WEBVTT - Court Rules Marijuana Residue Doesn’t Justify Search (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>And now in breaking news, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has

0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:06.440
<v Speaker 1>thrown out a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:11.039
<v Speaker 1>have hospital admitting privileges, and in Virginia, a law requiring

0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>photo identification for all voters in all elections was upheld

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 1>today by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

0:00:19.880 --> 0:00:23.440
<v Speaker 1>Now turning to the Sixth Circuit, police find evidence of

0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:26.800
<v Speaker 1>marijuana use in the trash outside a home. They get

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:29.000
<v Speaker 1>a warrant based on that and search the home, where

0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:33.240
<v Speaker 1>they find large quantities of cash, marijuana, cocaine, and firearms.

0:00:33.720 --> 0:00:36.560
<v Speaker 1>The defendant pleads guilty, but the Sixth Circuit by a

0:00:36.640 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>vote of two to one reverses, ruling that finding evidence

0:00:40.440 --> 0:00:43.440
<v Speaker 1>of marijuana use in the trash placed outside a home

0:00:43.520 --> 0:00:46.520
<v Speaker 1>without more does not justify a search of the home

0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:50.080
<v Speaker 1>for drugs. Our guests are former state and federal prosecutor

0:00:50.159 --> 0:00:53.840
<v Speaker 1>Jeffrey Kramer, a managing director at Berkeley Research Group, and

0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>Sima Boffman, professor at the University of Utah College of Law.

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>Jeff inside the trash outside at the home, the police

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 1>found several marijuana roaches with marijuana residue, several plastic vacuum

0:01:07.200 --> 0:01:10.840
<v Speaker 1>packed heat seal bags consistent to those used to package

0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:16.039
<v Speaker 1>marijuana for resale, containing residue and discarded mails into the house.

0:01:17.040 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>Why does the court seem to bend over backwards for

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:24.720
<v Speaker 1>eighteen pages explaining why that's not enough to create a

0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:29.839
<v Speaker 1>fair probability that drugs would be found in the home? Yeah,

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:32.600
<v Speaker 1>it does seem autumn and there are obviously is a

0:01:32.640 --> 0:01:35.200
<v Speaker 1>logic to it um but there's certainly seems to be

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:38.040
<v Speaker 1>enough in DISHA or you know, elements that you could

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.200
<v Speaker 1>piece together, you know, abc D that would lead a

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.760
<v Speaker 1>logical person to believe that there remains drugs in the house.

0:01:45.200 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>But it does seem like the courts decision that you

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>could go through great lengths to come up with reasons

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:52.720
<v Speaker 1>why there might not be drugs in the house, and

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:57.400
<v Speaker 1>that's perfectly clear. It's probable cause, it's not a certainty.

0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:00.120
<v Speaker 1>So you know, it seems like the court was me

0:02:00.120 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>into reasons the trash could have been there for not

0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:04.920
<v Speaker 1>taken out for weeks or months or whatever it is,

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:07.560
<v Speaker 1>which is absolutely true. So their points are well taken,

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:10.519
<v Speaker 1>but I think it it goes against what is common

0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 1>sense and again probable cause it was probably true that

0:02:13.800 --> 0:02:17.480
<v Speaker 1>there were drugs in the House. There's a case called

0:02:17.560 --> 0:02:22.200
<v Speaker 1>the United States versus McPherson that the Sixth Circuit talks about. That's, uh, well,

0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 1>I'll let you explain that the the case tell us about

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:28.480
<v Speaker 1>that case, what role played in this analysism, whether whether

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:31.600
<v Speaker 1>that should have made a difference. Sure, I mean the

0:02:31.680 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 1>real issue here is, uh, you know, the courts have

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:39.480
<v Speaker 1>really been hesitant to allow for probable casts to be

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:42.600
<v Speaker 1>found on one trash poll. I mean cops kind of

0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:44.239
<v Speaker 1>refer to this as a trash poll where they, you know,

0:02:44.360 --> 0:02:47.359
<v Speaker 1>dress up like garbage people, they go collect the trash

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:50.359
<v Speaker 1>and then they decide whether you know, there's mariana in

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:54.040
<v Speaker 1>it through inspections in the lab. And um, I actually

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:58.399
<v Speaker 1>think that the Six Circuits opinion, although seeming to be controversial,

0:02:58.440 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>it's really in line with a lot of others that

0:03:00.600 --> 0:03:04.080
<v Speaker 1>have found that one trash poll isn't enough to establish

