car. Most people stash their dope on their person, not in the car.

Now, if I smelled marijuana in the car, and the driver got out and smelled like lilac and roses, I might have a harder time articulating that, but I doubt that is ever going to be the case.

- Carl

[BOR]

Smelling marijuana in the car is almost certainly going to justify a search of the person, too. It is reasonable to assume that indicia of smoking marijuana will be on the individual and not just inside the car. Most people stash their dope on their person, not in the car.


- Carl

I went back and checked for my state. It only stated a trunk search is NOT permissable for the smell of MJ, but a passenger compartment search is.

It did not mention a search of the person though. You are equating the automobile exception to the person search right?

Say a person were walking down the street and passsed an officer and the person smelled like MJ, that would not justify a warrantless search, right?

This is not the case I mentioned, but the OSC did resolve an appeals court conflict on it:


http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ro...00-ohio-10.pdf

[cdwjava]

I went back and checked for my state. It only stated a trunk search is NOT permissable for the smell of MJ, but a passenger compartment search is.

It did not mention a search of the person though. You are equating the automobile exception to the person search right?

If probable cause extends to the person, absolutely. It is not the car smoking the dope, it is the person smoking dope IN the car. Allegedly.

Say a person were walking down the street and passsed an officer and the person smelled like MJ, that would not justify a warrantless search, right?

It might justify such a search, sure. It would certainly justify a detention for further investigation.

- Carl

[BOR]

Hey Carl, here is the trunk case I mentioned first, it also cites Moore, which I should have remembered.

..Odor of marijuana gave rise to probable cause for warrantless search of interior of vehicle but not its trunk..


http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-ohio-3255.pdf