[Mac4Lyfe]

Hold your horses Maceedee. A good number of states allow probation officers to search the entire house without a warrant, if the guy is on probation. The probation officer must be the one to conduct the search of your house. The law enforcement officer is not authorized to assist in the warrantless search of your home. Only their presence is authorized. However the only time they are allowed to act is if the probation or parole officer finds illegal contraband, such as drugs or firearms.

Also update on what they've actually found:
12:10 PM PT -- According to a police report obtained by TMZ Sports, cops found a small baggie of "suspected" crack cocaine, a baggie of molly and some marijuana residue inside Vick's apartment.

Russian - There's nothing in the report that says a probation officer searched his home.. .

and when cops asked if they could come inside, he said "no."
Officers eventually made it inside and searched the apartment

This is the disturbing part.They come to the house based on a complaint from a neighbor. That was bullshit in the first place. Why is the police harassing citizens by following up on alleged tips from a disgruntled neighbor? A neighbor smells marijuana so now the police can eventually make it inside someone's home without a warrant? WTF? I don't care that it's Marcus Vick, it's not about him, it's about us. How the fukkk can the police abuse their power like this?

and I could care less if he has crack cocaine, molly, or Pepto Bismol. I do not believe in incarcerating people for drug use. Especially if the person is in the privacy of their own damn home. I do believe that if people commit a crime or run someone over in their car under the influence of anything, we should come down heavy handed on their ass. But not go after people relaxing in their own home. This is an affront to all civil liberties.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I lived in Los Angeles during the Rampart scandal. I've talked to people first hand that were imprisoned by phony cops that planted drugs, guns, etc., in order to shake people down. Stop the police state, stop giving the police ultimate power. They, more than anyone have to follow the law.

[Kermit]

Did Vick ever even play a snap for Miami?

[Russian Rocket]

I do hear your concerns. My guess would be that they tricked that fool and did what's called an 'officer safety sweep' and found drugs in the process - for that they don't need a warrant.

[Kermit]

It's possible that there could be some history with Vick at this apartment complex.

[Ted Sheckler]

Too much smoke in his lungs during that chase. Guy was putting a good distance on those cops. Should of broken off and started hopping fences, those fat white cops would of given up.

Not smart.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I do hear your concerns. My guess would be that they tricked that fool and did what's called an 'officer safety sweep' and found drugs in the process - for that they don't need a warrant.

Should not matter... He clearly told them that they could not enter his house and unless they had a legal search warrant, that evidence will most likely be thrown out. Apparently there were several other people in the apartment and they were all arrested. Hmmm, so the police arrest multiple people for a small baggie of cocaine, molly and MJ residue??? That shit is foul.

[Mac4Lyfe]

It's possible that there could be some history with Vick at this apartment complex.

Kermit... It is bullshit for the police to enter anyone's home without a warrant. Do you want the police breaking into your house because a neighbor complained???

[Kermit]

Kermit... It is bullshit for the police to enter anyone's home without a warrant. Do you want the police breaking into your house because a neighbor complained???

I have a hard time believing that if the cops came to my house and drug smoke billowed out when I answered the door that they would not have probable cause to enter my home. To be honest, I don't know the laws when it comes to probable cause. Like if you are fighting in the street in front of your home and when the cops show up and you run into your house and lock the door, can they come in to get you or do they have to get a warrant?

My guess is that this wasn't the first time that the Police had been to Vick's apartment.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I have a hard time believing that if the cops came to my house and drug smoke billowed out when I answered the door that they would not have probable cause to enter my home. To be honest, I don't know the laws when it comes to probable cause. Like if you are fighting in the street in front of your home and when the cops show up and you run into your house and lock the door, can they come in to get you or do they have to get a warrant?

My guess is that this wasn't the first time that the Police had been to Vick's apartment.

Sorry but without a warrant they cannot enter your home because they smelled smoke... You are protected by the 4th amendment. Unfortunately, our rights are being violated every day and most people don't care. We even try to side with the police state because the person being illegally searched had been in trouble before. You then make an excuse on why you believe it's okay for them to search your home, when the law is very clear that the police does not have that right. Open your eyes, stand up for justice. I don't give a shit about Vick but what if it happened to you? I would still be sticking up for you because I believe in our constitution. Shouldn't you?



