Marijuana.com

kat14

My husband was arrested two months ago on an outstanding warrent issued in the state of Florida for possession of less than 20.
The sole reason for the arrest was because of a failed urinalysis
he had to take for a post-accident report. he did not cause the accident or cause any injury,only recieved injury. He was not under the influence and has never been in any trouble with the law. This accident happened over two yrs. ago.

The state's attorney office refuses to drop the case, even though no one has ever been charged as such.

So, can anyone imagine the impact this would have on the drug free work place and the prison system.

Be aware folks, you my fined yourself in the pokey because of dirty pee.

 

commonsense

kat14:

Please don't take this wrong, because I'm only trying to help, but are you sure you know the whole story? I find that often times people charged with crimes are not entirely honest with their spouses. Hell, they are rarely entirely honest with their lawyers.

If it is true that he is being charged with possession simply because his urine contained THC, he really needs a lawyer. Sounds like he needs one either way.

I don't know about your state, but many states' laws require proof that the accused have been in possession of at least a usable amount. Anyone who thinks he can get a usable amount of THC out of someone’s pee is welcome to try as far as I'm concerned.

kat14

No offense taken, that was the first thing that crossed my mind. We have retained a lawyer, and I have recieved all the legal papers such as demand for discovery. It is truely based only on the results of a failed test,it is also the first time anyone in this state has been arrested for such, so my attorney says.

I found this site after a search for m.j. advocates hoping to get some info if this has happened to anyone across the nation. I know they can charge for possession if your on probation and fail a test but neither I or our attorney or anyone I've talked to has ever heard of this.

Niteshift

Is possession the ONLY charge? Was he driving a commercial motor vehicle?

Something doesn't sound right.

__________________
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.

commonsense

Wow, that is scary. If they can successfully prosecute on something like this, the next thing that will happen is urine test "searches" when police feel they have probable cause because they smell weed and a subject has red eyes.

I don't think your husband would really have a Fourth Amendment issue because there was no unreasonable search or siezure by the government, it was an employer who made him pee in the cup. But if this sort of thing pursues its natural course and cops started making people walking down the sidewalk pee in cups because their eyes are red and they smell like marijuana, people are going to cry foul.

I'm sorry this is happening to your husband, but it is things like this that open people's eyes to how oppressive the drug war is becoming. Take the "plain feel" doctrine for instance. You will see Niteshift talking about it a lot. Under this doctrine, if an officer is patting you down for weapons, and it is looking more and more like they can do that to just about anyone they run into these days, the officer can also seize contraband he "feels" and reasonably believes is contraband from all his training and experience. So what is happening is that if police officers think someone looks like they do drugs, they pretend they are protecting their own safety by checking for weapons when really all they are doing is just searching whomever they want for drugs.

One big problem with the plain feel doctrine is that it encourages cops to do disgusting things like rub all over people's groins to see if a lump is the guy's boxer shorts bunching up in his crotch or a couple of buds. I feel like I'm being felt up when I'm being fitted for a new suit, I sure as heck wouldn't like what many cops are doing to people nowadays when they are patting them down for weapons.

I hope you have a good lawyer and I hope your husband will appeal this case as far as he can go if convicted. If I were you, I'd be calling the ACLU and any other organization I thought might provide defense funds or free legal assistance.

 

Niteshift

"I don't think your husband would really have a Fourth Amendment issue because there was no unreasonable search or siezure by the government, it was an employer who made him pee in the cup."

Did I miss that somewhere? I thought this was a crash case, not an employer case.

"Take the "plain feel" doctrine for instance. You will see Niteshift talking about it a lot. Under this doctrine, if an officer is patting you down for weapons, and it is looking more and more like they can do that to just about anyone they run into these days, the officer can also seize contraband he "feels" and reasonably believes is contraband from all his training and experience. So what is happening is that if police officers think someone looks like they do drugs, they pretend they are protecting their own safety by checking for weapons when really all they are doing is just searching whomever they want for drugs."

Again, I'm not sure where "plain feel" is running rampant, but it's certainly not in the Sunshine State.

Further, as an attorney, you know darn well that we can't just walk up to someone and say it's a weapons pat down. There has to be an articulable reason, not to mention the fact that the encounter itself will be scrutinized as to whether it was legal.

"One big problem with the plain feel doctrine is that it encourages cops to do disgusting things like rub all over people's groins to see if a lump is the guy's boxer shorts bunching up in his crotch or a couple of buds."

You're describing a search, which is different than the weapons pat down you are talking about above. These are two totally different things. Pat down and search are not interchangeable concepts or terms.

kat14

night shift,

He was driving a commercial vehicle, it was a 21 car pile-up on a
interstate. There was a huge investigation by the F.H.P.,D.O.T.
and the F.B.I.

It was determine by experts and computerized data from his truck that he was I no way responsible for any injury or death.

There were no drugs or achohol in or on him or in his truck.
This is strickly and solely based on a failed pee test that the state's attorney is trying to argue that if he failed the test,at some point he had to be in possession.

And even though it is past the statute of limitations, they refuse
to dismiss.

What really makes me mad is I was told by my attorney that
the same state's attorney had to fire one of his employees
because they failed a pee test, he's not charging them with possession.

anyway, we'll just have to wait in see. Thanks

absentdreamerr

an 18 wheeler and 21 wrecked cars change the situation alot.

Niteshift

"He was driving a commercial vehicle, it was a 21 car pile-up on a
interstate."

That changes things.

"There was a huge investigation by the F.H.P.,D.O.T.
and the F.B.I."

The FBI??

"It was determine by experts and computerized data from his truck that he was I no way responsible for any injury or death.

There were no drugs or achohol in or on him or in his truck."

I'd have to do some research, but if I recall correctly, the Fed CDL rules require a urine test if he's involved in a crash, regardless of fault.

Florida adopted the 49 CFR provisions with statute 316.302, giving officers and SAO's the ability to bring state charges based on the federal rules.

"This is strickly and solely based on a failed pee test that the state's attorney is trying to argue that if he failed the test,at some point he had to be in possession."

That is technically correct. I've seen it used before on another drug (which was swallowed by the suspect when police approached), but never in a crash case.

"And even though it is past the statute of limitations, they refuse
to dismiss."

Is your attorney saying it's past the statute of limitations? If he is telling you that, find a new attorney.

If the charges were properly filed within the alloted time (about 1 year), then the SoL was met. Then the warrant was issued and the clock is on hold until your husband was served with the warrant (arrested). Then the speedy trial clock starts.

What state do you live in? What state was your husband arrested in? If both answers are FL, how far away from the county that issued it do you live?

Which statute exactly is he being charged under?

goldberry

Are you sure that's what they're doing? Because going from a positive drug test to possession is quite a leap. Your husband can argue that the positive came from second hand smoke ... there are a huge variety of scenarios where your pee could be dirty w/o you actually being in possession. Unless your husband confessed then I don't see how they can nail him on possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Have you seen the actual indictment? Don't let your lawyer patronize you. Make sure he's working on your case, and actively get involved. I'm very surprised that they're charging w/ possession instead of a DUI which would be (IMO) an easier case for the prosecution.

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush