Toddler Leads Deputies To 1,700 Pounds Of Pot


PDA






Vernal45
May 22, 2005, 02:10 AM
TheNewMexicoChannel.com


UPDATED: 1:21 pm MDT May 20, 2005

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Bernalillo County Sheriff's deputies found nearly a ton of pot at a home, thanks to a toddler and an OnStar in-vehicle safety and security system.

The Albuquerque Journal reported Friday that a 2-year-old boy who was locked in his father's Cadillac Escalade in southeast Albuquerque pushed the OnStar button in the car for help. The device not only can guide a motorist to a location, it can also unlock doors and call for help.

Officials responded to the OnStar alert, and when deputies arrived, they became suspicious when they found a large trailer in the garage.

Inside the trailer, deputies found 1,700 pounds of marijuana worth more than a half-million dollars.

Four men were arrested and are now in federal custody on drug trafficking charges, deputies said.

Copyright 2005 by TheNewMexicoChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Toddler Leads Deputies To 1,700 Pounds Of Pot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Grand Inquisitor
May 22, 2005, 07:41 AM
I need to start following kids around.......

garyk/nm
May 22, 2005, 08:36 AM
Just how did BCSO get access to the trailer? Did the 2 year-old give them permission? Something tells me this one is going to get tossed, with vigor! Of course, details are lacking in the story, so who knows.

dev_null
May 22, 2005, 10:36 AM
> when deputies arrived, they became suspicious when they found a large trailer in the garage.

Say what?

Crosshair
May 22, 2005, 10:36 AM
YAY, cops have now siezed another large shipment of one of the most harmless and safe drugs known to man. Countless pizzas and bags of Doritos are now safe from this substance.

/Must be depressing enforcing drug laws, knowing that you're work solves nothing and is essentially useless.
//"War on Drugs", doing more damage than drugs since 1938.

Beren
May 22, 2005, 10:38 AM
In other news, BCSO search the home attached to the garage after becoming suspicious of what experts term "a connecting door."

BCSO points out the fact that both the garage and the house have what is known as a "roof" as further basis for their suspicions. "Frankly that 'floor' thing is a bit questionable, too," said a spokesperson for the Sheriff's office.

Um..if the reasonable man saw a trailer in a garage or outside in the driveway, would he really find it all that suspicious? Where else are you going to put a trailer?

jefnvk
May 22, 2005, 10:39 AM
OK, tryig not to get dragged into the whole legalize drug issue. But how does a large trailer justify a search? Unless somone was dumb enough to consent to one.

El Tejon
May 22, 2005, 10:46 AM
The 2 year old was treated and released for "the munchies." :D

GRB
May 22, 2005, 10:46 AM
My guess would be the large trailer was not only what made them suspicious. Have you ever smelled that much marijuana in one place. The whole garage probably reeked from it.

It is truly amusing how much credence some of you will give to a news report when you can use it to slam law enforcement or try to make them look like goons but, if the same newspaper and same reporter said something negative about second amendment rights you would be calling it something akin to yellow journalism or just another ultra leftist lib rag!

Best regards,
Glenn B

Vernal45
May 22, 2005, 11:19 AM
To little information on this one. Hell, I just posted it because it was funny.

Preacherman
May 22, 2005, 11:43 AM
Glenn has it right. That much marijuana must have made the place smell like - well, this is a family forum, so I won't use the comparison I first thought of! :D

Anyway, with that odor in place, it's ample probable cause for the cops to search the (already-open) garage. They might also have called in a dog to check the area, and the dog would have alerted on the trailer. I don't foresee any legal problems for the cops on this one.

Moral of the story: if you're going to smuggle drugs, don't have kids! :D

TheFederalistWeasel
May 22, 2005, 01:45 PM
All the armchair cops and backyard lawyers strike yet again, quickly to discount the search as illegal without any information or any experience beyond bashing LEO efforts on this board.

First I agree with the others, 1700 pounds of weed locked up in a trailer during the late spring early summer in the heat would knock you down.

