Waste of taxpayer money

[Cigarlover]

Sheriffs just left here. 8 cars, 2 trucks, 2 4 wheelers and a helicopter. Flying around my property for a good 2 hrs looking at every square inch of it. Got my 2 3' tall plants. I yanked em up and handed them to them. I'm not sure what it cost them to hang out here for 1 1/2 hrs but they got 3-4 ounces out of it. Well, would have been in 3 more months. LOL. ridiculous waste off money for sure.

 

[coopersmith]

At least they didnt haul you off. Did they issue a summons?

 

[Voodoo]

Umm what, I think we are missing some info here. Must be a state where it's legal to possess but not grow?

 

[Mujahideen]

Thank god the government got those drugs off the streets! I can’t rest a lot easier now.

 

[glockngold]

Imagine their disappointment at how little to split up there will be.

 

[coopersmith]

They can sort it out later when they meet up for beers after work.

 

[gliddenralston]

Did they have an item specific warrant for the search of your property?...are u the big guy?

 

[Cigarlover]

No warrant, just circling overhead for about an hr while the rest of them went up the hills and all around the property. The ones by the house are definitely within my curtilage so probably an illegal search but not about to argue over 2 tiny plants not even 3 ft tall.

They were nice about it. Obviously no charges and freely admit it's all about the tax dollars. Legal at the dispensaries but illegal to grow your own. State needs all them tax. dollars coming in. These 2 little plants were tucked into my veggie garden pretty good too so they had to look hard.

 

[Cigarlover]

At least they didnt haul you off. Did they issue a summons?

Nope, just took the plants, hunted around the property with 4 wheelers for about an hr and sat at bottom of my driveway for another hour. They musta taken that huge haul off to burn someplace. LOL. I asked why they didn't wait a few more months for them to flower out so they could take them home to their wives.. They just laughed.

This was 10 minutes after we got off the phone. I had just watered them when I heard them coming over the hill with the helicopter.

 

[gnome]

How dare you cut in on the cartel's action? Big bummer.

 

[Cigarlover]

Might be a lawsuit in there somewhere.

Search and Seizure - Curtilage​

Favorable and Noteworthy Decisions in the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Courts

By Don Samuel
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
Sep 1, 2015
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)
The police, based on an unverified tip, brought a drug-sniffing dog up the sidewalk to the front door of the defendant’s house. The dog alerted and the police then obtained a search warrant. The Supreme Court held that bringing the dog up to the front door was a search because it amounted to a trespass onto the defendant’s property for the purpose of conducting a search. The Court held that the police entered the curtilage of the home and, unlike open fields, this is an area of the home that must remain free from unwarranted intrusions by the police that are conducted for the purpose of searching for evidence.

United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2012)
A border patrol agent followed a man crossing the border up to the house of the defendant. The agents followed the man (unbeknownst to him) through the gated front entrance to the property and into the carport. This was an unlawful search: entering the carport amounted to entering the curtilage of the property. The court also held that the good faith of the officer in pursuing the illegal alien was not a basis to exempt this case from the exclusionary rule. The court noted that the good faith intention of the officer is not a proper factor to consider in deciding whether a Fourth Amendment search is illegal. Thus, the government’s suggestion that the officer was engaged in a proper “knock-and-talk” was not persuasive: the officer’s conduct was not consistent with the conduct of an officer who would simply go up to the front door of a house and knock in order to speak to the occupant.

United States v. Wells, 648 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2011)
The police entered the curtilage of the defendant’s property – and did so without a warrant – when they walked up the driveway and into the backyard from where they could look into the windows of an “outbuilding.”

Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011)
In this civil rights case, the en banc Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs had an expectation of privacy in the attached garage that had one wall common to their house and a door that was capable of fully closing, though it was open when the police initially arrived.

United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)
A neighbor called the police and reported that a white man wearing a black leather jacket had just climbed over a fence in her neighor’s yard and she could not see who it was, but the neighbors were not home. The police went to the location, looked over the fence and promptly detained (with guns drawn) the defendant, who fit the description and was walking around in the backyard. He was searched and a gun was found. They then determined that he lived at that house; and also learned that he was a convicted felon who could not possess a firearm. The Ninth Circuit held (1) there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant – despite the report from the neighbor, the police should have asked the defendant his name and obtained information about where he lived before arresting him ; (2) there were no exigent circumstances to support the arrest and search; (3) the backyard was part of the curtilage of the house.

