Whether the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated

No question identified. : . INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT . The following questions are tod answer the questions of whether the defendants Fourth Ammendment Constitutional rights were violated. ' It is clear the arresting officer went above and beyond to illustrate a picture with numerous reasons to give him probable cause to arrest ; yet none are substantiated or corroberated by the law,the wittnesses, , his fellow officers, or his statements in which he concedes that the : defendant would have been free to leave.Which the courts have ' established-are his Constitutional right when involved in a"routine" consenual encounter with law enforcement.The Plain smell doctrine was clearly abused when he states he smelled .89grams of unburnt marijuana from fifteen feet away, in a bag,in the defendants pocket, outside, amongst a group. The courts havesaid it takes 2-5pounds (896-2240grams) of unburnt marijuana in a car to emit a strong odor. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Arthur Cherry, Norfolk 2012 Va. Cir 227 | Docket CR11-3689.Also, in Mendenhall,446 U.S. at554, states the fact that a policeman identifies himself as law enforcement ,without more, = doesnt convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. Aperson approached in this way may legaly disregard the questions and walk away,which is what the defendant did in this case. The questions also aim at whether the defendant should have been afforded the expectation of privacy since he possessed , housekeys and by homeowners words had unlimited access to the home while she was at workand the detention happened within the curtilage of the home. ; . . 1 . QUESTIONS 1.Was the entry by law enforcement onthe curtilage of the property based on an unsubstantiated tip,without consent, violative of the Fourth Ammendment? : , 2.Was it reasonable to acost the defendant,where he was not ~ particularly described as one of the persons "allegedly" handling a brick of marijuana by the unidentified caller? ; a 3. Does Terry v. Ohio supersede Horton v. California,496U.S. 128 142 (1990) if the officer was on the curtilage where he smelled marijuana emitting from the defendant in violation of Dakota v. Opperman? 4. Since no consent was requested or obtained was this a Fourth ~ Ammendment violation, when arresting officer states “defendant would . have felt free to leave''? . 5. Was officers attmpts at an illegal arrest reason for the defendant to consider him an aggressor and give defendant reason to pull away z from his grasp ,when no mention of illegal activity was mentioned : or no mention of any kind of threat was brought up? .6. Was Mendenhall test met when the officer states he approached with 4 officers, parked on an adjacent street and came to explain the call to service and never mentions to defendant or fellow officers he smells marijuana,yet detains defendant when he allegedly begins to walk away? : 7.1f officers did not observe any illegal activity nor was "anonymous call specific in identifying or describing anyone, where was probale cause established? 8. Was officers claim of smelling.89grams of unburnt marijuana,from ; . . QUESTIONS CONTINUED fifteen feet away, outside pretextual or self-serving based on the call to service alleging"7 people handling what looks like a brick of marijuana"? , . : ¢ TABLE OF CONIENIS 3.Bable of sedi ; 7.Constitutional and Statuary Provisions