Can the police...

[RingoStar]

A buddy of mine was recently busted at his house and charged with possession (Loud party.) He was growing a small MJ plant that he tried flushing when the cops arrived. They found some leaf matter and a stem, bagged it up and called it possession (a minor misdemeanor here in this state, just pay the ticket, same as littering) The cops were local, no drug enforcement agency was involved. He was getting ready to go a bit bigger, had a couple rubbermaid tubs, a 1000 watt hps, some venting equipment. When the cops came he scattered everything, put clothes in the buckets etc. Not sure if they thought this was going to be/or was a serious grow. They did not confiscate any of the eq. (boggling)

He is moving out of his apartment, and another buddy is moving in. It's been a few weeks since he got the ticket, he's already done and paid it. Question is this, Can the cops come back and hit him with cultivation or manufacturing chargers even after everything has been done? And also, I guess they didn't seem to interested in the grow, it seemed as they had the wrong apartment & were after something in particular. After they left, they didn't leave the apartment complex and were looking at other buildings & apartments looking for someone/something. (Serving a warrant possibily?) Could they use the previous bust as probable cause to come back with a search warrant a couple months down the road and screw over my other friend?
How does the US law work in that regards?

 

[Texassativa]

Using Texas law as a guildline...


They were able to snagged the plants because of the rule "evidence in plain veiw". If they have a right to be there, and it's in plain veiw...it's theirs.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant
for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.


"Can the cops come back and hit him with cultivation or manufacturing chargers even after everything has been done? "

The answer is NO. While it's not double jeopardy. Police have to have probable cause to have grounds for a search warrant. If they do not have a warrent, DO NOT LET THE FUCKERS IN! If they really want in, they will have their ducks in a row. Meaning a nasty warrent, in hand, at the time of contact. If they don't have a SW, It takes time to get a SW. Use this time to get rid of the growing op. When another officer shows up with the SW, allow them in. As long as you hide the stuff, you should be good. They use waht is called, "An elephant in a matchbox". Meaning, if something in the warrent can't be hid in a space where it don't fit, you can't look in spaces that are too small to contain the item in question. It relates to unreasonble search and seizure. EX: warrent for a rifle. It will not fit in a kichen drawer, so they can't look in a small kitchen drawer. Courts hate this shit, it gets alot of people off charges.



To understand and undermind the law, here's some info.:

(22) "Element of offense" means:
(A) the forbidden conduct;
(B) the required culpability;
(C) any required result; and
(D) the negation of any exception to the offense.<medical users in some state can use this to get off, if the law has a provision as such.

This clears you friend, if he acts straight

§ 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as
provided in Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense
unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal
negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense
requires.


The two things needed for the police to snoop around are;

#1. "Reasonable belief" means a belief that would be
held by an ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the
actor. ex: smelling what he thinks is weed smoke.

#2. "probable cause", "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" and that the person is linked to the crime with the same degree of certainty.
EX: seeing him grow, smoke, handle something related to breaking the law.

Here's more to ease you friend's mind;

(b) No search warrant shall issue for any purpose in this
state unless sufficient facts are first presented to satisfy the
issuing magistrate that probable[0] cause[0] does in fact exist for its
issuance. A sworn affidavit setting forth substantial facts
establishing probable[0] cause[0] shall be filed in every instance in
which a search warrant is requested. The affidavit is public
information if executed, and the magistrate's clerk shall make a
copy of the affidavit available for public inspection in the
clerk's office during normal business hours.

 

[RingoStar]

I think the most important thing is my buddys concern that, they'll come barging down the door with a search warrant because of probable cause. Probable cause in regards to the fact that "We found weed growing there a couple months ago and think he's growing again".

They can't do this, is what you're saying? (Without sufficent evidence to prove that he started again) ?

 

[Texassativa]

I think the most important thing is my buddys concern that, they'll come barging down the door with a search warrant because of probable cause. Probable cause in regards to the fact that "We found weed growing there a couple months ago and think he's growing again".

They can't do this, is what you're saying? (Without sufficent evidence to prove that he started again) ?

"We found weed growing there a couple months ago and think he's growing again".

NO:

They have to regain evidence. There has been a change to the house hold owner. It's a totally different person. Your evidence ani't his and has to be proven his. This starts the whole process of gathering evidence again. They can't charge him with your crime.

YES:

"They can't do this, is what you're saying? (Without sufficent evidence to prove that he started again"

 

[RingoStar]

The thing is, neither of the 2 are on the lease. They don't know there was a change in house hold owner (it's an apartment.)

 

[Texassativa]

The thing is, neither of the 2 are on the lease. They don't know there was a change in house hold owner (it's an apartment.)

He has care, control, and custody of the house.

Someones name on a lease, just shows who signed it. It don't prove anyone stays there.

 

[BruceLeeroy]

it's a safe bet that if NOTHING else, the cops are going to be watching that location and your friends like hawks.

 

[BudGood2006]

Growing there again by anyone who knows about that little incident would be a *stupid* move. Period.

 

[Texassativa]

Growing there again by anyone who knows about that little incident would be a *stupid* move. Period.

That is what makes it the perfect place. I would rather know, I was being watched, then getting relaxed thinking I wasn't. Police heat will really push a person to be more careful. If you can grow right under the nose of police, you can grow anywhere, anyhow, anyway. The best growers know how to CYA. If you get busted...it's you own damn fault. Period.

 

[BudGood2006]

I'm paranoid, so I think I'm being watched regardless... And yes, it DOES keep me on my toes. Better paranoid and free, rather than apathetic and in jail, in my view.

