Marijuana.com

fight4rights

I think that was a little excessive but that is my opinion. Just hide it well, like perhaps if you have a old car there might be some kind of siding that is loose which you can stash it in. Otherwise put it in a bag in your trunk. Think about it, how many times have you gotten pulled over? If it has been many times then maybe you should be worried. I have never been pulled over, so I don't worry too much when I do have weed in my car.

As troublemaker_42 told me in another post, there are some situations in which allowing the officer to search your vehicle may be benificial. For example, if there is a K-9 with the officer, having the officer satisfy his suspicions with a quick glance is better then having him bring the dog out and having your stash found for sure.

Remember, police can legally lie to you. If they say "It will be easier if you just let us search you." Just politely refuse. Also don't think "They will probably find my stash anyway, might as well let them search," if you get in trouble/arrested for something other than weed.

(Edit: Thank you for your help Mamabudz! Also read the whole post if you haven't done so already scrumptious and visit www.potbust.com

__________________
"Those who do no harm to others should not be harmed by others..." Ethan Nadelmann
"Revolution is not a right, it is an obligation." John Locke
"Do SOMETHING besides argue emotions against the law, because it simply isn't a rational way to affect any type of change whatsoever. No offense intended, but your opinion on things is a moot point unless you take actions to change the law, rather than ramble about how unfair or injust it is." troublemaker_42
"'Just say no' to drugs, except those marketed by big pharmaceutical companies." Ignorant Politicians

 

Niteshift

Some of the advice from FLCAN is sound, some of it is not:

If a police officer tells you he/she "smells something" the correct response is "I don't smell anything" any acknowledgment of smell constitutes probable cause.

No.

First, the best response would be none at all. If the officer TELLS you he smells something, it's not a question, so no response is required.

Second, your response to the negative wouldn't make any difference. the officers recognition of the smell is PC, not the defendants.


You are not required to answer questions beyond your name, address, and proper paperwork (i.e. registration, insurance).

Although we learned in another thread how not responding can make a situation worse when you have nothing to hide.

And again, there are other things that can be compelled, often stemming from the things mentioned.

When they say "it won't be used against you", that is a lie, they can use any statement to force a plea or impeach you during trial. The less said the better

The lie in that statement is the false and unsupported statement that phrase is a lie.

If I tell you it won't be used against you, it won't be used against you. So, as I see it, there are two choices here..........recognize that the statement should be amended or come out and call me a liar.

Ball is in your court.

They are then forced to bring out dogs and supervisors and lots of paperwork. Most cops will write the ticket and go at this point.

Why in the hell would I need a supervisor? (In my case, my supervisor learned about searching cars in a class I taught) And we love to see the dogs. The additional paperwork only happens if there is an arrest....... which is kind of the point, isn't it?

Keep in mind that you do not have to wait for a dog to arrive, if the officer has finished checking your background issued a citation or warning and has returned your license you are free to leave.

ALWAYS ask if you are free to leave and NEVER attempt to leave if you are told no.

Most cops don't know your rights.

How can you possibly say that?

If you do and you keep repeating them, a good lawyer will force the police to impeach themselves on your words

That would only apply if the officer did something wrong and lied about it. Otherwise, there is nothing to impeach. That statement pre-supposes those things.

Name Rank and serial number. Always remember to get these from any officer you speak to.

Serial number?

If you deal with pot, buy or sell, how will you warn your friends without endangering them. A code word, candle in the window, smoke signals?

I thought advice about dealing was prohibited on this forum.

Ask for a public defender unless you are filthy rich. Being indigent allows you free council, free transcripts and free witnesses (like the dog expert about that bad canine search). It is also a drain of recourses on an already overburdened system. Ask for a reduction in bond citing your overwhelming willingness to face the false charges.

To QUALIFY for a public defender, you must fill out a financial affidavit and meet the criteria. You might get one, but more likely, you'll qualify for one at a fee, which is on a sliding scale.

BTW, the affidavit is sworn and if you lie on it, that's another charge.

Immediately upon your release, write your story (statement) and send it to three people, FL CAN, a trusted friend or attorney and yourself. Don't open the one you send yourself, it is postmarked and that is a sign the story remained the same.

Things to include: Date, time, place, conditions of road or location Witnesses names and contact information Names of every officer you saw or spoke to in the time since your first encounter, including guards, nurses everyone.

Do you really believe the thing about mailing it to yourself?

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Mamabudz

With all due respect, it is reasonable to assume that their suggestions may be biased in favor of assisting the pot smoking community when compared to the suggestions of a police officer dedicated to enforcing the law, regardless of his personal views.

When in doubt, err on the side of protecting your rights. As suggested by Florida Cannabis Action Network and NORML, seek the advice of competent and experienced legal counsel in the field.

A lawyer practicing in pot defense work in your area is by far the best choice as an advisor of your current best legal standing to protect your civil rights for your case.

