> Once I was illegally searched because the officer "smelled weed"
It's tacitly understood that "smelled weed" is one of several simply accepted pretenses that give an officer the ability manufacture probable cause out of thin air.
It's tacitly understood that "smelled weed" is one of several simply accepted pretenses that give an officer the ability manufacture probable cause out of thin air.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/09/sjc-odor-unburnt...
The problem is that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place. But it is illegal, and it's also common enough that if a cop smells weed, it's believable. Part of the problem here is that we make too many things illegal, and since cops have some choice in which laws they enforce when, it gives cops far too much power.
Like, require they take photos and they can just plant the evidence before they take the photo.
Compare and contrast a dank whiff with gun fire. I'd like police to be able to respond to the sound of gun fire. I don't see how it is less problematic than responding to the smell of marijuana.
Yeah, but, you know, we actually do have such a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury
The checks on abuse of power should happen at a higher level in the system than making rules about what an officer can reliably testify about.
Why should there even be such rules? An officer, like any witness, can testify about anything they observe that is relevant to the matter under consideration by the court, and not barred by any generally-applicable prohibition (e.g., hearsay, etc., to the extent that is barred.)
Whether such testimony is reliable is a matter for the court/jury receiving the testimony to consider, based on the statement, any evidence of bias of the witness, and any conflicting or corroborating evidence.
Treating cops as privileged witnesses in any domain makes no sense, and seems to be contrary to the whole thrust of the Constitutional constraints on the criminal justice system, which are to protect the individual from arbitrary action by the government or its agents.
I think I probably agree that police shouldn't base searches on smelling weed (I'd have to think about whether they should be able to stop a car and tell them to tone it down).
What I don't agree with is making that determination based on concerns about fabricated statements about smelling weed.
The concern about fabrication by the government underlies much of the Constitutional restriction on government power in the criminal domain. I'd say that restricting government based on that concern is generally legitimate, and has a strong tradition in the US.
The line shifts a bit in the case of imminent danger, because we prefer to take more of a risk with the cops than the criminals in that case. A smell of marijuana doesn't indicate a life-threatening situation so we're back to the whole abuse-of-power bit for why the police can't just search people entirely at will.
I see what you are saying about limits on power and trust being mixed together, if someone is literally 100% trustworthy there is no need to limit their power. I still think it is reasonable to consider whether police can reliably testify that they smelled something (this should at least be a goal for a just system) separately from the question of whether they should be allowed to act upon smelling something.
Hell look at parallel construction.