I recently seized 30 ounces which is a little over a pound and the smell of it was very powerful and it had been riding inside an air-conditioned SUV for about an hour according to the driver.

Now, the cops had a legal reason to be on the property, they were most likely looking for parents and might have entered the garage to knock on a door and the smell was more than likely overwhelming.

The US Supreme Court as continuously held that a sniff is a sniff, just like a dog a cop can indicate to the presence of narcotics when he/she smells it.

If I walk up to your car on a lawful traffic stop and smell weed, guess what, I can search it. I have done this many times, found plenty of weeds and never had a case tossed either.

If I have a lawful reason to be in or around your house and smell the same, the same applies.

The courts have continuously held there is no right to privacy from a free air sniff.

veloce851
May 22, 2005, 02:27 PM
While I completely disagree with the laws surrounding cannibus and find the concept of preventing me from handling or possessing something that is as natural as the grass on my lawn. (which in most cases is most unnatural) I have to agree with thefederalistweasel on this one.

The smell had to be the reason they suspected the trailer.
I'm sure no sign of parents around with a 2yo locked in a truck is a sign of the parental skills.

Even though I disagree with the illegal state of cannibus, I would agree with an officers power to search a vehicle that smells of pot..(assuming they were pulled over for a legitimate reason) the same as if he smelled whisky.
A legal user (hypothetically if it were legal)of cannibus should never have to have it in their car.. unless transporting a small personal amount. Which would not smell up the car if handled properly. Just as transporting a bottle of whisky won't smell if you don't consume it or open it.

I could go on with why I think it should be legal... just think if users grew their own then they wouldn't be supporting the drug trade across our pourous border. Since I would venture to say a majority of the cannibus that is imported is from Mexico followed by Canada. The rest is grown within this country. But that's a discussion best left for the APS forum

jefnvk
May 22, 2005, 02:35 PM
Ah, didn't know that it smelled. I would guess that smell gives them probable cause to search. I was just hung up over the trailer in the garage gave them probable cause thing.

bg
May 22, 2005, 03:07 PM
Seems to me if the owners of the SUV had a handle on that kid, instead
of leaving him untended in the first place, they more n likely wouldn't
be in the mess they're in..Gumps' rule..Stupid is as stupid does.

dev_null
May 22, 2005, 03:24 PM
TFW: wasn't questioning that there may have been probable cause, just the phrasing of the article was kinda whack. Remember, when trailers are outlawed, only outlaws will have trailers. :p

Preacherman
May 22, 2005, 03:50 PM
Wouldn't it be fun if the parents went to jail, while the toddler got the reward for the drug bust? :D

NMshooter
May 22, 2005, 05:46 PM
I admit to finding the entire story hilarious. :D

If the parents had not left the child in the truck during a heat wave they would not have been busted.

The things happening around here while I am too busy to pay attention... :)

FeebMaster
May 22, 2005, 06:13 PM
So basically most of you think that if a cop smells something suspicious wafting out of your house he should be able to search the premises without a warrant?

DMF
May 22, 2005, 06:20 PM
There wasn't nearly enough information in that story to even guess at the reason for the search, yet some are still taking the opportunity to debate with nothing more than WAGs as basis for their rants.

http://www.cs.umu.se/~c02ndg/Smilies/giant_rolleyes.gif

JohnBT
May 22, 2005, 06:34 PM
"30 ounces which is a little over a pound"

I demand a recount. :D

You know, it was probably the scale and the 27,000 baggies that gave them away.

I'd also think that the police would look around for an adult - mom could be passed out on the kitchen floor and unable to answer the door. You gotta find them before you can charge them with child endangerment.

If they were dealing nickel bags they'd need about a million baggies or so.
I learned a lot working at the VA inpatient treatment center in grad school.

John

thorn726
May 22, 2005, 06:47 PM
i HATE the papers- why couldnt they give us a little mroe detail about the trialer- there was probably a GOod reason it became suspicious, like it was a very odd type trailer or something.

if none of you had guessed by now, I LIKE POT. ha ha and it's LEGAL for me!

