Marijuana.com

eagle_one

Very interesting article
In my view they gotcha with the goods.
I dont like the drug laws either but there are still gonna throw peoples lives away if ya get caught with'em.
Lets take a look at this:
On one side he's just going to school and was running late. No biggy. Oh , but I run into Officer Bob that's a real hard ass. He takes me in for a violation. In his eyes your skipping school and being late is "what they all say."
Also in his eyes only books are to brought to school so any resistance is viewed with distrust and with shootings and such at schools a jury will see it his way.
Ok lets look at what they have on ya according to the post.
late or skipping school...geez..what can I say..when I was in school you would get an old fashion ass whoopin and sent to class afterwards. It hurt to sit for a while but that was it..heehee
drugs...hummm...being realistic in what would happen in front of a jury.
I would say they would make a statement along the lines of "Officer Bob nabbed another skipping school drug abuser youth." There not gonna care how they got it unless you have a damn good lawyer to point that out.
And I dont think pro bono's are up to the task
Good luck
My best advice is to become a politician and change these crazy laws

 

Ganjx

well as a 17 year old i can tell you that at 16 you have no rights. although they sure are quick to charge as an adult, arent they? you can be sure that if these charges stick they'll remain on your record for a long time. its f*cked up man but what can i say? youve got two years to go. i suggest you buff up on american laws and your constitutional rights as an american. and when they apply to you and me, use them to your advantage. had you been of age this case would be thrown out because of the unjust cause for the search they conducted. all i can say is good luck, but dont expect a miracle.

morrigan

niteshift and slightly stoopid: >>flame removed<<. i am a friend of the girl involved in this. yes, she shouldn't have had stuff on her, and yes, she could have gotten rid of it, but that doesn't justify what the police did.

she knows her rights enough to know what was done wrong.

in new york city, it is a crime to be truant, which the police thought that she was. the nypd has been cracking down on the "truancy problem" as they call it, and have been getting flak for it from the nyclu. unfortunatly, this doesn't help her right now.

niteshift, it is necessary to be read your rights when arrested...not just for custodial interrogation. read up on your precedance cases...also, it doesn't matter when you ask for an attorney, they must provide one.

you are right jsmoney, that she should not get a public defender...

a public defender was provided for her, but that didn't do her much good, as the woman is like most defenders and has too many cases, not enough time, and not enough intelligence. she lucked out in one sense though...her school is providing her an attorney (i'm not really sure why) who is pretty decent.

please, before you respond to a post, be absolutely certain that you know what law or amendment or policy it is you're talking about. it is sort of annoying to have to read incorrect statements about legal proceedings and it could be hurtful to people who don't know their rights.

Niteshift

Morrigan:

"niteshift, it is necessary to be read your rights when arrested...not just for custodial interrogation. read up on your precedance cases..."

No sir, you are wrong. Please provide the case law you are referring to. Also, feel free to outline your qualifications as well.

"it doesn't matter when you ask for an attorney, they must provide one. "

Again, not true. Notice in the rights warning where it says an attorney will be provided if you wish

"be absolutely certain that you know what law or amendment or policy it is you're talking about."

I do know what I'm talking about. Let's see you back yours up.

"it is sort of annoying to have to read incorrect statements about legal proceedings and it could be hurtful to people who don't know their rights."

I agree, but I will try not to be too annoyed while reading your posts.

paulrand

Dear Listeners:
I wish people would stop bringing up miranda rights as some sort of thing to do with the criminal justice system in U.S. Is anyone truly naive enough to believe that an officer would not just lie and say he read the suspect their miranda rights at trail? My wife (The sunday school teacher and super christian girl) almost physically assaulted a LEO in court when the LEO testified that she (LEO) had read my wife her miranda rights. I had to physically restrain her and the judge let it go because the judge knew that the cop was lying. Listen if a cop doesn't read miranda do u think the cop is going to allow the case to be dismissed and then face the false arrest civil rights case that will ensue,,, get real!!!

peace

 

Slate

I for one, can't justify the actions of the officers involved in the mentioned cases because I wasn't there, and unless you were there, it's just a guess. But I can speak about case law.

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 486,(1966), set the precedent for what is now known as your MIRANDA RIGHTS. There has been no case law overriding it since.

In that case law it specifically states;
when a persons personal liberties have been removed (arrested) and

they are to be asked incriminating questions, they will be advised of their rights by the arresting officer.

Like Niteshift already stated, a person who is not going to be questioned while in custody doen't have to be Mirandized.

Here's the catch. States have different rulings on juveniles with regard to Miranda. California law states; Juveniles must be read their rights as soon as practical even if no interrogation will occur. (602/603 of the Welfare and Institution Code).

GhostPimp

damn son

wat u doing with the heroin?


at least the nypd didnt shoot you for nothing...

or stick a plunger up yo azz

TomServo

you mean broom?

Hmm. Thats a strange word, "broom". And the sad thing is that Im not high.

Niteshift

Getting back on track...........

Let me ask you paul, since you have always seemed interested in legal issue but declined to comment on the issue at hand: Do you disagree that Miranda applies to custodial interrogation and that one can be validly arrested without being read their Miranda warning?

Ganjx

morrigan i was going to comment on the credibility of your post but it looks like niteshift took care of it. miranda's are nothing if not a privilege...in any case...period. in fact i read somewhere that in new york in particular, theyre thinking of doing away with them all together. if a person doesnt know their rights upon arrest thats their problem. i dont understand why you people are debating this person's rights anyway. the fact that (s)he's a minor throws out this argument. i for one, support this person and their case. i dont think (s)he should be using heroin, but law should not dictate a person's activities unless they endanger others. whatever your views are, the laws still stand. if you want to avoid a harsh sentence, you need to to a lot better than "my rights were violated."