 

[BruceLeeroy]

always assume you're being watched for safety... yes. intentionally picking a spot you KNOW the cops are interested in..... no. it's just a foolishly unecessary risk imo.

 

[inflorescence]

"We found weed growing there a couple months ago and think he's growing again".

NO:
They have to regain evidence. This starts the whole process of gathering evidence again. They can't charge him with your crime.

But if they don't have more pressing issues then I assume they could use that previous plain view evidence as grounds for surveillance of the res.

If you can grow right under the nose of police, you can grow anywhere, anyhow, anyway.

Considering they could walk a dog up to the front door for a sniff how you gonna hide that. It's not the cops nose I'd be worried about.

 

[allmanbroskif]

keep a dead dog at your doorstep, then the drug dogs will know not to fuck with you or they could end up like the dead dog

 

[Captain Hook]

They already siezed all items they considered to be illegal.
Look at it this way:

"Your honor, we'd like you to sign this warrant because we think this person is growing. We know because we were in there and took everything that was illegal."

Judge: "So you want me to sign a warrant to search for the items you ALREADY took? Surely you're not saying you left contraban behind and wish to go back and get it?? Only an incompetent officer of the law would do such a thing, correct?"

The whole argument FOR granting a warrant would be rediculous.

On the OTHER hand, if the local police should decide they wish to do an investigation because of what they found and/or saw when they were inside the premises last time, they can most certainly do that. And if said investigation should lead them to further evidence of illegal activity, they very well could seek a warrent to continue the investigation.

A final note... I don't believe double jeaprody would apply because DJ means a person cannot be charged with the same crime twice... charging your friend with cultivation or manufacture is not the same as charging him/her with posession. Thus, DJ could not likely be applied to this situation.

High Seas (of green)
Cap'n

 

[Texassativa]

Considering they could walk a dog up to the front door for a sniff how you gonna hide that. It's not the cops nose I'd be worried about.

Police used dogs as a back up. They have to have a reason to run a dog on your property. You don't see an investigation began using a dog. It's a real bad thing to do. If people would see a dog sniffing around, they would destroy evidense.

Thats why dogs are used, after other police tactics, to search for hiddin evid....not general hiding "areas". Dogs are evidense tools, just like a camera. They don't give the police EVERYTHING they need to bust someone. Their combination with other tools is needed.

Every wondered why police just don't load up the dogs and go from door to door? They can't, they need a reason. A real damn big reason..

Imagine a police trained dog bitting someone, someone who the police had no reason to be around. SUE TIME!, and they have to prove in civil court(which veiws "proof" alot different) what reason they had for being there.
Dogs ain't that much of a super tool for cops. If it was all that...everyother police car would be K-9. Dogs are cheap. They train a dog, who loves to fetch. Be it a mut or German Shep. They slowly replace the ball with drugs. The dog learns to fetch "drugs".

When they do need them.. Most cops have to call for one, and it takes a while to show up.

 

[inflorescence]

Police used dogs as a back up. They have to have a reason to run a dog on your property.

Like the previously viewed cultivation equipment evidence that wasn't operable at the time of the first search but since those tools carry the POTENTIAL to commit a crime and could become operable at any future time.

Every wondered why police just don't load up the dogs and go from door to door? They can't, they need a reason. A real damn big reason..

From my understanding the courts have ruled that a dog sniff is NOT considered a search. If it were then they couldn't use it so freely on auto stops like they do now when they don't have PC.
I've often wondered why they just don't go around neighborhoods with a dog to see what turns up but I believe they don't probably more due to lack of manpower and funds then a legal reason stopping them.
And a dog could still smell and indicate through a muzzle.

 

[inflorescence]

As long as you hide the stuff, you should be good. They use waht is called, "An elephant in a matchbox". Meaning, if something in the warrent can't be hid in a space where it don't fit, you can't look in spaces that are too small to contain the item in question.

I would assume in most, if not all cultivation warrants that seeds would be listed and since seeds can literally fit in every square inch of a home then IMO this gives the PO cause to look in every square inch.

 

[Tutu]

Not in the UK or other countries where seeds are legal, although I don't have a clue about UK law unfortunatly.

 

[DocLeaf]

In the UK - the pigs have recently taken to walking dogs in shopping areas and at train/bus stations,,, the idea is to curb the number of people openly smoking cannabis in the street,,, ppl are however tolerated to smoke in their own back-gardens (so long as it is NOT next to a school, and so long as you DON'T smoke cannabis in view of neighbours every day of the week)... ?!?

Basically cannabis use has at last become a recognised social issue within UK ... (police efforts are focused on Class A drugs,,, hence the reclassification of cannabis to class C or whatever they call it...)... If you don't make waves... then things are cool the UK gov. main problem these days is the low age of up-take,,, a serious problem when set aside freebase and smack... people growing/smoking pot at home, is the least of their problems...

seeds, lamps, and cultivation equipment are ALL perfectly legal in the UK (t'is why you can buy them in shops), but are often taken by the vice when being used to grow illegal erb! This is what they call contexual evidence! the more hi-tech things look, the more they like it, and feel like they're on a truffle hunt...

Note* After the case, ppl have the right to go back to the sty and collect this stuff! It is yours! Same goes for scales, baggies and objects termed "weapons" that aren't considered dangerous (hash scissors, pocket knifes... sometimes they even come back with hash on them... lol). Plus any other "contextual evidence" that they stole,,, (which must be accounted for)... in most cases any related cash goes to the CPS, or some other such cause!

the police rely upon the fact that nobody ever sat you down and told you your rights as a grower,,, and they play on this!

peace dL