The Fourth Amendment
Here is the full text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that many searches are fine as long as they meet certain requirements. Searches are generally considered reasonable when: 1) a judge issues a search warrant based on probable cause; or 2) certain situations occur that justify a search without a warrant (a search for weapons after an arrest, for example).
When the Fourth Amendment Doesn't Apply
The Fourth Amendment's requirements don't apply when a person doesn't have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If there isn't an expectation of privacy, then the Fourth Amendment doesn't come into play, and officers conducting a search don't have to meet its requirements.
The United States Supreme Court created a test for determining when a legitimate expectation of privacy exists. The test has two parts:

• Did the person subjectively expect the place or thing to be private? I.e., did they actually feel that the place or thing would remain private?
• Was that expectation objectively reasonable? I.e., would society as a whole agree that the place or thing should remain private?

An example might help clarify the point: most people feel that their homes are private, so there is a subjective expectation of privacy in one's home. Most people in society would find this expectation reasonable, so a police search of one's homemust satisfy the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.
If someone leaves evidence of a crime on their front lawn, however, it's likely that a police seizure of that evidence would not constitute an unreasonable search since most people in a society would not expect that an object that was clearly visible to anyone passing by would remain private. Even if the owner of the home or the evidence genuinely expected that the area would remain private, that expectation would not be reasonable, and so the seizure would not have to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
Who Does the Fourth Amendment Apply To?
Also keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment's requirements only apply to government actors. Private individuals, including security guards, don't fall under the Fourth Amendment's restrictions. While a private individual may break other laws if they conduct a search of a person or their belongings, any evidence they discover in the process would still be admissible in court.
If a government actor conducts an illegal search (one that violates the Fourth Amendment), the government cannot present any evidence discovered during that search at trial. Known as the "exclusionary rule," this rule aims to deter police officers from conducting unreasonable searches. Opponents of the exclusionary rule, however, argue that it lets guilty criminals go free on technicalities.
The Exclusionary Rule
In addition, evidence obtained through illegal searches cannot lead police to the discovery of other evidence. This legal rule, known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," is also designed to prevent government actors from invading people's privacy by conducting unreasonable searches. If police know, so the theory goes, that any evidence they obtain based on what they discover in an illegal search will be thrown out, they won't conduct illegal searches in the first place.
Here are a few examples to illustrate the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
Officer Joe suspects that Chris is selling drugs. Without a warrant, Officer Joe walks into Chris' house and finds drugs and a scale on the kitchen table. Officer Joe arrests Chris, but the judge throws out the evidence of the drugs and scale on the basis of the exclusionary rule.
In the example above, instead of finding drugs and a scale, Office Joe finds a map to locations throughout the city where Chris is storing his drugs for sale. Officer Joe collects the drugs and enters both them and the map as evidence. The map is thrown out because of the exclusionary rule, and, because Officer Joe would not have discovered the drugs without the map, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine prevents the use of the drugs as evidence.

[El Nino]

Kermit... It is bullshit for the police to enter anyone's home without a warrant. Do you want the police breaking into your house because a neighbor complained???

Cops will claim exigent circumstances, destruction of evidence to a crime. Too bad ol' Marcus wasn't living in Texas.

The Supreme Court of Virginia just decided this case in 2015 with similar facts. Marcus be fukked.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-suprem...t/1713366.html

[Mac4Lyfe]

Cops will claim exigent circumstances, destruction of evidence to a crime. Too bad ol' Marcus wasn't living in Texas.

The Supreme Court of Virginia just decided this case in 2015 with similar facts. Marcus be fukked.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-suprem...t/1713366.html

There were a lot more details of that case that created the search. I don't know all the details of Vick's case but in general the police are not going to be able to enter a home based on a neighbors hunch or I smelled smoke.

In the case you quoted... The mother created a situation for the police to search the apartment.

