Car Searched After Stop for a Noise Violation

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

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

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

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

The applicability of that case and even Moore would depend on the state the OP is in. Since he appears to be from LA, anything can be the case.

If smell alone is not sufficient to justify a search in LA, then the search is bad. But, I suspect the officer would have (or should have) know if that was the case. There are a handful of states that do not recognize smell as valid P.C.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The applicability of that case and even Moore would depend on the state the OP is in. Since he appears to be from LA, anything can be the case.


- Carl

---

I notice that now, at first I was thinking he was from Ohio, wherever I got that from?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I notice that now, at first I was thinking he was from Ohio, wherever I got that from?

---

You wouldn't have been sharing his stash, would you? :D

Not like I've never made a similar assumption here ... it happens, and we rarely can recall why ... i can write it off to getting older. Your excuse might be ... ??? ;)

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You wouldn't have been sharing his stash, would you? :D

---

Wow man, like that is psychedelic man! Dig those crazy vibes! ;)

Quote:

---

Not like I've never made a similar assumption here ... it happens, and we rarely can recall why ... i can write it off to getting older. Your excuse might be ... ??? ;)

- Carl

---

I refuse to answer that on the grounds it may incinerate me, that is under the 5th.

This is the thing, there actually was never any pot. I dont even smoke pot, have'nt for years. He obviously does'nt know what pot smells like! But just so happens a so called friend gave me three lortabs becuase we were drinking and he figured i would need them in the morning for the hangover and me being a dumb drunk, took them and stashed them in my pocket(let it be known that i also quit drinking as a result of this! two months sober!)
But is loud music an arrestable offense? I looked up the parish noise ordinance and in part it states that:" it is a defense to prosecution:(1) in circumstances in which an order is required and no order was given"
does this mean becuase he never even gave me an order to turn it down or a citation or warning, that i have a defense to prosecution?
i can send the whole section on the noise ordinance if it would help.

oh yea, the police report mentioned NOTHING about pot, so that throws his probable cuase for that out no matter what, right? it's not mentioned, so therefore not even in the equation,right?

He will have to articulate probable cause to justify the search. What that might be, I can't say.

The noise is likely one that involves noise emanating from a vehicle and not the town noise ordinance you appear to be referring to. In some states (such as TX) vehicle violations are arrestable offenses. Whether or not they are in your state, I do not know for sure.

- Carl

thanx for the info my friend.