BUT= screw these anti American dirtbags.
GET THAT garbage mexican weed out of here.
BUY AMERICAN!! Mexcian drugs support all kinds of horrible behavior.

also, i dont support these pot clubs or large scale dealers making $$$$$$$$$$$$
like this. the clubs especially- the pot law here doesnt actually provide for privately run clubs, but they exist as long as they pay the city.

FeebMaster
May 22, 2005, 06:47 PM
There wasn't nearly enough information in that story to even guess at the reason for the search, yet some are still taking the opportunity to debate with nothing more than WAGs as basis for their rants.

So then you're saying the police, as long as they have a really good reason, should be able to search your house without a warrant.

HighVelocity
May 22, 2005, 07:00 PM
I think the two year old asking the OnStar rep if he had any papers probably tipped them off.

DMF
May 22, 2005, 07:07 PM
So then you're saying the police, as long as they have a really good reason, should be able to search your house without a warrant.Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. I never said anything of the sort, nor was it implied by my statement.

My post neither claimed the search was legally justified, nor did it claim it was not. I simply pointed out there was too little information to even hazard a guess about the reason for the search. I can think of many scenarios where the search would be legal, and many where it would not, however with no details at all to go on, any argument defending or condemning the search are pointless.

cracked butt
May 22, 2005, 08:04 PM
If there was a unattended 2 year old on the premises, that would seem to me, enough justification for the police to look further to see where the adults were.

A lot of people are overlooking the possibility of child abuse in order to to stick up for the alleged drug dealers.

Standing Wolf
May 22, 2005, 08:20 PM
Another Great Victory in the war on some drugs!

Selfdfenz
May 22, 2005, 10:57 PM
Leaving a 2 yo unattended to the point he or she locks themselves in a car is reason enought to put these folks in jail. I'd hate to think they were punishing the kid in some way and the adults locked the child in the car.
Either way look at it for what it is, a half million dollar lesson in parenting.

Don't know what the temp was in that area that day but if not for ONSTAR the kid might have died.

Cuff'em, stuff'em and throw away the key.

S-

Hypnogator
May 22, 2005, 11:56 PM
They might also have called in a dog to check the area, and the dog would have alerted on the trailer.
1700#? The dog wouldn't have just alerted, he'd have had an orgasm! :eek: :evil: :evil:

So then you're saying the police, as long as they have a really good reason, should be able to search your house without a warrant.
In the immortal words of Sgt Hulka, Lighten Up, Francis! The paper doesn't say they had a warrant, but it doesn't say they didn't, either. They probably did.

Oh, and, by the way, the answer to your question is Yes the police can search your house without a warrant if they have a really good reason. It's called exigent circumstances, and it's narrowly defined, but it's the law.

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 03:17 PM
Four men were arrested and are now in federal custody....

...for a non-crime. :(

Guns_and_Labs
May 23, 2005, 03:34 PM
...for a non-crime.

How about for child abandonment?

And at that much weed, they probably qualify as a manufacturer, and you could get them on OSHA violations.

mercedesrules
May 23, 2005, 03:52 PM
How about for child abandonment?

And at that much weed, they probably qualify as a manufacturer, and you could get them on OSHA violations.

Who cares? No one was harmed in any way.

centac
May 23, 2005, 04:08 PM
That's an assumption. We really dont know the rest of the story, but 1,500 lbs aint for personal use. Somebody moving that kinda weight, you'll have a hard time convincing me that they are just harmless recreational drug users hassled by The Man. People have been "hurt" over less weed than that.

mtnbkr
May 23, 2005, 04:09 PM
Must be depressing enforcing drug laws, knowing that you're work solves nothing and is essentially useless.
Not really. I'm sure TPTB have only the "true believers" doing that work.

Who cares? No one was harmed in any way
A child locked up in a car on a warm day isn't harmed? Ohhhh, the child hadn't suffered harm YET. Is that not as serious as pointing a gun at someone at not pulling the trigger? Why not, nobody's been harmed.

