Torsten Posted December 17, 2012 This is a VERY interesting story. Normally judges do not challenege cops' testimony if they say they smelled pot and that this gave them the right to enter premises or search a vehicle. It is even rarer for a judge to dismiss an admission of guilt even if the original evidence that brought about the admission was tainted. It is clear the judge was sending a message to the cops. http://www.abc.net.a...ks-free/4423220 Confessed drug trafficker walks free By Khama Reid Updated Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:20am AEDT Photo: Judge ruled police search illegal (ABC News: Iskhandar Razak) Map: Coober Pedy 5723 A man who admitted to drug trafficking charges has had a case against him dropped. A judge has ruled a police search was illegal. In his own evidence, Michael Anthony Daniele, 27, from Ingle Farm in Adelaide admitted to packaging and transporting cannabis in a hire car, on the Stuart Highway near outback Coober Pedy last year. At a District Court hearing at Port Augusta, Judge Michael Boylan said he was not convinced by Coober Pedy police statements that officers smelt cannabis in the car, as the drugs were in sealed packaging. He said that gave them no reasonable suspicion to search the car, making the search illegal. The evidence from the search was excluded and the case dropped. 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
migraineur Posted December 17, 2012 FUCK THA PO-LEECE! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bigred Posted December 17, 2012 what are your right's when you refuse a search , i have had them use that i smell pot in the car but the never was any and they still searched and found nothing , how can i challenge the police when they use this tactic a foaf got searched by the police and the dog it self did not give a sign they just said it did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted December 17, 2012 conditionally agree to their search, if they find a dead body take them to court. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C_T Posted December 17, 2012 what it means to me, is he was pulled over because of non-court-usable evidence, then tried the whole i smell something to try and make it seem a legit check. thats what my radar's saying about this. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naja naja Posted December 18, 2012 simply ask for a warrant, get out and lock the vehicle. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted December 18, 2012 simply ask for a warrant, get out and lock the vehicle. How does this impact their right to perform a road worthiness check on your vehicle which may be on a public road? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterboy 2.0 Posted December 18, 2012 Loophole FYI in Tasmania for police, they can search your vehicle for stolen goods regardless of previous history..... "never been involved in stolen goods, too bad searching anyway - oh look what I just found....." . Be warned all..... If you refuse under the guise of stolen goods, you will be charged for refuse search. Not always used but may be handy to know. Gave em powers that they never had before.....feckers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted December 18, 2012 I agree with C_T's take on the article because illegal surveillance is too easy and probably too tempting for cops competing for promotions to justify not doing, I don't think they get into trouble for losing the case in that way? but it would be the "smart" thing to do when it's so easy to get away with, especially with all the latest tech and their built-in hackability. how would one go about building a case (without the judges help) against lazy police in a case like this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blangschpeer Posted December 18, 2012 I think more importantly, how would one go about launching an application to get the evidence returned? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
