Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 5/20/2005 1:10:41 PM EST
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kmgh/20050520/lo_koat/2730730

Toddler Leads Deputies To 1,700 Pounds Of Pot

2 hours, 45 minutes ago

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.



I'm curious as to why a trailer is suspicious just because it's in a garage. And if it was closed I want to know why the cops searched it and if they had a warrant.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:12:08 PM EST
Think that's enough to constitute intent to deal?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:15:26 PM EST
LOL, note to drug dealers - Do not get the On-Star system for your car.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:17:59 PM EST
Sweet!

I had a woman call to report her 2 year old missing. She went to sleep (passed out) on the couch and woke up with her gone.

Well the first thing you do is search the entire home just to make sure as we often find little ones asleep under their beds, hiding in a closet, etc. The mom and I are going through the home and looking and I open a back room closet. There is this lump covered by a blanket that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

I look at the mom and she looks like she has seen a ghost. I think, damn, that kid is dead under there. I lift the blanket and find about 40 ponds of weed in an open duffel bag. The woman goes to crying (now she cries) and I just tell her we will deal with finding her daughter first and with the weed second.

We get the VFD and a pile of Deputies out looking and even get the CG to fly a heilo over. An hour into it a woman shows up with the kid. Siad she tried to wake the mother, told her the girl was going with her till she came out of it and took her. The mom had no clue.

It was my first big dope find. Fun.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:20:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By GabbasaurusRex:
Think that's enough to constitute intent to deal?



No way, he's just stockpiling his "medicinal use-only," harmless "just a plant™­­­" for when SHTF.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:22:10 PM EST
It was probably the smell of 1700 lbs of weed.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:23:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
It was probably the smell of 1700 lbs of weed.



Yeah, there's no mistaking that smell.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:24:54 PM EST
A trailer parked in a garage is suspicious and gives police a right to search it just like leaving the back door open gives police a right to wander in and open locked containers in various rooms to find firearms and ammunition?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:27:10 PM EST
It probably reeked of pot. That's probable cause.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:27:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:27:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By GabbasaurusRex:
Think that's enough to constitute intent to deal?



1,700 lbs for personal use?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:28:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
A trailer parked in a garage is suspicious and gives police a right to search it just like leaving the back door open gives police a right to wander in and open locked containers in various rooms to find firearms and ammunition?



You forgot about the part where they burn the house down.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:28:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 1:28:59 PM EST by GabbasaurusRex]
<-------------


Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By GabbasaurusRex:
Think that's enough to constitute intent to deal?



1,700 lbs for personal use?


Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:29:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:30:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
A trailer parked in a garage is suspicious and gives police a right to search it just like leaving the back door open gives police a right to wander in and open locked containers in various rooms to find firearms and ammunition?



You forgot about the part where they burn the house down.



By dropping a bomb out of a helicopter or laying siege to it with the FBI, ATF, SWAT team, and a tank?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:32:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By GabbasaurusRex:
Think that's enough to constitute intent to deal?

"I swear its for medicinal use only, its a 2mo supply!"

Kharn
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:33:07 PM EST
Maybe they were looking for the legal guardians and figured, "hey what the hell lets check out this trailer thats sitting in a garage." Besides, I doubt that little news clip was 100% correct anyways.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:54:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 1:55:17 PM EST by Oslow]
There has GOT to be more to that story.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:57:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Oslow:
There has GOT to be more to that story.



There's always more to the story.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:26:57 PM EST
yeah, the story is short, both in length and details. if they smelled the weed, which is possible then I could see them searching, but it only says it was suspicious by being in a garage
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:34:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
It probably reeked of pot. That's probable cause.



I believe that is probable cause to get a warrant. Did they get a warrant?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:37:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Barrelburner:

Originally Posted By raven:
It probably reeked of pot. That's probable cause.



I believe that is probable cause to get a warrant. Did they get a warrant?



Dont know, and frankly dont care. Only thing interesting about this story is the enormous quantity of dope.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:44:16 PM EST
Just one more reason not to subscribe to On-Star...

news.com.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html

" The FBI and other police agencies may not eavesdrop on conversations inside automobiles equipped with OnStar or similar dashboard computing systems, a federal appeals court ruled.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday that the FBI is not legally entitled to remotely activate the system and secretly use it to snoop on passengers, because doing so would render it inoperable during an emergency.

n a split 2-1 rulingthe majority wrote that "the company could not assist the FBI without disabling the system in the monitored car" and said a district judge was wrong to have granted the FBI its request for surreptitious monitoring.