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:08.120
<v Speaker 1>probable cause. I mean, certainly reasonable suspicion, but without other

0:03:08.200 --> 0:03:12.360
<v Speaker 1>evidence of drugs being found at the house, other reports

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.239
<v Speaker 1>of neighbors, other types of things. Probable cause is a

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.120
<v Speaker 1>high standard. And I think, besides what's mentioned in the

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Court's opinion, I think it's interesting because given the current

0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>climate with marijuana, with the uh, you know, increasing use

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:29.200
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of states and increasing kind of leniency

0:03:29.280 --> 0:03:31.720
<v Speaker 1>amongst a lot of courts, it's not surprising to me

0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 1>that this court would find that that probable cause isn't

0:03:34.360 --> 0:03:36.680
<v Speaker 1>established to search the whole house. Um, it could have

0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>been a neighbor that dropped it. You know, there's lots

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>of other explanations, but Jeff, this was a case of

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 1>sale that they were looking at, not a case of

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:49.320
<v Speaker 1>of use, which might make a difference. They rejected an

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:53.080
<v Speaker 1>eighth Circuit case where probable cause was established solely on

0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:57.160
<v Speaker 1>the basis of a trash poll because it contained no analysis,

0:03:57.200 --> 0:04:02.080
<v Speaker 1>They said beyond a citation. But tell me about the ascent. Well,

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:04.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean the descent makes you know, what I could

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 1>argue is is a reasonable one. And the fact that

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:13.520
<v Speaker 1>the officers found enough again condition enough specific instances that

0:04:13.600 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>there were still drugs in the house, and as you

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:18.479
<v Speaker 1>indicated that there was sales going on. It had the

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:21.200
<v Speaker 1>little baggies with a stamp on it that the officers

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:26.000
<v Speaker 1>knew from their training experience was marijuana, um et cetera. UM.

0:04:26.240 --> 0:04:28.680
<v Speaker 1>So I think the descent is looking at it with

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>an eye towards it. Again, it's problem cause while you know,

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:34.640
<v Speaker 1>higher standard than than some other things, that's certainly not

0:04:34.680 --> 0:04:36.720
<v Speaker 1>beyond a reasonable daughter or other items we see in

0:04:37.040 --> 0:04:40.120
<v Speaker 1>courtin it's not certainty. But I think the point that

0:04:40.200 --> 0:04:41.960
<v Speaker 1>was just made is well taken. I think if you

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:45.240
<v Speaker 1>change it from marijuana to heroin and make it the

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:47.919
<v Speaker 1>needles and some other things indicating heroin's going on, and

0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:50.920
<v Speaker 1>there are cocaine or whatever might be, maybe that becomes

0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>a different opinion. You know, they did rely and they

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>make fierce and decision um where an individual came out

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:58.320
<v Speaker 1>with the crack pipe in his pocket and said that

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:01.960
<v Speaker 1>was too attenuated. So it is consistent within the sixth

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:06.120
<v Speaker 1>circuit um. And I think the takeaway from law enforcement is,

0:05:06.200 --> 0:05:09.279
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's a lesson learned. Um is the rule

0:05:09.279 --> 0:05:11.360
<v Speaker 1>in the sixth circuit now. So if you have that

0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:13.600
<v Speaker 1>those elements in a trash poll, maybe you have to

0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:16.839
<v Speaker 1>send in a confidential informant or an undercover or something

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:19.640
<v Speaker 1>to ascertain the sale. But I think one point is

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>worth noting is what they recovered, so it wasn't just

0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>marijuana joints and scales and whatnot, and and something to

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:30.360
<v Speaker 1>separate the seeds. There was you know, guns, drugs and money, Um,

0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>and whether it's marijuana, cocaine or heroin gugs, drugs and

0:05:33.839 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 1>money usually go together. We've got to leave it there.

0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Thank you Jeff Kramer, Managing director at Berkeley Research Group,

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:43.480
<v Speaker 1>and Shima Baton, professed with the University of Utah College

0:05:43.480 --> 0:05:46.400
<v Speaker 1>of Laws, for the decision of Bloomberg Law. Thanks to

0:05:46.440 --> 0:05:51.039
<v Speaker 1>our technical director um John try Comey and our producer

0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>David Sutchervan Coming up Bloomberg Markets with Carol Master and

0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:58.560
<v Speaker 1>Corey Johnson starts right now on Bloomberg Radio. We'll see

0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 1>you tomorrow. This is a burg