Niteshift

With all due respect, it is reasonable to assume that their suggestions may be biased in favor of assisting the pot smoking community when compared to the suggestions of a police officer dedicated to enforcing the law, regardless of his personal views.

Can you actually refute anything I said? Or is this just another case of your casting aspersions with no support?

Mamabudz

let's see....

NORML and FLCAN vs. LEO

Is it reasonable to assume that the Cannabis Action Committee and NORML might be more concerned about Pot Smokers rights?

Why yes, it is reasonable...it is very very reasonable that Pro Pot Activists would be much more concerned about smokers rights.

And after all you yourself have stated so many times, repeatedly, over and over again, that pot isn't a very important issue to you personally at all.

The rights of cannabis users is extremely important to these organizations, decriminalization of cannabis use is important to them, and "legalization" is an important cause for them.

Yes. It is quite reasonable. And not an aspersion at all.

 

Niteshift

Nice piece, too bad it didn't address the point.

The question isn't about my "feelings" (what is it with certain folks around here and their "feelings"). The question was whether or not you could refute any of the advice I gave, preferably with something substanitive.

Can you?

Or will you just continue to dance around the issue and try the "you're a cop.....nah-nah-nah" game a bit longer?

Mamabudz

You want a refutation of you abilities to second guess the holding of some court in the future on some cannabis case that hasn't been heard yet in some state jurisdiction neither of us are aware of?

I am not taking that request.

How about if I whistle Dixie for you instead?

Are the suggestions of the FLCAN totally correct or not? That is not for me to say, or for you either to state unequivically as neither of us is trained in this particular field of law.

Therefore I won't refute your statements, smiley faces and double entendres -- that's pointless and does nothing to help our Posters in learning to protect their Civil Rights if confronted by Law Enforcement while imbibing Cannabis.


Organizations like NORML and FLCAN...and MPP and so forth...do have a vested interested in assisting Pot Smokers. And that is the point of the thread. Knowing Your Rights.

Niteshift

You want a refutation of you abilities to second guess the holding of some court in the future on some cannabis case that hasn't been heard yet in some state jurisdiction neither of us are aware of?

that's not what I asked at all.


Therefore I won't refute your statements, smiley faces and double entendres -- that's pointless and does nothing to help our Posters in learning to protect their Civil Rights if confronted by Law Enforcement while imbibing Cannabis.

Giving them bad advice or advice that is vague and can actually make their situation worse is not helping them.

I submit that you simply can't refute anything I've said.

Organizations like NORML and FLCAN...and MPP and so forth...do have a vested interested in assisting Pot Smokers. And that is the point of the thread. Knowing Your Rights.

If you really want to get down to brass tacks, the poster asked me, by name, for my opinion. Granted, everyone is perfectly welcome to contribute.........but pay close attention to who was asked in particular. Wonder why?

Personally, I think it's because I'll give a realistic, truthful answer and explain it, not some generalized, blanket advice of questionable value and, if not applied properly, potentially damaging.

You can try all the angles you want about who has a vested interest in what. But my history of answering legal questions honestly, candidly and without worrying about the "vested interest" speaks for itself.

fight4rights

I am confused by what you wrote here. You may be a truthful person who sticks to their word Nightshift. Isn't it also true that cops can lie to you? If that is the case, couldn't some police officer say "If you help me out I won't arrest you." then do so anyway? How can you tell if a police officer will keep his word when he doesn't have to legally? Any clarification would be nice.

Also I don't see how saying "I don't smell anything" would be detrimental. Isn't that what an innocent person would say? For example, a police officer says "I smell marijuana, do you smell marijuana?" I would answer I don't smell anything officer. Isn't that better than no reply or say "I will invoke the fifth ammendment". An innocent person would say there is no smell, and I don't want to appear to be hiding something.

I welcome anyone and everyone to post on this thread and give me advice, that is what I made it for. I did ask for Nightshift's help because he is a police officer and he is probably more likely to know how these types of situations work since he is trained to work with them everyday. I agree with Mamabudz that the best person would probably be a lawyer who deals with pot cases. (If there are any reading this please comment.) However, as Nightshift said, just because you are trying to help doesn't mean that your advice is the best advice. (See the NORML card on the link to the website, it would probably arouse suspicions rather than calm them.)

Thanks to everyone for their help!

Buzzby

You are a police officer. The statement was about police officers in general. Going from the general to the specific at this point is a word game designed to deflect discussion from the real issue.

Instead of playing semantic games and puffing out your chest about how truthful you are, why don't you deal with the meaning of what MB wrote? Is it legal for a policeman to lie to you to extract information? Is an officer's promise to give you a break if you "come clean" legally binding or can it be a ploy to get person to reveal information that he would not otherwise reveal?

My impression is that a police officer is in no position to offer a deal (that's up to the DA) and is obligated to report any information about a case that he obtains, which would include all information about the culpability of anyone he interviews.

__________________