Good news! Drug charges dismissed for 3 Pack football players

'10 Football21

Link to N&O article.

In court Tuesday morning, defense lawyers for the players argued that the arrests came after an illegal search. The lawyers’ motion to suppress the evidence from the search was granted by judge Keith Gregory.

“Fortunately for us, we are a nation of laws, and it takes a highly courageous judge to follow those laws, especially when there’s a case that has such high-profile status,” said defense lawyer James Jackson, who represented Sweezy.

Link to message board discussion.

TWC News 14 Video of Report

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'10 Football

21 Responses to Good news! Drug charges dismissed for 3 Pack football players

  1. Sw0rdf1sh 07/27/2010 at 12:45 PM #

    I wouldn’t assume in the case of GB as it was likely postponed for a reason. Let’s hope it has the same outcome.

    Good news for the 3 and the Pack!

  2. Par Shooter 07/27/2010 at 12:51 PM #

    All along the charges against Bryan seemed to be the flimsiest of the 4 (since he wasn’t even present). I’d guess there is just some other circumstance that caused his continuance.

  3. Classof89 07/27/2010 at 12:56 PM #

    Judge found that the actions of the off duty Raleigh cop made for an illegal search, and that he should have had a search warrant.

  4. bradleyb123 07/27/2010 at 1:09 PM #

    Since this is no longer about guilt or innocence, but rather the illegal search and seizure, I can’t imagine the case against GB being any different.

    The bad news is, we still took a black eye in the image department.

    But what I’d like to know is, why isn’t the smell of burning marijuana enough to constitute probable cause? I’ve always thought if a cop pulled you over, and smelled pot smoke coming from your car, that that would be enough probable cause to search the vehicle. Why would that not be true in this case?

  5. modobrew 07/27/2010 at 1:38 PM #

    bradleyb123,

    I would imagine that due to the fact that he was off duty would constitute it as illegal. If he had been on duty then things might have been different. Not sure, just taking a stab at it.

  6. tuckerdorm1983 07/27/2010 at 1:55 PM #

    well folks I happen to know a fair amount about searches and seizure. I Graduated from UNC-School of Law in 1990 and am a member of the N.C. Bar.

    A man’s house (or dorm room) is his castle.

    The police can only enter into a house without a warrant under certain narrow exceptions. Smelling pot smoke is not one of them. The police should have appeared before a magistrate and given probable cause as to why a search warrant should be issued.

    Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payton_v._New_York

    exceptions to this
    1.consent by the owner of the home
    2.exigent circumstances (the police reaonably believe someone’s life is in danger or evidence is being destroyed
    3.seaching of a car pulled over on the highway
    4.search incident to an arrest to look for weapons (pat down)
    4.a bunch more etc etc

    Just because the case is thrown out under the exclusionary rule doesn’t mean they ain’t guilty as hell. The fruit of the poisonous tree says that all evidence gathered that comes from the illegal search is also thrown out. Mr. George Bryan almost surely walks.

    For more info see
    http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb2489189

  7. NCSU03 07/27/2010 at 1:58 PM #

    I’ll preface this by saying I didn’t go to law school so I could be wrong but I think the smell of marijuana coming from a car is different than the smell coming from an apartment/dorm/whatever it was. The officer can know with certainty that the smell is coming from a car but can’t know for certain where the smell is coming from if there are multiple rooms, apartments, etc around. At least in the eyes of the court.

  8. werewolf 07/27/2010 at 2:03 PM #

    I know this may sound like a smartass remark and I certainly do not mean it to be so, but if they were smoking pot, weren’t they essentially destroying the evidence?

    Either way, good news for us, although they still make us look bad.

  9. ncsslim 07/27/2010 at 2:10 PM #

    I thought at the time it was specifically reported that the off duty guy had called and received the warrant upon smelling the smoke. I was thinking that either Barney Fife was alive and well, or more likely, Barry Saunders was doing security work.

    Either my memory (very possibly) or the real-time reporting was questionable.

  10. Paramarine 07/27/2010 at 2:33 PM #

    I’ll just read the above the fold story in tomorrow’s N&O.

  11. islandbreeze 07/27/2010 at 3:02 PM #

    The N&O will have an expose on page 1 of the sports page. Whereas the unc football scandal will be on page 6.

  12. pack80 07/27/2010 at 3:06 PM #

    Moral of the story…towel under the door, open window, fan blowing out of window! Can’t teach these younguns a thing!!

  13. Daily Update 07/27/2010 at 4:08 PM #

    I think they smelled the mari and then entered. Then got the warrant.

  14. tuckerdorm1983 07/27/2010 at 4:48 PM #

    A smart cop knows exactly what to do. Trick them into consenting to the search or call for backup and surround the house and wait for the warrant to arrive signed sealed and delivered. A Wade Smith will crucify them for this. In a regular case the defendants get a public defender or worse and take a plea. Besides pot should be legal.

  15. nycfan 07/27/2010 at 5:18 PM #

    haven’t gone back to review the case law, but I’m pretty sure the “plain view” doctrine has been significantly expanded and the smell of something from a public or common area + exigent circumstances (which can included knocking on your door to request entry and then having reasonable belief you are destroying evidence) does (could be held to) give the cops the right to enter. depends on circumstances and the judge hearing the case.

    but I think the drug laws are idiotic, particularly where we are talking about people in the privacy of their own abode, so glad to hear these guys got off

  16. MatSci94 07/28/2010 at 12:45 AM #

    ” I’ve always thought if a cop pulled you over…”

    IANAL and all that, but I remember reading somewhere that there is more leeway given in vehicle searches since you can (duh) more easily get away.

  17. packalum44 07/28/2010 at 9:05 AM #

    I just got back from Amsterdam and well ummmm…what exactly seems to be the problem…

    What a douche bag cop by the way. I mean who really cares about busting college kids for smoking pot – off duty no less. Bet he smokes more pot than those football players and never went to college. Spite is dish that grows more bitter with age.

  18. emr62 07/28/2010 at 1:51 PM #

    Just say no to drugs. Even if your not smoking it and with someone who is.. you can be guilty by association. That is the bottom line. Your known by the company you keep.

  19. PackMan97 07/28/2010 at 5:18 PM #

    Stossel has a great show on the failed war on drugs. Anyone who supports drug prohibition is willingly ignore the damage it has done and the damage it is doing to our society.

  20. timberwolf 07/28/2010 at 5:45 PM #

    “I’ll just read the above the fold story in tomorrow’s N&O”

    Dead on. Bold, lead header.

  21. tcthdi-tgsf-twhwtnc 07/31/2010 at 2:40 PM #

    Not excusing the athlete’s actions but maybe the WPC should consider hiring a private security firm for the College Inn instead of off duty RPD. I would think that a private security force would handle marijuana or even an alcohol infraction with a little more discretion.

    Seems like the WPC is increasing the chances of NC State athletes in the newspapers by hiring off duty officers.

Leave a Reply