Marijuana.com

dontloseursoul

since i have signed up for the forum, thought I would share my experience with johnny law. I have been a smoker for over 5 years now, never got in trouble before. well here's my story of how that all changed, and a few questions as I tell it...

about 3AM, driving back from a batchelor party. I was with a friend and was the DD, therefore had only had a couple drinks earlier in the night. we take an exit to get gas, and were planning on smoking once we got back to my friends place. so after filling gas, i go inside to buy a cigar. walk out, get in the car, and as I'm leaving I notice a car that looks much like an undercover police car behind us, and immediately I say "oh fuck". my buddy starts to freak because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time the previous year and could not be in trouble again. as I start to take the ramp to get back on the interstate, the lights go off. i pull over, officer approaches, indicates that he saw me at the gas station and said that i appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, and asked me to step out of the car. asked why I bought a cigar, which I simply answered "to smoke, its my friends batchelor party." he asked if there was any marijuana in the car. i refused to answer. he said that another cop was on the way with a drug-dog, and if the drug-dog came around the car and indicated there was a narcotic in the car, they were free to search (is this true?), so I should be honest with him now and tell him if theres anything in the car. I took his word for truth, and told him there was a small amount in the car (i know it was 2 grams, but obviously i was going to play dumb). sure enough, another officer did arrive with the dog. a third officer took me to his car to take a breathalizer, which i passed (i think i passed..i could have been over, and it could have just been that the cop was cool. the other two were dicks, but the one that took me to breathalize said things like "man, if you're going to smoke, just do it at home and don't drive with it", no gay shit like "you shouldn't smoke, its wrong". he never told me or the other cops what i blew, just that i was ok).

anyways, the ended up giving me a court date for possession of less than 1/2 ounce and pariph, but the officer willingly dropped the pariph charge. i could have pleaded guilty and paid a $200 fine, but my career requires a professional license and i did not want the charge to show up on my background check which they perform when you apply for it. so i opted for 90-96 deferred prosecution. basically, i have to attend drug counseling at an independent location for 20hrs and be subject to random drug testing by them (2 hours a week, so for 10 weeks). what a waste of counseling. plus the place is a rip-off, who monitors these things? $100 for pre-assessment, $75 entrance fee, $25 a session so $250, and $25 for exit..a grand total of $450. plus the lawyer and court costs was $400. and then i'll have to pay the lawyer again after all of this is done to get the charge expunged. fuck GDubyah and his war against weed. if i knew it would have taken this long, i would have taken the guilty. my court date was exactly a year ago, but i haven't even started the counseling sessions yet. this was supposed to be done within 6 months of the courtdate. however, the judge did not sign the judgement, which meant the probation office couldn't do anything. all of that finally got taken care of in may. our justice system sucks.

 

hashish

Never consent to a search. Most people arrested on marijuana charges could have avoided the arrest by exercising their Fourth Amendment rights. If a law enforcement officer asks permission to search, it is usually because:

1. There is not enough evidence to obtain a search warrant
2. The officer does not feel like going through the hassle of obtaining a search warrant.

Law enforcement officers are trained to intimidate people into consenting to searches. If an individual does consent, the officer can -and will- conduct a search without a warrant. If the officer finds any contraband, the person will be arrested. Moreover, the validity of the evidence will almost definitely hold up in court ( The recent Alaska and Ohio court rulings are exceptions to the rule.) because consenting to a search essentially amounts to handing the evidence to the officer and saying, "Here it is, arrest me."

If an individual does not consent, the officer must either release the person or detain the person and attempt to get a warrant. The fact that an individual refuses to consent does not give the officer grounds to obtain a warrant. The individual should politely say:

"I do not consent to a search of my person, belongings, home, or vehicle. I retain my Fourth Amendment right and all other rights under the United States Constitution. I will say nothing until my attorney is present. "

If the officer conducts a search anyway-without a warrant-any contraband discovered will likely be declared invalid evidence by the judge and any charges will probably be dropped. If the officer does attempt to get a warrant and is successful in doing so, any contraband discovered may still be excluded as evidence if the individual's lawyer can convince the judge that the warrant itself was invalid-which, in many cases, it is.

phuzz01

Not true. Many times there is sufficient evidence for a search warrant or a valid warrantless search, but we will ask for consent anyway. One reason is that it is a good backup justification for the search, and another is that it is faster than getting a search warrant.

