|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Beating a Pot Bust
#18109480 - 04/14/13 06:23 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So, how do most people usually get off when busted for buying pot?
Take for example drunk driving. The key seems to be attacking the breathalyzer evidence. There are a lot of ways for the officer to go wrong, and if the defense can prove that the officer violated any of the procedures, the breathalyzer evidence can be thrown out.
What are the key points where cops screw up in a pot bust, and what can one do to increase the chances of a mistake, and empower their lawyer with evidence to get them off?
-------------------- "Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station "Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
|
Quote:
ch1ck3n.s0up said: So, how do most people usually get off when busted for buying pot?
That depends on the nature of the evidence that the state has.
Most people who get off file a motion to exclude the evidence, usually based on a 4th amendment violation by the police.
If the police did their job right, you won't be getting off unless you have a highly unusual case. If the cops broke the law to get you, you might get off.
|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said:
Quote:
ch1ck3n.s0up said: So, how do most people usually get off when busted for buying pot?
That depends on the nature of the evidence that the state has.
Most people who get off file a motion to exclude the evidence, usually based on a 4th amendment violation by the police.
If the police did their job right, you won't be getting off unless you have a highly unusual case. If the cops broke the law to get you, you might get off.
No... let me rephrase the question.
What in the process of a pot bust is where officers make the most mistakes?
For example: the typical steps in a DWI (Alcohol) would be:
1. Reason for pulling a suspect over: 2. Asked for credentials 3. Applied standard drunk-driving tests (walk a straight line, alphabet backwards, etc.) 4. Arrest 5. Breathalyzer *** This is where officers fuck up the most *** 6. Charge 7. Fishbowl for the night
Breathalyzer tests have to be given in a very specific way, and there are volumes of law surrounding how they must be administered. If the defense can prove that an officer violated the procedure--at any point--it's a way to have the breathalyzer evidence thrown out.. For example, if the officer dropped the mouthpiece on the ground, or didn't clean in properly, or didn't allow enough time between tests, etc. it's a way for the defense to attack the evidence.
What's the equivalent in a pot bust? Where do officers most often go wrong?
Maybe another way to phrase it would be, for what reason are most pot bust cases dismissed?
Yet another way, what part of a pot bust involves the longest, and/or most complex legal language?
Edited by ch1ck3n.s0up (04/17/13 08:30 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
|
Quote:
ch1ck3n.s0up said: Maybe another way to phrase it would be, for what reason are most pot bust cases dismissed?
Searching the suspect without having probable cause.
The rest of the process is pretty routine, and if they make mistakes with the rest of the process it won't help you beat the charges.
|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said:
Quote:
ch1ck3n.s0up said: Maybe another way to phrase it would be, for what reason are most pot bust cases dismissed?
Searching the suspect without having probable cause.
1. What constitutes probable cause for searching someone? 2. Is this why the lawyer in the legal vid stickied in this forum adamantly implores us to clearly to state "I don't consent to any searches?" 3. What are some examples of probable cause, both in cases where it is procedurally correct and incorrect? 4. Are you talking about a vehicle search, person search, both, or that and more? 5. Does smelling like herb while walking constitute probable cause for a search? 6. Does being high while walking constitute probable cause?
-------------------- "Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station "Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 23 hours
|
|
Quote:
ch1ck3n.s0up said: 1. What constitutes probable cause for searching someone?
"A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Quote:
2. Is this why the lawyer in the legal vid stickied in this forum adamantly implores us to clearly to state "I don't consent to any searches?"
Because if you consent to a search, you forfeit your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Quote:
3. What are some examples of probable cause, both in cases where it is procedurally correct and incorrect?
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause under "Related Cases"
Quote:
4. Are you talking about a vehicle search, person search, both, or that and more?
I am talking about all types of searches.
Quote:
5. Does smelling like herb while walking constitute probable cause for a search?
I think so.
Quote:
6. Does being high while walking constitute probable cause?
Yes, assuming that the officer notices that you are high.
|
Gorlax



Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,698
Last seen: 7 days, 6 hours
|
|
No way of getting out of possessing a controlled substance without some crazy lawyer to pull out some technical bullshit and even if that you would have to go to trial most likely and risk prison time when you could easily take a plea and do drug rehab and have the charges dropped. Or you could move to a MMJ state and never stress about smoking stress again lol!!
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
The major reason that weed cases don't have as many landmines for the state as DUI cases is that DUI cases are inherently played in the gray areas. DUI isn't a question of whether or not you've got alcohol in your system...but rather a question of HOW MUCH.
