Possession charges with intent

BladeSlap said:
Before I got my job there were a few other applications I sent out, a couple applications asked if you have ever been ARRESTED!

How wildly inappropriate, so much for due process, I almost wanted to call the HR person and ask if she had every been called a idiot before, and if so what she’s doing to be less of a idiot as she obviously must be a idiot based on that accusation.

Welcome to George Orwells brave, or perpetually scared, new world.
Click to expand...

“an” idiot. Ask her if she’s ever been called “an” idiot. We tend to use “an” in front of objects that begin with a vowel. If not, people might think you’re an eejit. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
“an” idiot. Ask her if she’s ever been called “an” idiot. We tend to use “an” in front of objects that begin with a vowel. If not, people might think you’re an eejit. ;)
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Palmpilot said:
The language of the Fourth Amendment leaves enough wiggle room for courts to accept warrantless searches undr some circumstances.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/cr...rth-amendment-reasonableness-requirement.html

"Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances."​

For example:

"Automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. Once the vehicle has pulled to the side of the road, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to search the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment.

"However, the trunk of a vehicle cannot be searched unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instrumentalities of criminal activity. But similar to a search incident to arrest, once a vehicle has been lawfully impounded, its contents may be inventoried without a warrant, including the contents of the trunk."​
Click to expand...
Don't ever CONSENT to a search, EVER. I am law abiding, a veteran, and support local law enforcement. I still will never consent to a search of my house or car because that is my right as law abiding, as a veteran, and as a supporter of local law enforcement. Just having a pile of cash in your car makes you a presumptive felon subject to the confiscation of your cash even if you were on your way to purchase a used car off craigslist. If they are hard core and search without your consent anyway, you at least have a chance to argue in court that their warrantless search was without probable cause. You have nothing if you give consent and they "find" anything.
 
Witmo said:
Don't ever CONSENT to a search, EVER. I am law abiding, a veteran, and support local law enforcement. I still will never consent to a search of my house or car because that is my right as law abiding, as a veteran, and as a supporter of local law enforcement. Just having a pile of cash in your car makes you a presumptive felon subject to the confiscation of your cash even if you were on your way to purchase a used car off craigslist. If they are hard core and search without your consent anyway, you at least have a chance to argue in court that their warrantless search was without probable cause. You have nothing if you give consent and they "find" anything.
Click to expand...

"...confiscation of your cash even if you were on your way to purchase a used car off craigslist..." Yup. Civil Forfeiture. The lighter side of Civil Forfeiture....

 
Stevea621j said:
This is where I have a real problem with the criminal justice system. The police finding drugs in your car, especially when there are other people in the car or have access to the car, does not equate to possession. To prove constructive possession they must prove; 1- that you were aware that the drugs were there, 2 - you knew they were illegal, and 3 - had the power and intent to control the drugs. It is not up to the OP to prove they weren't his drugs. However as in this case the police will make the arrest. The DA will then look at the evidence and know they cannot prove #1, and even have exculpatory evidence from his cousin that they were not his drugs, but will decide to prosecute anyway knowing that they can offer a plea to a lesser charge and 99% of the time the defense counsel will recommend taking the deal even if their client is 100% innocent. Once the ball starts rolling with an arrest, often times by an officer with a high school education and little real knowledge of the law outside of practical matters of probable cause, and what not to do to screw up the arrest, it is rare for it not to proceed through to some type of conviction. Innocent until proven guilty has not existed in our court system for quite some time, especially when you are talking about lesser, non-violent crimes.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of reliance on the accused not being able to afford good council.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
There is a lot of reliance on the accused not being able to afford good council.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The disproportionate effect on some populations has been well documents and, of course, a better professional of any type will likely give a better result.

Not quite as sexy for most, I see one example of this regularly. The constitutional right to appointed counsel attaches when there is a potential for jail time. While many states appoint lawyers for indigents based on the charge, in others, the prosecution can simply take jail time off the table. The result is defendants representing themselves in misdemeanor and sometime even minor felony cases.

I do pro bono criminal record expunctions. It's frustrating when looking at a client's record to see situation where there would not have been a conviction if they had even the most minimally adequate representation. Especially sad when it's someone in their 40s who furthered their education - college grads - but we're unable to further their careers because if a youthful indiscretion.

Sorry. Thread creep rant over.
 