Her inept remark, followed by slamming the door, implied that Evans' mother knew the police officers were aware that marijuana was present in the apartment, and she needed a little time and privacy to do something about the problem. See, e.g., United States v. Urrego de Soto, 885 F.2d 354, 368 (7th Cir.1989) (finding exigent circumstances and holding that the threat of destruction of evidence justified a warrantless entry of an apartment when the occupant responded to an officer's knock and identification by “attempt[ing] to slam the door in [the officer's] face”).9

[Underdog5229]

You think so, underer?

I think maybe saying many of the, or a large percentage of, maybe a good majority of would fit better

[smittyallsports]

They were able to search his place without a warrant because he is already on probation meaning he doesn't have his normal rights. He can't refuse any searches.
And I'm editing just to add that I think this is complete bs but this is the justification nonetheless.

[symptoms]

Hows mike vick doing himself? Does he have any kind of a job?

[El Nino]

There were a lot more details of that case that created the search. I don't know all the details of Vick's case but in general the police are not going to be able to enter a home based on a neighbors hunch or I smelled smoke.

In the case you quoted... The mother created a situation for the police to search the apartment.

Her inept remark, followed by slamming the door, implied that Evans' mother knew the police officers were aware that marijuana was present in the apartment, and she needed a little time and privacy to do something about the problem. See, e.g., United States v. Urrego de Soto, 885 F.2d 354, 368 (7th Cir.1989) (finding exigent circumstances and holding that the threat of destruction of evidence justified a warrantless entry of an apartment when the occupant responded to an officer's knock and identification by “attempt[ing] to slam the door in [the officer's] face”).9

The neighbor's hunch and call got the police to Marcus. They will have their own observations and set of facts from what they saw and smelled while approaching the door. How the knock and talk went, etc. Pretty easy to walk down a hall and smell weed from a particular apartment. Walk in any hotel on the strip and someone on every floor is smoking weed or vaping. You can pin down which door it is. Then, when the door opens and you smell it stronger...exactly what the officers stated in the case I cited.

I would be shocked if the officers didn't claim exigent circumstances in their reports as it's their only play. If you want to smoke weed in your house and be left alone, move to Colorado or be smarter about it. Whether you agree with the law or not, Marcus is in the wrong here.

[Mac4Lyfe]

They were able to search his place without a warrant because he is already on probation meaning he doesn't have his normal rights. He can't refuse any searches.
And I'm editing just to add that I think this is complete bs but this is the justification nonetheless.

Wrong - the only person able to search his place without a warrant is his probation officer. The police can not tag along.

[El Nino]

They were able to search his place without a warrant because he is already on probation meaning he doesn't have his normal rights. He can't refuse any searches.
And I'm editing just to add that I think this is complete bs but this is the justification nonetheless.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the probation officer doesn't even need to be present for the search. A simple phone call from the officer to the PO is good enough depending on the probation search conditions set forth.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I would be shocked if the officers didn't claim exigent circumstances in their reports as it's their only play. If you want to smoke weed in your house and be left alone, move to Colorado or be smarter about it. Whether you agree with the law or not, Marcus is in the wrong here.

Of course they are going to make that claim but that does not make it right.

Once again, take Marcus Vick out of this. It's not about him. The point is that it is bullshit for the police to enter your home without a warrant because they "Suspect" a crime is being committed. It's cases like this that should get our attention IF you believe in our constitution. Do you really believe in the 4th amendment or not? If so, then you should be up in arms with the continued police state. I don't smoke, I don't do illegal activity but I will fight for you if the police burst into your house under bullshit circumstances even if they find illegal contraband. All that shit should be thrown out. Why are we so easily giving up our civil liberties? I live in Texas and people would be knocking on our congressmen's doors if they let shit like this go. It is not right. When are we going to fight for whats right?

[smittyallsports]

Wrong - the only person able to search his place without a warrant is his probation officer. The police can not tag along.

I stand corrected. However a police officer can tag along with a probation officer for a warrantless search of one's house but officer can not participate in the search. The officer presence would be for security reasons only. I was wrong however thanks for pointing that out.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the probation officer doesn't even need to be present for the search. A simple phone call from the officer to the PO is good enough depending on the probation search conditions set forth.

NOPE - only the PO can search your home, office, car, etc. and they CANNOT be assisted by the police or child welfare. The PO can call for the police to be present if they feel in danger for their own safety but even then the police cannot conduct the search.

This obviously was not done here...