The court did not reveal which brand of remote-assistance product was being used but did say it involved "luxury cars" and, in a footnote, mentioned Cadillac, which sells General Motors' OnStar technology in all current models. After learning that the unnamed system could be remotely activated to eavesdrop on conversations after a car was reported stolen, the FBI realized it would be useful for "bugging" a vehicle, Judges Marsha Berzon and John Noonan said.

When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. After "vehicle recovery mode" was disabled, the court said, passengers were notified by the radio displaying an alert and, if the radio was not on, the system beeping.

David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the court's decision "a pyrrhic victory" for privacy.

"The problem (the court had) with the surveillance was not based on privacy grounds at all," Sobel said. "It was more interfering with the contractual relationship between the service provider and the customer, to the point that the service was being interrupted. If the surveillance was done in a way that was seamless and undetectable, the court would have no problem with it."

Under current law, the court said, companies may only be ordered to comply with wiretaps when the order would cause a "minimum of interference." After the system's spy capabilities were activated, "pressing the emergency button and activation of the car's airbags, instead of automatically contacting the company, would simply emit a tone over the already open phone line," the majority said, concluding that a wiretap would create substantial interference.

"The FBI, however well-intentioned, is not in the business of providing emergency road services and might well have better things to do when listening in than respond with such services to the electronic signal sent over the line," the majority said.

In a dissent, Judge Richard Tallman argued that a wiretap would not create unnecessary interference with emergency service and noted that "there is no evidence that any service disruption actually occurred. The record does not indicate that the subjects of the surveillance tried to use the system while the FBI was listening. One cannot disrupt a service unless and until it is being utilized.

"The record indicates that the only method of executing the intercept order in this case involved activating the car's microphone and transferring the car's cellular telephone link to the FBI. This conduct might have amounted to a service disruption, had the subjects of the surveillance attempted to use the system, but there is no evidence that they did."

The majority did point out that the FBI cannot order the system to be changed so that the emergency functions would work during surveillance. Congress ordered telephone companies to do just that in the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but current law does not "require that the company redesign its system to facilitate surveillance by law enforcement."

General Motors did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Its OnStar privacy policy says: "OnStar may disclose personal information if required to do so by law on (sic) in the good faith belief that such disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the legal process...OnStar cannot accept any responsibility for accidental or inadvertent disclosure, unauthorized access or for other disclosure as required by law or described in this policy."

The decision is binding only in California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, and other states that fall within the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. No other appeals court appears to have ruled on the matter. "
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:45:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By JoeWang:

Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
A trailer parked in a garage is suspicious and gives police a right to search it just like leaving the back door open gives police a right to wander in and open locked containers in various rooms to find firearms and ammunition?



You forgot about the part where they burn the house down.

What about the dog?
Where's Fido?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 2:50:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Barrelburner:

Originally Posted By raven:
It probably reeked of pot. That's probable cause.



I believe that is probable cause to get a warrant. Did they get a warrant?



Dont know, and frankly dont care. Only thing interesting about this story is the enormous quantity of dope.



+1 ! That's a LOTTA WEED, mon !
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 3:10:56 PM EST
So, did the cops shoot the dog once they found the weed in the trailor?
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 3:59:34 PM EST

So, did the cops shoot the dog once they found the weed in the trailor?

dang, you beat me to it
I wish a toddler would lead me to 1700 lbs of weed
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 4:07:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Sweet!

I had a woman call to report her 2 year old missing. She went to sleep (passed out) on the couch and woke up with her gone.

Well the first thing you do is search the entire home just to make sure as we often find little ones asleep under their beds, hiding in a closet, etc. The mom and I are going through the home and looking and I open a back room closet. There is this lump covered by a blanket that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

I look at the mom and she looks like she has seen a ghost. I think, damn, that kid is dead under there. I lift the blanket and find about 40 ponds of weed in an open duffel bag. The woman goes to crying (now she cries) and I just tell her we will deal with finding her daughter first and with the weed second.

We get the VFD and a pile of Deputies out looking and even get the CG to fly a heilo over. An hour into it a woman shows up with the kid. Siad she tried to wake the mother, told her the girl was going with her till she came out of it and took her. The mom had no clue.

It was my first big dope find. Fun.



Cool.

Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:28:53 PM EST


well, if you believe the AP, the trailer wasn't even in a garage....


Last Update: 05/20/2005 8:51:04 AM
By: Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies have made one of the biggest drug busts in the department’s history.

It all started with a call made Wednesday night to OnStar by a toddler who was locked inside a Cadillac Escalade, according to a copyright story in the Albuquerque Journal.

When deputies went to rescue the boy, they found him inside the vehicle and his father, Alfredo Ibarra, 25, outside trying to coach his son to open a door.