True in a sense, and not in a sense. There are times that I ask for consent because it saves time and effort (as opposed to getting a search warrant). But if the person does not give consent, that does not mean I'm going to just forget about it and not go get a search warrant.

I've was never trained to do that, and I am not aware of any law enforcement training of that nature.

Not necessarily. If the person consents and all I find is a minor amount of mj, most of the time I going to cut them a break and let them go because they cooperated and I'm not really interested in minor amounts of mj. If the person does not consent and I have to get a search warrant signed, then they are going to be charged with anything illegal that I find.

There are certain things that a person must say, even without an attorney present. For example, they are required to identify themselves (name, date of birth, address, etc.)

Not true. There are many valid exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant. As long as the officer meets one of those exceptions, the search is valid without a warrant. In Carroll v. US, the Supreme Court declared that the mobility of an automobile creates exigency in that evidence can easily be destroyed and suspects can easily elude capture. So, an officer with probable cause can search an automobile without a warrant.

I have never had a search resulting from a search warrant suppressed. For one thing, in my area, the judge that signs the search warrant usually ends up being the judge that hears the case. A lawyer is going to have a hard time convincing a judge to suppress a search that that same judge authorized.

jabmf316

hashish says,
and then---

phuzz01 says,

It's great to learn there are still a few good law enforcemment officers that can rationalize a given action, and then have the flexibility of applying a moral and just solution for that paticular situation. Amazingly though, you just can't quite say that yet for the rest of OUR tax-paid civil servants.

Buzzby

If I'm understanding you, I think this kind of arbitrary and personal law enforcement is unethical. If a suspect pleases you, you let him go. If a suspect annoys you by exercising his constitutional right to refuse an unwarranted search you prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Both suspects violated the same law in the same way, but you decide who's life to screw up based on your personal whim. Why should a person be punished for exercising his rights? Why should a law violator go unpunished because he made your day a little easier?

__________________

 

phuzz01

Two part answer:

First part: I'm not looking for marijuana in the first place. In my area, I'm looking for crack and heroin. So if a person consents, and all I find is a little marijuana, I am probably just going to get rid of it.

Second part: If the person does not consent, and I secure their vehicle and go through the process of getting a search warrant, I am required by the search warrant to fill out a return to the court listing what I find. I would look pretty stupid to the court if I applied for a search warrant, gave them an inventory showing that a I found marijuana, but then did not file any criminal charges.

Sec

Have you ever returned the list to the court saying that nothing was found?... or by then have others become involved making it impossible or impractical to "get rid of a little weed" if that was all you found during your search (with the warrant)?

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

jabmf316

Not trying to get off topic here, but this raises a valid point about the descrimination herb users face. Question - If a Law Enforcement Officer were to suddenly discover an old granny or grandpa tending his small cannabis patch, would the LEO have this same freedom and descretion to pick and choose who gets hog tied and who gets a free pass? I understand that it's nothing personal and LEO's are just doing their business (albeit at times misguided), but what is the point of it all when everything in life is all a matter of what "the meaning of "IS", is?" Does this make sense?

phuzz01

The return on a search warrant must be sworn "true to the best of my knowledge" in front of a Justice of the Peace. If I lied on it, I would be committing a Class A Misdemeanor (sworn falsification).

jabmf316

Gosh i'm sorry it had to turn out that way dontloseursoul. I understand LEO's have to utilize every tool to find the bad guys, but harrassing a motorist because a passenger in their car buying a cigar with a buzz or not seems like profiling to me. So now each and every LEO has the flexibility in picking whom to stop because THEY bought a cigar? a cigar buyer (with a legal right to smoke and buy) with a buzz is enough probable cause? huh? Forgive me, i'm just learning here.