“Based on the record developed at the suppression hearing, the Court finds that Detective McGee did not have reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant for the following reasons: (1) the Court does not credit Detective McGee’s testimony regarding the odor of marijuana; and (2) Defendant’s behavior did not provide an objective basis for reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Martin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135686 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 2022):
More importantly, however, Detective McGee’s testimony concerning the odor of marijuana emanating from Defendant’s vehicle ultimately does not withstand a common sense test of reason and logic considering the record developed at the suppression hearing. See Murphy, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (specifying “the extent to which [the witness’s testimony] withstands a common sense test of reason and logic” as a factor to consider in assessing credibility). Despite testifying that he smelled an odor of burnt marijuana when Defendant lowered the vehicle’s window, Detective McGee did not see smoke coming out of the window, nor did he observe Defendant discard a marijuana cigarette butt out the window. (Docket No. 73 at 35, 36). Additionally, Detective McGee testified that he observed in the vehicle packaged cigar blunt wrappers, which are used to smoke marijuana, but he could not remember whether or not the package of wrappers was open. (Id. at 23, 36). Most notably, no marijuana was found in the vehicle when it was searched. (Id. at 35). The Government did not clarify at the hearing or in its post-hearing submission this discrepancy between Detective McGee’s testimony that he smelled the odor of marijuana and the lack of any evidence of recently smoked marijuana. Accordingly, given the lack of evidence of recently smoked marijuana, the Court is unable to credit Detective McGee’s testimony that he smelled burnt marijuana coming from Defendant’s vehicle. See United States v. Mercadel, 75 F. App’x 983, at *5 (5th Cir. 2003) (police’s failure to find any evidence of recently smoked marijuana supported district court’s conclusion that officer’s testimony that he smelled marijuana was not credible); Harrison, 2018 WL 4405892, at *5-6 (finding officers did not have reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant, in part, because the court disbelieved the officers’ testimony regarding the smell of marijuana); United States v. Shields, No. 05-20433-B, 2007 WL 4481147, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2007) (finding officer’s testimony concerning marijuana smell not credible where there was no evidence to indicate that the defendants had been smoking marijuana in vehicle).
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)