The security service eventually unlocked the doors, freeing the boy.

Deputies became suspicious of a new trailer nearby. Inside, they found 1,700 pounds of marijuana, worth an estimated $500,000.


My involvement with the BCSO left me with the impression they are mainly a group of cowboys, and your civil rights don't mean a damn thing to them. I'm sure they just decided to "have a look around" like usual, and this time they happened to find the mother lode.

Link Posted: 5/21/2005 3:09:13 AM EST
I am reasonably certain that they could smell it.

When our folks recovered half as much dope from a semi, you could smell that the weed was in the Evidence lock-up, outside, through a vault and a couple walls several dozen feet away. The odor was that strong. The whole area smelled like dope for months. Bet it drove the K9s nuts.
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 3:17:50 AM EST
OUR WEED!!

Link Posted: 5/21/2005 4:25:47 AM EST
Some of y'all are hilarious! How many news articles have you read that go into the officer's initial impressions and findings, describe his process for gaining PC and the process of initiating the search? Uh, none, maybe? Why should this one? And why should it's absence make so many jump to the conclusion that the search was unlawful? Only your biases could explain that.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 12:00:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Some of y'all are hilarious! How many news articles have you read that go into the officer's initial impressions and findings, describe his process for gaining PC and the process of initiating the search? Uh, none, maybe? Why should this one? And why should it's absence make so many jump to the conclusion that the search was unlawful? Only your biases could explain that.




Your pretty funny too.

My “biases” are based on my personal EXPERIENCES with the BCSD.

Specifically, a traffic stop where I was asked to exit the vehicle, while the deputy did a cursory search of it, without asking permission, and only a verbal warning for “excessive speed” was given.

Arriving at one of their DWI checkpoints at night, one deputy checked my papers, while two others used 1-million candlepower portable floodlights to look though all the windows of my van, inspecting everything in sight. I consider that a search. No permission was asked. Didn’t help my night vision either.

And their only suggestion, to stop local hoodlums from shooting up my vehicles and property was
“shoot back”. When I asked if they would testify to that advice at my murder trial, they laughed and
said no. Don’t bother calling them on property crimes, they take 4-5 hours to show up.

I just have very little respect for any agency that treats me more like a criminal, rather than the citizen they swore to protect and serve.

Former LEO.



Link Posted: 5/23/2005 3:39:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By GAU5-A-A:

Originally Posted By FiveO:
Some of y'all are hilarious! How many news articles have you read that go into the officer's initial impressions and findings, describe his process for gaining PC and the process of initiating the search? Uh, none, maybe? Why should this one? And why should it's absence make so many jump to the conclusion that the search was unlawful? Only your biases could explain that.




Your pretty funny too.

My “biases” are based on my personal EXPERIENCES with the BCSD.

Specifically, a traffic stop where I was asked to exit the vehicle, while the deputy did a cursory search of it, without asking permission, and only a verbal warning for “excessive speed” was given.

Arriving at one of their DWI checkpoints at night, one deputy checked my papers, while two others used 1-million candlepower portable floodlights to look though all the windows of my van, inspecting everything in sight. I consider that a search. No permission was asked. Didn’t help my night vision either.

And their only suggestion, to stop local hoodlums from shooting up my vehicles and property was
“shoot back”. When I asked if they would testify to that advice at my murder trial, they laughed and
said no. Don’t bother calling them on property crimes, they take 4-5 hours to show up.

I just have very little respect for any agency that treats me more like a criminal, rather than the citizen they swore to protect and serve.

Former LEO.






As a former LEO you know that if in fact the trailer was outside that would actually mean suspicious behavior/circumstances would possibly be MORE easily noted and the smell would possibly (even likely) be very strong AND by the fact it was out of doors and therefore more mobile (one could argue) make it easier to search, right?

Also as a former LEO you KNOW that looking in your windows is not a constitutionally protected search, right?

Were you a very knowledgeable LEO? Good thing it is "former."

Regardless, my point is that the news NEVER goes into the step by step development of probale cause and the actions taken... Duh.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 4:42:32 AM EST
"former LEO"

"Former security guard fired from the mall for trying to feel up the checkout girl at "Orange Julius" is more likely.

Large amounts of weed has a smell that has to be experienced to be believed. When a large stash is involved you darn sure don't need the dog. 1700 lbs probably could be smelled from across the street. Esp. in a nice enclosed trailer cooking in the sun.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:01:14 AM EST
He must roll 'em big.
Link Posted: 5/23/2005 5:21:37 AM EST
$500,000

1700 pounds

That's only $295 per pound.

Top Top