"ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this a case about a young man who was found in a suite, in the defendant's hotel, in possession of 6 oz. of nose whisky, 500 hits of ecstasy, and a 1/4 pound of purple.

We will present evidence that he was detained and incarcerated by the defendant but ultimately beat the case on a technicallity.......

.....and after hearing all the evidence we will ask you to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against this defendant(pointing at Sheldon Adelson) in the amount of $1million ...Thank You.."

fromaggio,

you're one of those guys that equates weed with heroin, right?


more church services, less comedy failure.

AFAIK, shop/store owners can't set 'traps' for would-be burglars and can be held liable if a burglar gets injured by such a trap during a break-in. Seems so wrong tho.

/nit

+1 with online veteran but nice deal that the OP got some compensation from hotel

To quote Popeye: I had all I can standz, I can't standz no more!" (on the search and seizure" discussion)

There is a very pertinent fact that everyone has overlooked and King added to the problem in his OP. The room was the KING's room. It WAS NOT the room of Idiot Doper Friend (IDF). King signed the room rental agreement with the "V", not IDF, correct? That makes IDF's permission to enter the room unnecessary as IDF did not have the authority to exercise that refusal over a room that wasn't his. Also, the inappropriate party substances (IPS) were first smelled and then first found on hotel property, in the hotel's desk. And later more IPS were located in IDF's personal belongings.

A good criminal defense attorney will time line this all out and attack at the weakest point in the chain of events.

But for the crew submitting posts here... there is a Remedial Constitutional Law class down the hall. Most of you have let your pro-dope or anti-dope feelings color your desired outcome for this matter.

IMO, Forrest Gump had it right...."Stupid is and stupid does." And that is what this guy and his sloot of choice got busted for, being stupid.

RUN, FORREST, RUN!!!!

ok i'd rather not read through this entire thread, so i'm sorry if someone has said this already.

1. your friend is an idiot for using illegal drugs in a hotel room
2. your friend's lady is a bigger idiot for not being able to take her own damn bags downstairs when she was ready to leave, as opposed to having a hotel employee come to your room when it's hotboxed.
3. unless this was your friend's 4th offense for possession of marijuana in Nevada, or was selling it out of his room, he certainly didn't get hit with a felony. 1st-3rd charges of possession without intent are a misdemeanor and a fine. so either he had more than just weed (idiot), or he had a warrant/record that called for a felony charge.

fail

read a few of the pages, just curious

how can one smoke in the room and keep the smell to a minimum. tips plz

also what hotels are best and is there any cheapish rooms with a balcony

thanks

thanks for the laugh

[ ] no

you guys are ridiculous. i'm a medicinal MJ patient here in CO, have smoked grass pretty much daily for almost 15 years, but when i go on vacation (especially to Vegas to play cards), my biggest concern isn't "how can i smoke a bunch of weed in my hotel room without getting caught?".

quit being a fiend. take a weed hiatus when you're out of town. it's almost NEVER worth it to bring drugs across state lines (or purchase them in another state). very little good can come of it, take it from someone who was held for 6 hours at the NY/Canada border for a seed in his ashtray. plus, i can only assume Clark County's lockup ain't a picnic either.

do you have a fantasy of cops standing @ every state's border? checking every car and human that passes?

Actually you are completely wrong. The fourth amendment is in place to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures by the government therefore it only pertains to searches by government officials or those acting under supervision of a government official. If the security guards are for a private company then it sucks for you and the evidence will not be thrown out.

Also completely wrong. The police were not called until after the security guards gained the probable cause needed for the police to make an arrest. So please tell me how they were acting under the supervision of government officials?

somebody with more travel time than me in vegas please get this thread on track.

what hotels are cool or seem tolerant?

what hotels dont put up with the devils lettuce?

has anyone ordered room service and smoked with the server delivering to your room?

stop talking about the law and amendments and rights and private property or anything

like that. my rant is over. resume thread

op has stated he knows his friends were dumb, no need for anyone else to pile on. He made this thread as a heads up. TY King

The issue is not whether the police had probable cause to make an arrest. The issue is whether the police could legally search the room without a warrant. The case law is pretty clear that an occupant of a hotel has a reasonable expectation of privacy as per the 4th amendment.

Based on the information given to them by hotel security, they did have probable cause to believe the defendant was in possession of contraband. However, that probable cause alone does not justify a warrantless search of the premises.

The better procedure would have been to prepare an affidavit from the security officers as to what their observations were and present that to a Magistrate/Judge with the other relevant facts, whereupon the Court could make a legal finding of probable cause and issue the warrant to search.

In the alternative they could have secured the room, and applied for the warrant telephonically.

I have handled search and seizure issues for over 20 years, both as a prosecutor and for the defense. So I can safely tell you that nothing is black and white when it comes to motions to suppress evidence. Which is why the Court will hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact. Ultimately, only after such a hearing can anyone say whether the search was valid.

nope, just saying unless you're a ****in' loser drug fiend, seems to me to be more advantageous to take a break instead of trying to be a 18 year old hiding weed smoke from an RA. just my opinion.


but here, i'll play along. Imperial Palace has balconies, and is a cheap ****hole. go there and toke up, DUUUUUUDE. don't forget the keg cups and your boombox so you can have a super-sweet hotel party! YEAAA!!!

The search was not done by police officers. It was a private search done by hotel security. The fourth amendment does not apply to private searches period.
I understand that the police would need a warrant. Private security acting on their own does not need a warrant. If you can find a case where they found a private search in violation of the fourth amemendment please let me know.

jeebus, guys, just smoke a pipe and exhale into a rolled-up towel

then light a cigarette and let it burn in an ashtray for a minute

how f'ing hard is it to be a little discrete?

Contact your own lawyer. Just because the hotel returned your comps or deposit doesn't mean any criminal charges against you aren't possible. The DA doesn't care what the Palazzo does. And just because you haven't been arrested and charged yet doesn't mean they won't show up tomorrow, next week, next month with a warrant for your arrest.

Your name is on the registry, any competent DA will add your name to the file.

Should I stay or should I go?

Should I stay or should I BLOW?

Should HIGH stay or should HIGH go?


Don't draw attention to yourself if you are doing something frowned upon/illegal/etc., unless you are prepared for the consequences.

Window/balcony for the win!

Since you're obviously a lawyer, tell us all what law he broke.

Did you read the word POSSIBLE? The rental car analogy earlier is similar to what could happen. If they could use the charge as pressure to get a conviction they will. If the guy who got busted uses the fact his name isn't on the hotel registry to make a deal, he will. The DA doesn't care who goes to jail or gets convicted, as long as someone does.

lol

My own prediction, based on my extensive training watching Law and Order episodes...

OP's friend is SOL as far as getting any evidence suppressed. Venetian security were not acting as agents of the cops. It's not clear if the cops got a warrant before going to the hotel room to arrest him based on the call from V security, but even if they didn't the evidence won't be suppressed.

OP's friend will plea bargain and that'll be that for the criminal side.

OP's friend potentially has civil recourse against the Venetian, but it's all very muddy (like OP being the renter of the room and not even being present) and I don't see any lawyer wanting to take the case without cash up front. Just very little upside potential, particularly after the guilty plea.

Summary: Stupid is as stupid does, just like Yak says. Sometimes ya just gotta take yer lumps.