[Mac4Lyfe]

I stand corrected. However a police officer can tag along with a probation officer for a warrantless search of one's house but officer can not participate in the search. The officer presence would be for security reasons only. I was wrong however thanks for pointing that out.

But apparently in Virginia, the police don't need a warrant or a PO because they can illegally search based on exigent circumstance or because you basically didn't comply.

Why do we even have a constitution? Just let the police state make the laws.

[Mac4Lyfe]

I stand corrected. However a police officer can tag along with a probation officer for a warrantless search of one's house but officer can not participate in the search. The officer presence would be for security reasons only. I was wrong however thanks for pointing that out.

But apparently in Virginia, the police don't need a warrant or a PO because they can illegally search based on exigent circumstance or because you basically didn't comply.

Why do we even have a constitution? Just let the police state make the laws.

[El Nino]

Wrong - the only person able to search his place without a warrant is his probation officer. The police can not tag along.

Not according to Samson v. California. I'm a little rusty on my 4th Amendment studies, but I believe this is still good law. It's about a police officer who performed a suspicion-less search on someone he knew to be on parole.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem...t/547/843.html

[PhattDaddy204]

Cops went way over the top on this one.

[sportsfan9698]

Anyone else surprised he wasn't shot?

Grow up.

[sportsfan9698]

From what I know about this case, sounds like they have no case.

Vick will beat this awful arrest... but the OP will not post that when it happens

[Mac4Lyfe]

I stand corrected. However a police officer can tag along with a probation officer for a warrantless search of one's house but officer can not participate in the search. The officer presence would be for security reasons only. I was wrong however thanks for pointing that out.

But apparently in Virginia, the police don't need a warrant or a PO because they can illegally search based on exigent circumstance or because you basically didn't comply.

Why do we even have a constitution? Just let the police state make the laws.

[Mac4Lyfe]

Damn, why did my post triplicate???

[BigdaddyQH]

Kermit... It is bullshit for the police to enter anyone's home without a warrant. Do you want the police breaking into your house because a neighbor complained???

I have heard enough from you, you f**king fool. Let me tell you a thing or two about the law. Firat, NO ONE gives a s**t about what you think. All you are is one of those "Black Lives Matter" idiots. Here is a news bulletin. They do NOT matter as far as most Americans are concerned.

If the police think that there is a legitimate chance of a suspect being able to get rid of evidence before a warrant is obtrained, they have the RIGHT to enter the location and look for the substance. That is the law, and it does NOT matter what some LIberal arse hole like yourself thinks. What you think is meaningless. People like myself determine what Police can or cannot do, not people like yourself. Care to tell us about your arrest record?

Here is a question that will prove just how stupid a person you are. You are walking down the street with your gun in plain sight. I order you to freeze and drop your weapon. You fail to comply. I immediately shoot you and kill you. Good shooting or bad?

[Mac4Lyfe]

penetrate off, before I grab you by the pussy...

[opie1988]

Bunch of dumbfukks blaming the cops again.

Here's a tip...don't break the law, and you'll have ZERO issues. Guaranteed!

Dumbfukk on probation smoking weed and having drugs around his house. Fukk him.

[Mac4Lyfe]

All the Trumptards come out anytime a black man is arrested with their hard line bullshit. While quietly missing the point that the constitution is being trampled on. You guys need to get on a boat to Russia and join Putin.

[unde0087]

WTF does that have to do with bitch ass cops barging into his apartment and arresting him for marijuana smell? Did you read the story? If they can do this shit to him, they can do it to you.

"We smelled smoke so we had to break your door down and we found drugs that we conveniently planted in your bedroom."

If you don't see the fukk up in this, I don't know what to tell you. Commie

He is on probation, people on probation don't get the benefits as you or I would in that situation. Obviously if the guy is on probation for drug abuse then when his apartment smells of drugs what the fuk do you think is going to happen?

[Mac4Lyfe]

He is on probation, people on probation don't get the benefits as you or I would in that situation. Obviously if the guy is on probation for drug abuse then when his apartment smells of drugs what the fuk do you think is going to happen?

So if it was anyone else but someone on probation, would you object to what happened???

However, Probation had NOTHING to do with this case...