A weed case is a simple Boolean determination: Do you have weed in your possession or not. How much only counts for sentencing or in choosing what to charge you with.
Lawyers play in the gray areas. It's the best place to find reasonable doubt. We aren't nearly as effective in the black and white world of possession statutes. If we can't get the evidence suppressed, most likely we're gonna lose absent a jury nullification.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Beating a Pot Bust [Re: Enlil]
#18131037 - 04/18/13 06:12 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Enlil said: The major reason that weed cases don't have as many landmines for the state as DUI cases is that DUI cases are inherently played in the gray areas. DUI isn't a question of whether or not you've got alcohol in your system...but rather a question of HOW MUCH.
A weed case is a simple Boolean determination: Do you have weed in your possession or not. How much only counts for sentencing or in choosing what to charge you with.
Lawyers play in the gray areas. It's the best place to find reasonable doubt. We aren't nearly as effective in the black and white world of possession statutes. If we can't get the evidence suppressed, most likely we're gonna lose absent a jury nullification.
Thank you... I was hoping you'd chime in at some point. Makes perfect sense.
Any suggestions regarding things that one can do to empower their lawyer to move for evidence suppression?
If I had to guess, I'd say what the vid said: clearly stating, "I do not consent to any searches."
-------------------- "Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station "Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.
Edited by ch1ck3n.s0up (04/18/13 06:12 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
That's helpful, but it isn't going to matter if the search is reasonable anyway. The fact is that unless you're willing to study the 4th amendment thoroughly, you're not going to know how what moves are going to be best in whatever random situation you encounter. Cops don't even know, which is a large reason why they fuck searches up so much.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Beating a Pot Bust [Re: Enlil]
#18131596 - 04/18/13 07:53 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
OK then... let's start with the verbiage itself:
Quote:
The Fourth Amendment said: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It looks like the key phrase in all this is "but upon probable cause."
So, what exactly is probable cause? Where and how is it defined?
In reality, is "probable cause" anything more than some bullshit that a cop makes up when they want to search someone? Can't they just say that they "smelled weed?" It seems like a no-lose proposition for the officer: - If they search you and find weed on you, they just say that they smelled weed and that was "probable cause." - If they search you and find nothing, they just let you go... and who is going to try and take a cop to court for an unreasonable search if they're able to simply walk away?
Heck wasn't this in the news? Those "stop and frisk" random searches in NYC? Is it at all possible to prove that a cop did _not_ have probable cause?
Also, what happens if a dog signals that it smells drugs, but none are found?
-------------------- "Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station "Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
The most important word in the whole amendment is "reasonable."
What is reasonable is decided with a "totality of circumstances" test wherein a court will look at all of the facts. Some things are presumed unreasonable, such as a search of a residence without a warrant...but even those can be reasonable if certain facts exists, such as flames coming out of a window.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
ch1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner



Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
|
Re: Beating a Pot Bust [Re: Enlil]
#18131987 - 04/18/13 09:01 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Can you recommend further reading on this?
Recently I've been going to court just to watch the show and learn. It's pretty interesting; I got to watch a cop take the stand and get directly examined the other day. I've never seen an officer so reserved and polite in my life.
One lawyer blew my mind. He was one tough sonofabitch, and knew his shit backwards and forwards... citing cases that weren't even officially published yet. He was trying to get something admitted for evidence; something about how a cop violated a procedure. The judge was like, "Why are you wasting time trying to get this admitted, when you can just ask the officer during the trial what he did?" The lawyer responded, "Well, then it would be my client's word against the officer's, and in some courtrooms, the cop's word carries more weight than that of an average citizen."
The judge nearly flipped his shit after that one... he was like, "not in my courtroom... everyone here is on a level playing field... blah blah blah." I was like HOLY CRAP!!! I couldn't believe that anyone--even a lawyer--could say something like that to a judge. That attorney's got elephant balls... threatened to appeal on two issues, and didn't back down on anything.
I'm learning a ton by watching the system work...
-------------------- "Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station "Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.
Edited by ch1ck3n.s0up (04/18/13 09:10 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Beating a Pot Bust [Re: Enlil]
#18138701 - 04/20/13 01:25 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
Know your rights and constitution, even though it's not normally worth the paper it's written on.
When cops ask me what's in the bag/backpack/pockets/trunk/etc. I usually say "papers and personal effects". Some don't seem to catch on while others have to smile a little. Either way it usually shuts them up and lets me be on my way that much quicker.
-FF
-------------------- It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed "If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP) I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid
|
|