Serious question for lawyers about the facts as we know them

#1
M

MikeHamiltonFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
6,366
Likes
0
#1
Any chance for fruit of the poisonous tree? Cop claims he smelled pot on them, that is why he called for K9. There was no probable cause to search the car. They were speeding, but the gun was not discovered until after an arrest was made, and the arrest was predicated on the pot. He gets a drug dog out there because they refuse to be searched? How does he smell pot but they cannot even find a roach in the ash trey? Did they eat it super troopers style? Throw it out the window?
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
Thought they found drugs on Williams? This is not some conspiracy man...a cop will ask to search the car if he deems a reason to do so, that or he is a jerk. You can refuse, it's your right but that in turn gives them probable cause...better off just being honest and not make them do more work than have to.

Altered serial numbers are a big deal, would be shocked if FED charges didn't get brought up.
 
#3
#3
MikeHamiltonFan said:
Any chance for fruit of the poisonous tree? Cop claims he smelled pot on them, that is why he called for K9. There was no probably cause to search the car. They were speeding, that is all he knew. He gets a drug dog out there because they refuse to be searched? How does he smell pot but they cannot even find a roach in the ash trey? Did they eat it super troopers style? Throw it out the window?
Click to expand...

He found a bag of weed in BW's backpack that had his name on it....
 
#5
#5
MikeHamiltonFan said:
Any chance for fruit of the poisonous tree? Cop claims he smelled pot on them, that is why he called for K9. There was no probably cause to search the car. They were speeding, that is all he knew. He gets a drug dog out there because they refuse to be searched? How does he smell pot but they cannot even find a roach in the ash trey? Did they eat it super troopers style? Throw it out the window?
Click to expand...

Yes because the roach HAS to be there for you to be able to smell pot after it's been smoked.
 
#6
#6
VolsSportsFan said:
Yes because the roach HAS to be there for you to be able to smell pot after it's been smoked.
Click to expand...

They found a baggy. They did not find a bong, or a quick hitter or anything of the sort. They always try to tack on paraphernalia if they can.

Brian Williams should take the hit for the pot, and the alcohol. Then constructive possession will be dropped for everyone else, and all you have to deal with is the guns.
 
#7
#7
Did they have a proper warrant to search the car? Or did they just call the drug dog? You have 15 min to be detained unless there is an arrest happening but I thought you needed a warrant to search a house or car??
 
#8
#8
An Ole Miss grad revealed our 'real' problem to me today. He said "You all need to train your police better! At Ole Miss they just dump the kids on the coach's doorstep when this happens." Makes sense to me...
 
#10
#10
I'm not sure about all the details, but taking what you said in the OP as true, here are my thoughts:
A cop doesn't need probable cause to call a drug dog to a car. All he needs is to have the dog there by the time he finishes up his "investigation" of the vehicle (i.e. talking to the passengers, running a driver's license check, etc.). On the other hand, he can't unreasonably delay his investigation in order to give the drug dog time to get there.

Refusing to consent to a search does not give a cop probable cause to search your car. If a cop used that as an excuse, anything he found would be inadmissible.

Once the arrests are made, the cops are free to tow your car to the police impound and search it, regardless of what the arrests are for. But if the cop was unreasonable in his investigation, either by wrongly claiming probable cause or by unnecessarily delaying in order to give the dog more time to get there, then the guns would probably be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

If the weed was in BW's backpack, it's conceivable that he could take all the blame for it. And if it was stashed somewhere in the car (glove compartment, trunk, etc.) it's conceivable that Tatum (the driver) could take all the blame for it.

Having an open container in a car is not illegal in Tennessee. Unless the laws of Knox County have changed since I left, the only reason this would be an issue is if the cop thought Tatum was the one drinking out of it.

Of course, Bruce knows there were two guns in the car, so a bunch of legal technicalities might not keep these guys on the team.

Anyway, I think that stuff is correct, but once you pass the bar exam most of the information goes straight out of your brain.
 
#11
#11
If it was good pot then it doesn't have to be smoked to be smelled.
 
#12
#12
MikeHamiltonFan said:
They found a baggy. They did not find a bong, or a quick hitter or anything of the sort. They always try to tack on paraphernalia if they can.

Brian Williams should take the hit for the pot, and the alcohol. Then constructive possession will be dropped for everyone else, and all you have to deal with is the guns.
Click to expand...

So you want someone to take the blame for 3 others, just for the sake of the basketball season?
 
#14
#14
The way I heard it today, and someone can correct me if this is wrong, the K-9 sniffing positive for drugs is what allowed them to search the car.

I'm not sure what type of probable cause they need in order to call a K-9.
 
#16
#16
vol_freak said:
The way I heard it today, and someone can correct me if this is wrong, the K-9 sniffing positive for drugs is what allowed them to search the car.

I'm not sure what type of probable cause they need in order to call a K-9.
Click to expand...

Probably an open container and pot smell would do it, if there wasn't some smoke rolling out the window when they got pulled over type thing.
 
#17
#17
timmy said:
So you want someone to take the blame for 3 others, just for the sake of the basketball season?
Click to expand...

We're talking about a guy who (a) was caught with a bag of weed in a backpack WITH HIS NAME PRINTED ON IT, and (b) continues to get progressively worse at the game of basketball.