While I think the pot itself is a non-crime, locking the child in the car was a crime and I would expect the cops to enter the house looking for the parents. Since I doubt seriously 1700lbs of pot would not emit an odor, nor would the house be free of any other drug paraphanalia, I'm sure they had probable cause that the article isn't sharing with us (besides the more serious crime of locking a child in a car on a warm day).

Chris

Third_Rail
May 23, 2005, 04:24 PM
I recently seized 30 ounces which is a little over a pound


Here I was, thinking that 16 ounces were in a pound. :neener:

Couldn't help but poke fun a bit, otherwise I'm simply staying out of this thread.

TheFederalistWeasel
May 24, 2005, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I was only on my first cup of coffee, brain doing on thing fingers another.

Guess I was thinking number of grams in an ounce

:)

Control Group
May 24, 2005, 03:09 PM
Copyright 2005 by TheNewMexicoChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Anyone else find the inclusion of this bit amusingly ironic?

Anyway, on-topic, as someone who's more than happy to loudly blather on about everything he perceives as wrong with the law enforcement system in this country, this seems perfectly legit to me. 1700 pounds of weed? That much marijuana is going to take up kind of a lot space. When the article says "a large trailer," I'm guessing it means as in "semi-articulated truck trailer," which, if parked next to your one-car-garage bungalow might be a little suspicious, when combined with a child abandoned in a vehicle and the overwhelming stench of dope.

I'm all for demanding PC before allowing searches, but if that's not PC for possession with intent to sell, I have no idea what might be. And since the article isn't raising a hue and cry about no warrant, I'm guessing they had a warrant for the search, based on the above.

Sound completely open and above-board to me.

thorn726
May 24, 2005, 04:43 PM
I recently seized 30 ounces

ok joke about it being 2 pounds aside=

heheh how about you guys start sending yer illegal product over here where the cops have to protect our weed like everyting else!!!

-we just got to set up a transporter beam to avoid the interstate commerce!!

how mad does that make you LE's that it is legal here, that most pot busts end in returning the weed to rightful owner??????

or do you think it sohuld be legal?

Don Gwinn
May 24, 2005, 11:13 PM
Again, lighten up. I really doubt legalized pot in Berkeley is making any of our resident LEO's gnash their teeth in frustration.
:rolleyes:

GRB
May 24, 2005, 11:38 PM
Thorn726,

I'll tell you what. You tell me where you keep all your pot, I'll send some other federal agents over to weigh it - not to seize it. Then we will charge you the federal tax on it, by the lowest possible denominator as allowed by federal law. That way you get to keep and smoke all the pot you want, and within about 6 months the national debt will be wiped out, California will have floated away and the USA will be a better place.

All the best,
Glenn B.

Guns_and_Labs
May 25, 2005, 12:08 AM
I really doubt legalized pot in Berkeley is making any of our resident LEO's gnash their teeth in frustration.

Well, actually, based on conversations with a couple of officers, Berkeley PD is still busting plenty of folks for possession, dealing, etc. They don't seem as impressed with the City Council as they should be, perhaps. Or maybe they read the City Attorney memo that said that the marijuana legalization directive was legal dreck.

P95Carry
May 25, 2005, 12:18 AM
Guess I was thinking number of grams in an ounce TFW - dropping by to keep things light! I immediately thought here it was less the inadequate intake of coffee - than the euphoria induced by the previous days mega socks bust!! :p :D

LiquidTension
May 25, 2005, 01:01 AM
These morons obviously never learned Rule #1 about dealing drugs - NEVER smoke your own stash. Obviously they got high and forgot about the kid in the car, then forgot to close the garage door. Funny how a bunch of amateurs could be in possession of 1700 lbs...reminds me of Trainspotting....

romulus
May 25, 2005, 01:16 AM
So basically most of you think that if a cop smells something suspicious wafting out of your house he should be able to search the premises without a warrant?
If they see blood seeping out of a door threshold, do they have to get a warrant?

Unless you believe that frying onions are similar to pot in fragrance...