United States v. Gentry, 839 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1988)
A search warrant was directed at a rural address. The Court holds that this does not extend to vehicles which were detained at the perimeter of the property. An officer forcibly led the vehicle to a place within the territorial scope of the warrant. This did not authorize a search of the vehicle.

United States v. Jenkins, 124 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 1997)
The area of the defendants’ backyard that was searched without a warrant was within the curtilage of the house and the seizure of evidence in this area violated the defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. The backyard was in the same fenced in area as the house; and the area was clearly separated from the adjoining fields. Introducing the evidence seized from this area, however, was harmless error.

United States v. Depew, 8 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1993)
A law enforcement agent, posing as a passerby with car trouble, entered the property of the defendant. The lower court held that the agent never intruded within the curtilage of the property. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the area fifty feet from the house (and six feet from the garage in which the marijuana was located) was within the curtilage of the house. This spot was within the curtilage, even though there was a fence between the agent and the defendant’s home.

Read on gsllaw.com

 

[ZZZZZ]

No warrant, just circling overhead for about an hr while the rest of them went up the hills and all around the property. The ones by the house are definitely within my curtilage so probably an illegal search but not about to argue over 2 tiny plants not even 3 ft tall.

They were nice about it. Obviously no charges and freely admit it's all about the tax dollars. Legal at the dispensaries but illegal to grow your own. State needs all them tax. dollars coming in. These 2 little plants were tucked into my veggie garden pretty good too so they had to look hard.

Their spy satellites can count the aphids on your tomato plants.
.
.

 

[Buck]

they're gonna watch you until the last officer retires....


that's the largest problem of them all, they're gonna expect you to grow again

 

[hammerhead]

See what happens when you post on this forum.

 

[Buck]

See what happens when you post on this forum.

idk about that...i'm still here and so are my plants





although, they did draw down on me about three years ago, i don't think that was connected to me, personally

 

[Cigarlover]

Need to get personal grows on the ballot ASAP

 

[Rollie Free]

Some time back, my neighbor, who is the neighborhood spook called the fire department on me. Why? I had a pit fire about the size of a head of cabbage. He just looks for whatever he can.
The big fire rig comes out with three guys. One is our neighbor from down the street. They inform me that per city ordinance it is too close to something flammable, my house. They want to know if I want help putting it out. I poured a glass of water on it while giving them a look.

I realize they had to respond but it was a complete joke. How many hundreds of dollars wasted just to appease the neighborhood ahole?

 

[arminius]

Need to get personal grows on the ballot ASAP

It'll happen. The money involved in the trade will, like other states, be way too much for them to ignore, and they won't.

 

[coopersmith]

There is no money for the state in personal grows apart from license fees. They didnt allow them because they want the max tax money from dispensaries.

Glad they didnt haul you in man, that must have been a relief.

 

[arminius]

Haul me in for what???

 

[coopersmith]

being pretty..........

was talking to CL

 

[andial]

Sheriffs just left here. 8 cars, 2 trucks, 2 4 wheelers and a helicopter. Flying around my property for a good 3 minutes looking at every square inch of it. Got my 2 3' tall plants. I yanked em up and handed them to them. I'm not sure what it cost them to hang out here for 1 1/2 hrs but they got 3-4 ounces out of it. Well, would have been in 3 more months. LOL. ridiculous waste off money for sure.

Thank God you didn't get shot Cigarlover, you should write a stern letter to your county executive IMHO.

 

[arminius]

Thank God you didn't get shot Cigarlover,

Not likely. Even the cops know cannabis prohibition is big joke now. Note, they joked with him. Real serious...

 

[Cigarlover]

Thank God you didn't get shot Cigarlover, you should write a stern letter to your county executive IMHO.

