Observation of marijuana use does not justify entry...

A California appellate court recently held that officers violated the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution where they entered an apartment against the consent of the legal occupant after they smelled a "distinct odor" of burnt marijuana and saw an individual inside putting a pipe to his lips. People v. Hua (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1027.

If you find yourself in this predicament, the word to the wise is:

"Just say no [to the cops]". And, as I always do, I will caution anyone who believes that their Constitutional rights are being violated that they can't hope to win a motion to suppress evidence in the field. While being clear about the fact that you are not waiving your Rights is important, nothing about that suggests that you should kick the officer in the shins (or even be impolite to him or her). One audible, intelligible "No Thanks" should suffice. Screaming "no!" repeatedly in anger and/or frustration promises to bring on more unpleasantness and possibly new and different criminal charges. Just submit to their color of authority and wait until your day in court to seek the remedy to which you are entitled.

Bill of Rights on the Table

The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller just held a D.C. law banning handguns violative of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the first time the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting firearms on Second Amendment grounds. The NRA is celebrating and so should the broader set of civil libertarians. This is not to say that there is anything particularly positive about the surge in handgun purchase and possession that this case will bring about. More guns means more shooting. More shooting means more death and maiming. Deaths and maimings are not generally cause for celebration. Justice Scalia, however, reasoned, essentially, that the clear (and "enshrined") language of the Second Amendment necessarily takes certain policy considerations off the table. In other words, arguing that a law banning handguns furthers a positive policy agenda (because it saves lives) is not going to compel the Supreme Court to ignore the plain language set forth in the Bill of Rights.

So, here's what I take from that: Unreasonable warrantless searches and seizures, coerced confessions, deprivations of procedural protections, inflictions of cruel and unusual punishment, restraints on free speech, interferances with the free exercise of religion, establishing an official religion, and myriad other deprivations of civil liberties by the government cannot, by Scalia's logic, be justified on the ground that they may further a positive policy agenda. In light of Heller I would now suggest a re-examination of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Michigan v. Sitz, in particular. Why? Because the Court all but ignored the plain language of the Fourth Amendment to allow law enforcement to conduct systematic warrantless searches and seizures, in the shape of DUI checkpoints, to promote the positive policy agenda of preventing drunk driving. To argue that checkpoints are "reasonable" in a free society is to ignore a simple distinction: The other acknowledged exceptions to the warrant requirement (exigency, Terry, Leon, reasonable suspicion, etc.) do not deliberately and systematically cause the seizure and search of large swaths of law-abiding people in the name of crime prevention. The choice to allow these warrantless searches is done clearly in the name of a positive policy agenda which, as Scalia, would have it, should be "off the table".