Police blotter -- Unlawful Carry

[MikeyJ]

I ran across this in the Tomball police blotter, as reported here: http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/magnolia ... 3cb71.html

ARRESTS:
Narcotics Violations:
On 02/24/2016, Cpl. Manickas arrested a 19-year-old man from Houston for Possession of Marijuana and Possession of a Controlled Substance. Cpl. Manickas conducted a traffic stop in the 27000 block of Tomball Pkwy. After smelling marijuana, Cpl. Manickas searched the vehicle and discovered marijuana and Xanax.

On 02/27/2016, Officer Finney and Cpl. Manickas arrested a 22-year-old man from Odessa for Possession of a Controlled Substance. The officers conducted a traffic stop in the 27500 block of Calvert Rd. During a search incident to arrest, the officers discovered methamphetamine in the suspect’s pocket.

Driving While Intoxicated:
...
Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon:
On 02/24/2016, Cpls. Manickas and Officer Rodriguez arrested a 23-year-old man from Waller for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon. The officers conducted a traffic stop in the 27000 block of Tomball Pkwy. During a search of the vehicle, the officers discovered a weapon as well as marijuana and Xanax.

I thought it was interesting that "unlawful carry" got it's own heading, even though the rest of the story (traffic stop, search, found drugs) was the same as the "narcotics violations". I wonder if the classification of the stop/arrest was made by the police or by the person compiling the arrests for the paper.

[AJSully421]

It is called: bias.

[mr1337]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.

If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

[anygunanywhere]

Sounds as if the 27000 block of Tomball Parkway is an area to be avoided or be certain to obey traffic laws.

[Jusme]

Sounds as if the 27000 block of Tomball Parkway is an area to be avoided or be certain to obey traffic laws.

I noticed that too, must be a hot spot for drug activity. Or at least speeders who carry drugs.

[zimmerdesignz]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.

If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

It appears on one of them the officer stated he smelled the marijuana, so probable cause, am I right? Done to my son earlier this year. With nothing found might I add.

[Jusme]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.

If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

It appears on one of them the officer stated he smelled the marijuana, so probable cause, am I right? An easy out any time you piss him off enough that he wants to search you. Done to my son earlier this year. With nothing found might I add.

Yeah that does create probable cause, but, the officer needs to be able to justify it in court, but these reports are just edited versions provided to the press, or general public, to satisfy open records requirements. We used to have them at our front counter so reporters could pick them up (before web sites etc..) These are redacted and only give few details of the actual reports. Not all of the officers' reasons may be given for the arrests, so without the full report it's hard to judge their actions.

[mr1337]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.

If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

It appears on one of them the officer stated he smelled the marijuana, so probable cause, am I right? An easy out any time you piss him off enough that he wants to search you. Done to my son earlier this year. With nothing found might I add.

Yeah that does create probable cause, but, the officer needs to be able to justify it in court, but these reports are just edited versions provided to the press, or general public, to satisfy open records requirements. We used to have them at our front counter so reporters could pick them up (before web sites etc..) These are redacted and only give few details of the actual reports. Not all of the officers' reasons may be given for the arrests, so without the full report it's hard to judge their actions.

Good thing the smelling of alcohol or marijuana as probable cause can't possibly be abused! Oh wait.

All the more reason to legalize it. I feel that it's an easy "out" for officers to detain and search without real PC. Rogue officers can also cause a K9 unit to alert. I think the whole drug war is bogus.

Sorry, got off on a tangent. These things grind my gears. Whether the guy should have had the gun or not, he still has Constitutional rights that need not be violated.

[cb1000rider]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.
If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

Let me tell you how this works in reality: If you don't consent to a search - they may decide to search anyway. If they find something, you end up in cuffs anyway. And you'll be charged. How it gets sorted out will depend on your ability to pay for representation, what the LEOs are willing to say in terms of justifying an unauthorized search, and what a DA thinks. Which means that a high % of illegal searches are highly effective..

Very little downside of an "illegal" search unless you're dealing with a well recorded traffic stop and someone with deep enough pockets to make it hurt. And a camera can't prove that the officer didn't smell "something"..

It's not after an illegal stop you have to give the drugs back. You may not get a conviction, but you solve the immediate problem.

Welcome to the drug war in America. We're all a little safer now.

[Javier730]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.

If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

It appears on one of them the officer stated he smelled the marijuana, so probable cause, am I right? An easy out any time you piss him off enough that he wants to search you. Done to my son earlier this year. With nothing found might I add.

Yeah that does create probable cause, but, the officer needs to be able to justify it in court, but these reports are just edited versions provided to the press, or general public, to satisfy open records requirements. We used to have them at our front counter so reporters could pick them up (before web sites etc..) These are redacted and only give few details of the actual reports. Not all of the officers' reasons may be given for the arrests, so without the full report it's hard to judge their actions.

Good thing the smelling of alcohol or marijuana as probable cause can't possibly be abused! Oh wait.

All the more reason to legalize it. I feel that it's an easy "out" for officers to detain and search without real PC. Rogue officers can also cause a K9 unit to alert. I think the whole drug war is bogus.

Sorry, got off on a tangent. These things grind my gears. Whether the guy should have had the gun or not, he still has Constitutional rights that need not be violated.

on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

[mr1337]

And that's why no one should ever consent to a search of their person, vehicle, or home.
If it was just a traffic stop and the guy did not consent to the search, he wouldn't have been hit with the UCW and drug charges that undoubtedly put him in cuffs. At least, not without a K9 unit present.

Let me tell you how this works in reality: If you don't consent to a search - they may decide to search anyway. If they find something, you end up in cuffs anyway. And you'll be charged. How it gets sorted out will depend on your ability to pay for representation, what the LEOs are willing to say in terms of justifying an unauthorized search, and what a DA thinks. Which means that a high % of illegal searches are highly effective..

Very little downside of an "illegal" search unless you're dealing with a well recorded traffic stop and someone with deep enough pockets to make it hurt. And a camera can't prove that the officer didn't smell "something"..

It's not after an illegal stop you have to give the drugs back. You may not get a conviction, but you solve the immediate problem.

Definitely not saying that refusing to consent to a search will help you beat the ride, but it may help you beat the rap.

If you consent to a search, there's no question to the legality.

If you refuse to consent to a search, you can later question the legality of the search that occurred anyways. But you don't get this option later if you consent.

Nothing is a sure thing, all you can do is give yourself the best shot at your defense. (No pun intended)

[mr1337]

on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

[Javier730]

on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

[anygunanywhere]

on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

I'm certain the conservative SCOTUS will see it that way....not.

[Jusme]

on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

Yeah that's what I was saying, the officer "smelling marijuana" may or may not have been the probable cause used. It is a slippery slope to use that as the only reason because a defense attorney will tear you up in court. He may ask "what does marijuana smell like" and if you give an answer comparing it to something else, then you have just blown your case. I have often times smelled marijuana, or even chemicals used for making meth, when making a traffic stop, but I would then began questioning and ask for a consent to search, most of the times they would either confess to having contraband or would allow the search. I was very aware of individuals rights in this regard when a LEO, and never made an arrest where it would ever come into question. But I agree, if you know that they may find something, don't agree to a search. If they search anyway and find something, it will be a defense to prosecution and the evidence could be thrown out. But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.