LiquidTension
May 25, 2005, 01:58 AM
Actually, there ARE several things that smell like pot that aren't pot. What if an officer sees something that looks like pot on the seat of your locked car while you're in class? Does he have the right to bash the window in to check it out? Or call someone in to screw up the lock on your car while opening it? This is a wonderful example because my brother was hassled by a cop for having a bag of tobacco on the seat of his car in the university parking lot. Cop thought it was pot :rolleyes:

Problem is, cops can say they "smelled something" and can then search the house. If they find nothing, good faith doctrine usually keeps them safe - especially if they don't have a history of complaints. If they do find something then that "must be what they smelled."

Powderman
May 25, 2005, 02:52 AM
Inside the trailer, deputies found 1,700 pounds of marijuana worth more than a half-million dollars.

Heh, heh. Heh, heh, heh.

Good bust! More power to those guys!

(Does the happy dance)

Control Group
May 25, 2005, 09:17 AM
Does he have the right to bash the window in to check it out? Or call someone in to screw up the lock on your car while opening it?
Of course not. But he's certainly got the right to try and get a warrant to search your car, and once he's got it, then yes, he's got the right to do exactly that.

The article doesn't mention that the officers didn't have a warrant when they performed the search, and, given the media, odds are good that if they didn't, it would have. I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that given the abandoned child, the abnormally large trailer, and the obviously overwhelming reek of weed, the police didn't have too much trouble getting a warrant.

I'm all for limiting police powers to protect individual rights, but if we're going to prevent police from investigating blatant evidence of wrongdoing (like a bag of pot in a car), then we might as well not have a police force. As long as the officer can't just on his own recognizance decide that your car looks likely, as long as he's got to demonstrate PC and get a warrant, I'm entirely fine with the search, even if it turns out after the fact that it was just a beg of oregano. You don't get to vilify the cop based on information only available after the fact any more than the cop gets to justify a random search based on information only available after the fact.

TearsOfRage
June 11, 2005, 05:57 PM
Having OnStar is a pretty stupid thing for a drug dealer to do in the first place.

BlackCat
June 11, 2005, 06:35 PM
Do we even know how long he was "locked in the vehicle"? No. He could been in there for 5 minutes for all we know. Of course, I guess the parent(s) were really endangering his life, after all, it may have been warm that day too. Or it coulda been raining and 60*. It could even have been running with the A/C on for all we know. The only mistake the parents made was teaching the kid to press the Onstar button if he needed help. Or maybe he accidentally pushed it. 2yr olds aren't the greatest at reasoning and communication.

Wouldn't it be fun if the parents went to jail, while the toddler got the reward for the drug bust?

LOL! LOL! LOL!

Ummmmmmm NO!

Becoming an orphan because you are too young to know any better. Having your parents locked up for...ohh...like forever because of a mistake you made at 2 yrs old. I'm failing to see the humor in it.

I suppose it's also funny when the elementary and junior high kids turn their parents in for some crap because the D.A.R.E. officer told them to.

I wonder if this works with guns too?

That much marijuana is going to take up kind of a lot space. When the article says "a large trailer," I'm guessing it means as in "semi-articulated truck trailer,"

A semi trailer could easily hold 40,000lbs of dope. I'm gonna have to go against that notion of yours.

It was probably more like this: is this a "large trailer"? It should certainly be capable of holding 1,700lbs of endo.

Pilgrim
June 12, 2005, 09:00 AM
It is truly amusing how much credence some of you will give to a news report when you can use it to slam law enforcement or try to make them look like goons but, if the same newspaper and same reporter said something negative about second amendment rights you would be calling it something akin to yellow journalism or just another ultra leftist lib rag!

I once called a reporterette to task after she wrote a story in the local fishwrap that said a local citizen was arrested for possessing child pornography after police received a 'tip' concerning his filthy activities. The article made it look like all the police needed was a 'tip' in order to obtain a search warrant.

The reporterette answered my e-mail and admitted the police did indeed collect more corroborating information after receiving the 'tip', but there was just so much column space available for the story, blah, blah.

So much for the journalist's duty to educate as well as inform the public.

Pilgrim

If you enjoyed reading about "Toddler Leads Deputies To 1,700 Pounds Of Pot" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!