IL Supreme Court to decide if smell of marijuana justifies vehicle searches
IL Supreme Court to decide if smell of marijuana justifies vehicle searches
Appellate courts have split on the issue since marijuana possession was legalized in 2020
You're viewing a single thread.
This is one of a handful of police procedures that are ripe for abuse. Any officer wishing to justify a suspicion can claim that they "smell marijuana" and search a vehicle, home, etc. There is basically no way to contradict them. It's not like we have smell recordings.
Another good example is field sobriety tests (walk on this line, count a number of steps, etc.), which have been shown to be highly subjective and inaccurate even when done correctly. Policing is maybe the last modern discipline that ignores evidence-based best practices.
If I'm ever on a jury for a case that relies on police testimony as its lynchpin, I'll hang it single handedly if I have to. Show me some evidence.
Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration carries no weight for me. Fight me. (not you personally)
Edit: Removed the word "hearsay" because I was using it wrong.
I'll fight, police testimony without video corroboration isn't hearsay, it's perjury until proven otherwise!
Yep. Police testimony without video corroboration is hearsay. Fight me. (not you personally)
IIRC technically the video would be more likely to be hearsay than the cop testifying.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Video and audio recordings are sometimes hearsay evidence by definition, statements made outside the court. But there are lots of exceptions to the hearsay rule and often recordings are admissible.
Note, I am not a lawyer and am basing most of this on LegalEagle videos like this oneand some reading I’ve done on the subject.
Yeah it seems I used the word wrong. I accept your correction, but I hope the point I was trying to make is still clear. 🙂
Oh totally. I’m just being pedantic. 😅
I thought hearsay is anything that is not testimony. So video is technically hearsay
I was using it to mean "not any more reliable than a statement from any person I don't intrinsically trust" - but I see your point and accept your correction if such is the case.
Police testimony means nothing to me without some form of corroboration, and if it's their description of how or why they killed someone, that corroboration should be video or very convincing non-police witnesses.