|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!

Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Vehicle liability
#12046203 - 02/17/10 10:56 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This is directed to those who may be familiar with the law, not unsolicited posts, which almost as sure as day before the expansion of the sun will occur.
If a driver of a vehicle is one who is not the owner, nor one is availiable on the vehicles insurance, this does not matter given the following. The car was hit while making a left-turn by a young man going about fifty in a thirty-five. This will likely come up for insurance.
What I wan't weighed in on:
A "cocaine residue" was found on the floor of the compartment. This was used, along with both sequestering of driver and vehicle owner. Neither of which had used the substance in years. Two other inhabitants. Once certainly has not used any, the other may have but was not a candidate for carrying anything.
The car was searched, against vehicular search consent, due to a terry pat on the vehicle's owner which revealed a small amount of marijuana, and a broken beer can in the back. The marijuana was found in an area that was decriminalized; and the alcohol was non-existent, the can was entirely empty, not broken in the accident, and was used as an ashtray.
So, after both the owner and driver asking for attorneys, bullshit tests (pulse and BPI with no equipment), threats of cocaine possession/DWI charges, four hours later both were released. The charge for 'Open Container' was given to both. The driver received a 'DWLR', which is not in dispute. The owner received a 'Simple Possession <.5 oz.
Then came the snitch bit.
The officers claimed to both of the driver and the owner, after keeping them seated and, assuredly, intimidated for about four hours, they claim that they are going to be 'nice' and not charge for the contested 'cocaine residue'. They simply wanted to help both the vehicle owner and driver "help themselves".
The question.
If they HAD any reason to think that they had cocaine residue, why the hell would they not charge and THEN attempt to circumvent the circumstances for reasons involving informant activity? Is this sort of ex-post-facto charge known to be made after the fact, even when both participants are on record being unaware of any cocaine residue in the car? Given the alleged quantity, it seems rather silly to not just have charged the owner and driver with such a crime, (felony possession for even residue), and let them both go with misdemeanors.
Thanks for any input, and hopes for a safe, LEO-free day to you all.
~Monk
|
KillaFoRilla
Heretic



Registered: 12/23/09
Posts: 1,520
Last seen: 4 years, 16 days
|
Re: Vehicle liability [Re: numonkei]
#12046909 - 02/17/10 12:52 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Be happy that you didn't get REALLY fucked. I've seen much worse shit stuck to innocent undeserving people.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
|
Your post is a bit twisted. Can you rephrase it?
What's the exact issue? I'd fight the open container. They almost certainly don't have the evidence to present (the container), or there's no detectable alcohol in it. So that should be easy to win.
The cocaine residue is almost certainly bullshit. They won't be able to present evidence on it either.
I wouldn't have told the cops anything, including who was driving. Check the open container laws also, they shouldn't be able to even charge anyone but the driver unless they can prove possession.
I would fight all the charges (including the DWLR). And possibly consider a civil suit. They have to prove who was driving. The driver can plead the 5th and the passengers can claim they don't remember. Unless there was a witness that should also be winable.
-FF
|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!

Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Vehicle liability [Re: fastfred]
#12048819 - 02/17/10 05:20 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
On what basis does the driver fight a DWRL when they admitted being the driver and knew their license was revoked, or at least knew at the time of the incident?
Apologies for the difficult wording, and thanks for the response.
Otherwise, the whole idea of 'calling back' due to a threat, (not a charge), to supplant information seems a little stupid on the part of the officer.
It's not uncommon to be kept in bracelets in the back of a car to simply hope for information, but after no information has been given it seems that most officers either press their charges or give up. I understand that this circumstance was a little different. Anyone who may be liable in the homes of the vehicle's owner and driver are aware that they should have nothing in their homes in the short-term, to be safe.
The open container will be fought, with wasted cash to the suited-law-man. The possession charge will do the same. But how does a DWLR get fought when there clearly WAS a revoked licence?
~Monk
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Vehicle liability [Re: numonkei]
#12052984 - 02/18/10 10:21 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
> But how does a DWLR get fought when there clearly WAS a revoked licence?
One of the first rights you should remember is your 5th. When a cop asks who's driving and you know you don't have a license you plead the 5th.
That's exactly what the 5th was designed for. You don't have to admit to any crime or bear witness against yourself. Make them prove their case.
Now that you've admitted guilt in that matter it would be pretty hard to fight it legally. I don't see any way to get the officer's testimony suppressed.
None the less you should plead not guilty to everything. If you get the results of the car and personal search thrown out you might just get the entire incident dismissed. After winning your motion to suppress agree not to sue the city in exchange for the DWLR being dropped. That would be my take on that.
Unless you're leaving something out it seems like they harassed and illegally searched you twice for no reason.
Good luck!
-FF
|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!

Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: Vehicle liability [Re: fastfred]
#12060399 - 02/19/10 02:55 PM (14 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Nope, my friend admitted it. Wasn't a good move, but he was silent everywhere else he needed to be, (caught the mistake quick and reduced his vocabulary to "lawyer").
Despite a lost month's pay, (lawyer), and a messed-up door for a while, my case is looking pretty good.
I never admitted consent to a search, but one of the other passengers did.
Hopefully things work out as well as possible at this point.

America, go figure. Thanks for weighing in Fred.
~Monk
|
|