Incident: CDS Arrest
Date April 1, 2009
Location: N. Fruitland Blvd. Fruitland, Md.
Charged:
Townsend, Toress A.
20 years of age
1302 Jersey Road
Salisbury, Md.
Charges: Possession of Controlled Dangerous Substance of Schedule I, to wit: Marijuana
Disposition: Released to Central Booking,Wicomico County Detention Center
At 11:37 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009, a Fruitland officer stopped a burgundy Chevrolet Blazer for an equipment violation. The vehicle was occupied by two subjects in addition to the operator.The officer recognized the operator as someone who had been involved with controlled dangerous substances in the past. A Wicomico County K-9 unit was requested to do a CDS scan of the vehicle. The result of the scan conducted by K-9 Dingo was the discovery of a hand wrapped cigarette located on the floorboard area of the front passenger seat directly beneath the leg area of where the defendant Townsend was sitting. A field test resulted in a positive indicator for marijuana. Townsend was placed under arrest for possession of marijuana, transported to the Wicomico County Detention Center and released to Central Booking.
12 comments:
Thats an illegal search and siezure. If he had smelled pot, differant story. He had no probable cause.
I tell you what, drug dealers/possessors drive some pretty defective vehicles! They are always getting pulled over for equipment voilations! Just think, a $2 taillight bulb just cost you a few grand in lawyer fees and fines! The funny thing is, I drove around for 3 months with a taillight out and never got stopped! lol
Hey Anonymous 12:57 PM...How do you figure this is an Illegal Search and there was no Probable Cause???? Read the Press Release....A K-9 Alerted on the vehicle, indicating that there was CDS inside the vehicle. There's your Probable Cause.
hey 1257,
the dog didn't "search" the car, he just sniffed around it. The driver has no right to privacy for the air around his car. the courts have ruled in this favor over and over again. and learn how to spell.
Hey I got a point... why are 'we' spending money lockikng up,sending sniff dogs out to and other wise WASTING TIME and MONEY with some clown and ONE JOINT! GMAFB!
This is the kinda crap that KILLS ME with police enforcment.
1 freakn join?!?!? You don't have any crack/coke dealers to shake down? Or they pay too well?
One joint should be a $100 ticket be on your way.
I'm possitive he was black as well.?
I TIRE of seeing these kind off reports time and time again all I see is waisted dollars and MISSED INCOME!
TICKET MJ USERS!
As the officer did not know the quantity of the CDS the dog alerted on until he located it, what would you suggest he should have done with it upon discovering it was "just" a joint? The law does not say it is illegal only if it is more than a joint. If you don't like the way Fruitland PD does it's job, I suggest you carry your complaint to chief, don't bring your junk to town, and the next time you see a Fruitland officer, tell him to his face that you think he takes money from crack/coke dealers. Make an appointment with you dentist first.
Marijuana is purchased at the same store that sells crack, coke, heroin, opiated hash(mmmm), pcp, lsd, oxycontin, demorol, must I go on? Bust them now. if you wish to have marijuana legalized, lobby for it. until then, STFUp.
I am thinking the search could be illegal because the officer had no probable cause to ask for a dog in the first place. I dont think the report mentions he smelled pot smoke, just that the person had been involved with drugs before. This is no reason to ask for a search. Nor did the report say the person was behaving in a suspicious manor.
To the person who believes that a positive K-9 alert does not constitute probable cause, you are mistaken my friend. You need to read up on your case law. You are severely misinformed. You may want to consider visiting this website.
http://www.asctk9.org/id56.html and you will see many canine use case laws. You may want to educate yourself a little better in this area before you make your stupid statements.
Once the canine sniff produces a positive alert, this alert establishes probable cause.
Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant.
The dog may be used for the interior search (after the positive canine alert on the exterior).
And JIM...you may need to learn about what Probable Cause is...you do not need probable cause to ASK for a canine scan. If you had probable cause..you wouldn't need the canine now would you?..just a thought to ponder JIM. You may want to consider taking a few criminal justice classes yourself
how about setting up a doggie sniffing patrol at EAGLES, AND THE PARKING LOT AT THE SUBWAY/BEER STORE BEHIND FIRE DEPT. SURE FRUITLAND COULD USE THE DOGS AND FRUITLANDS FINEST TO SNIFF OUT THE DRUGGIES. ONE IT WOULD SAVE THE TOWN GAS MONIES, AND MAKE IT SAFER FOR US TO . THE OFFICER MUST HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO STOP THE SUV.THEN SET UP A SOBRIETY CHECKPOINT AT MEDIUM SSTRIP BY ADAMS, AND REDMANS. YOU'LL GET ENOUGH DUIS, AND DRUGS FROM WHITIES.
There is nowhere in the law you have to ask or have probable cause for a drug scan of the vehicle exterior. Its called open air rule. Go do some research. As mentioned earlier, no right to privacy to anything outside the vehicle. Don't want to get locked up? Don't have drugs in your car.
to 904 is there GOLD IN THEM THERE TEETH???????i dont git the dental aspect, but m on same page with you...
Post a Comment