So, the short answer: yes.
 
#18
#18
Honestly, though I'm not a lawyer, I do have some experience in these situations (unfortunately) and what I've always been told by my atty. is that if you do not consent to search, they can bring the dog up to your car and around the outside of your car, but not inside your car. If the dog signals, then all bets are off. I would be surprised if a cop could actually smell pot in BW's bag, no matter how good it is. We are talking about a baggy inside a canvas/nylon gym bag. And I hate to see the race card being used, but I have to say that there were countless times when I was that age where I was out with my friends, drinking, usually at least one of them had some pot and we had guns in the car (none with filed serial #'s, though). If this had been four bubba linemen and they had said they were out drinking and shooting their guns, my guess is, while legally their situation would be the same, more people would be sympathetic. My bet is that the legal situation gets "resolved" somehow as the search does seem a little shaky, but then the question is, if you're Bruce Pearl, you have players who have avoided legal peril, but they are in your basketball program and they were caught with pot and guns. What are you going to do about that?
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
DowntownVol said:
We're talking about a guy who (a) was caught with a bag of weed in a backpack WITH HIS NAME PRINTED ON IT, and (b) continues to get progressively worse at the game of basketball.

So, the short answer: yes.
Click to expand...

Wow. :crazy:

So that means the other 3 should get a free pass?
 
#20
#20
I am criminal attorney and wanted to clear up a few points of confusion here:

1) The players refusing to allow the officer to search the vehicle did NOT create probable cause for the officer to search.

2) There is no right of privacy to the exterior of a vehicle. Therefore, it is legal for law enforcement to have drug dogs perform a sweep of the exterior of the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop without other probable cause. However, this sweep can only occur with a reasonable time after the stop is made, which is generally viewed as the amount of time it would take for the officer to run the driver's license, license plate and write the ticket. For example: the officer cannot hold the driver for 4 hours waiting on the dog. Generally, when the officer returns the license to the driver he (and any occupants) are free to leave, although they rarely know that and officers will never tell them that.

3) If the officer smelled the "odor of marijuana" when he approached the vehicle, then this can also be probable cause to perform a search of the interior of the vehicle. However, in this case, if the officer is alleging this as probable cause, but the only marijuana found was in a zipped-up backpack, then there could definitely be an argument that the officer lacked sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle, which means it would be important to then determine how long it took for the dog to perform the sweep. Even if not enough for suppression it could be used as good leverage for a favorable settlement of the charges.

4) Regarding the open container issue. It is against the law for the driver to have an open container and a driver is deemed in possession of the container when it is not in the possession of a passenger and is not located in a closed compartment or other nonpassenger area of the vehicle. However, this is a Class C misdemeanor and not punishable by arrest, unless the driver refuses to accept the citation.

Hope this clears some things up!
 
#21
#21
GahLee said:
Thought they found drugs on Williams? This is not some conspiracy man...a cop will ask to search the car if he deems a reason to do so, that or he is a jerk. You can refuse, it's your right but that in turn gives them probable cause...better off just being honest and not make them do more work than have to.

Altered serial numbers are a big deal, would be shocked if FED charges didn't get brought up.
Click to expand...

But whose guns are they? Whose rented car was it which the four apparently picked up in Nashville (which had Illinois license plates)? The team was apparently on the way home from Memphis when the four got off in Nashville. They must have asked Pearl if they could stay in Nashville for New Year's Eve, and that they had a ride home. Doubtful that the guns belong to any of them, hence, they were not responsible for obliterating the serial numbers. Reportedly, all have refused publicly to name the person(s) who rented the car (girlfriends?). It couldn't have been the four, because it would have been too late once the team got to Nashville. Somebody is being protected. Brian Williams may get busted for pot, since the weed was in his bag. Otherwise ... probably no foul. But it's a weird story, with very little news getting out.
 
#22
#22
MikeHamiltonFan said:
They found a baggy. They did not find a bong, or a quick hitter or anything of the sort. They always try to tack on paraphernalia if they can.

Brian Williams should take the hit for the pot, and the alcohol. Then constructive possession will be dropped for everyone else, and all you have to deal with is the guns.
Click to expand...

Wow, quite a solution. Get rid of the most minor charges and just deal with the guns. Brillant strategy!
 
#23
#23
I think it would cement supression of evidence if all four players voluntarily went to a hospital and had blood drawn to show that they were clean and, therefore, there's no way the officer could've smelled weed. Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen.
 
#24
#24
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I think it would cement supression of evidence if all four players voluntarily went to a hospital and had blood drawn to show that they were clean and, therefore, there's no way the officer could've smelled weed. Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen.
Click to expand...

That might make the PR aspect better, but legally, it is not really any help because, they are charged with possession, which at least one of them is presumably guilty of, not with using. At this point, they have lawyered up which is the smart thing for them to do, and are keeping their mouths shut, again, a smart thing to do. The only way one of them can protest his innocence is to point fingers at the others, which, might help his case, but would hurt the others. If they all stick together, no matter what the real story is, legally, they will probably be fine. And if there is no legal case......
 
#25
#25
If they really all tested negative for MJ, a competent defense attorney should be able to get them off with a successful suppression. A cop cannot lie and create probable cause.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top