Talking to the family attorney 1st and see what he says. Maybe have him write it and talk about the violations of my 4th amendment rights. Just because they can fly over my house doesn't mean they can search it.

 

[Cigarlover]

Not likely. Even the cops know cannabis prohibition is big joke now. Note, they joked with him. Real serious...

yep they flat out said it's all about the money. Thats why there are no charges. Now that they get revenue from the dispensaries, it's all about protecting their revenue stream.

Last I heard it was about 150k to get a ballot measure on the ballots.

 

[coopersmith]

If you write a letter to the DA they will come back and fuck w you......imo

 

[Cigarlover]

If you write a letter to the DA they will come back and fuck w you......imo

Thats why I think a lawsuit for 4th amendment violations is the way to go. Growing a couple plants for my personal use shouldn't be anyones business other than mine. The cops agreed and said it will come eventually. In the meantime they get time out in the forests to fuck around and do nothing basically.

 

[Cigarlover]

They took all my personal info as well so I imagine they doing a proctology exam on me in the coming days and weeks.

 

[Tbonz]

Their spy satellites can count the aphids on your tomato plants.
.
.

You're selling them short on that one. They can see the nut sack on a aphid from 10 miles up.

 

[Mujahideen]

They could tell that bin laden didn’t do chores from satellite, and that was about a decade ago.

 

[Tbonz]

They could tell that bin laden didn’t do chores from satellite, and that was about a decade ago.

You are correct. Bin Laden was protected for years, even though they knew where he was.

I will say that the locals have no where near the abilities as the federales.

 

[Cigarlover]

Probably my last post for this.. Talked with the lawyer. he said let it go.If they fly over you property whatever they see is fair game. It's not his area of expertise so his opinion may not be correct but the money spent to make a case out of it probably wouldn't be worth it.
He also said what would be a worthwhile case is the fact that it's legal so to speak but not legal to grow. It would be like growing tomatoes but the feds coming in and saying no, you cant grow tomatoes and have to go to the grocery store for them.

Gonzales Vrs Raith was a case he cited from early 2000's where the SC ruled opposite of what I just posted except for the one dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas who he feels got it right. Just a good example of the liberal courts at the time rubber stamping whatever the fed gov wanted. Although Thamos isn't a pot smoker he does feel that the Federal Gov using the comers clause to make pot illegal is a joke. It's like owning a cow for milk that you drink and the feds coming in under the interstate commerce clause and killing your cow.
He does think he can win that one. :).

 

[Uglytruth]

It would be like growing tomatoes but the feds coming in and saying no, you cant grow tomatoes and have to go to the grocery store for them.

Yet............................. How is that any different than the farmers overseas where they are being forced to reduce their herd's so their farms are not profitable.

 

[Avalon]

Probably my last post for this.. Talked with the lawyer. he said let it go.If they fly over you property whatever they see is fair game. It's not his area of expertise so his opinion may not be correct but the money spent to make a case out of it probably wouldn't be worth it.
He also said what would be a worthwhile case is the fact that it's legal so to speak but not legal to grow. It would be like growing tomatoes but the feds coming in and saying no, you cant grow tomatoes and have to go to the grocery store for them.

Gonzales Vrs faith was a case he cited from early 2000's where the SC ruled opposite of what I just posted except for the one dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas who he feels got it right. Just a good example of the liberal courts at the time rubber stamping whatever the fed gov wanted. Although Thamos isn't a pot smoker he does feel that the Federal Gov using the comers clause to make pot illegal is a joke. It's like owning a cow for milk that you drink and the feds coming in under the interstate commerce clause and killing your cow.
He does think he can win that one. :).

I'm wondering if you were targeted because of your political views?

 

[Cigarlover]

I'm wondering if you were targeted because of your political views?

No this time of year it's just luck of the draw. They decided to target this area hard this year. 1st time in 14 years so can't really complain.

 

[Cigarlover]

Yet............................. How is that any different than the farmers overseas where they are being forced to reduce their herd's so their farms are not profitable.

Only difference is we have a constitution. The conservatives on the SC are well aware of what's been going on with the legislating from the bench liberals. The commerce clause BS is way overused by the feds.