How much does a 100g of powder go for in your area ? Your 'cousin' is either heavy into sales of the stuff or he is watching his back for the higher up who fronted him the merchandise.
 
Clip4 said:
I suppose you never heard of a criminal having the accomplice carry the drugs or gun and tries take the fall so they both don’t go to prison.
Click to expand...
Of course that happens. The prosecution still needs to prove that is the case, not assume it. Yes, that may be very difficult because the only evidence you may have is drugs in a car and the word of the people in the car. So the prosecution has 3 choices, charge everyone in the car, ignore the evidence they have and charge the case against the driver because it's convenient, or drop it. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, I would rather see 100 guilty drug users and dealers go free than 1 innocent person get convicted and have their life upended. Unfortunately our system doesn't work that way anymore.
 
Stevea621j said:
Of course that happens. The prosecution still needs to prove that is the case, not assume it. Yes, that may be very difficult because the only evidence you may have is drugs in a car and the word of the people in the car. So the prosecution has 3 choices, charge everyone in the car, ignore the evidence they have and charge the case against the driver because it's convenient, or drop it. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, I would rather see 100 guilty drug users and dealers go free than 1 innocent person get convicted and have their life upended. Unfortunately our system doesn't work that way anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but is not universally true. In some states, there is a requirement for "knowing" the drugs are in the car. In others, there's a presumption that all the occupants are in possession.

And "it's not mine" means nothing. If you know it's there and you have access to it, it's possession just about everywhere.
 
Stevea621j said:
Of course that happens. The prosecution still needs to prove that is the case, not assume it. Yes, that may be very difficult because the only evidence you may have is drugs in a car and the word of the people in the car. So the prosecution has 3 choices, charge everyone in the car, ignore the evidence they have and charge the case against the driver because it's convenient, or drop it. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, I would rather see 100 guilty drug users and dealers go free than 1 innocent person get convicted and have their life upended. Unfortunately our system doesn't work that way anymore.
Click to expand...

well said
 
flyingron said:
... In some states, there is a requirement for "knowing" the drugs are in the car. In others, there's a presumption that all the occupants are in possession....
Click to expand...
The latter sounds like a prescription for injustice. :(
 
flyingron said:
I'm sorry but is not universally true. In some states, there is a requirement for "knowing" the drugs are in the car. In others, there's a presumption that all the occupants are in possession.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of how the law varies in different states, but you may be talking about what is required for probable cause to arrest someone. For a conviction I am pretty sure there is no blanket presumption that everyone in the car or in the home where drugs are found is guilty, the prosecutor still must prove constructive possession.
 
Stevea621j said:
I am not aware of how the law varies in different states, but you may be talking about what is required for probable cause to arrest someone. For a conviction I am pretty sure there is no blanket presumption that everyone in the car or in the home where drugs are found is guilty, the prosecutor still must prove constructive possession.
Click to expand...
Yes there are states in which there is a presumption of possession biased on presence in a vehicle. New York is one of them:
The presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply (a) to a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, or (b) to any person in the automobile if one of them, having obtained the controlled substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received possession thereof, or (c) when the controlled substance is concealed upon the person of one of the occupants.​
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes there are states in which there is a presumption of possession biased on presence in a vehicle. New York is one of them:
The presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply (a) to a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, or (b) to any person in the automobile if one of them, having obtained the controlled substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received possession thereof, or (c) when the controlled substance is concealed upon the person of one of the occupants.​
Click to expand...
One of the more disgusting laws on the books and another reason to never live in New York. Better frisk everyone before you let them in your car. Of course you’d probably be guilty of assault doing that. There’s no winning with laws like that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes there are states in which there is a presumption of possession biased on presence in a vehicle. New York is one of them:
The presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply (a) to a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, or (b) to any person in the automobile if one of them, having obtained the controlled substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received possession thereof, or (c) when the controlled substance is concealed upon the person of one of the occupants.​
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information. I guess its not surprising for New York, but I guess I naively thought most places at least maintained the façade of a presumption of innocence.
 
Stevea621j said:
Thanks for the information. I guess its not surprising for New York, but I guess I naively thought most places at least maintained the façade of a presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

'It's for the children!'

Presumption of innocence. Pfft, this is the 'war on drugs' and only by imprisoning the uninvolved will we manage to fight this scourge. 'Just say no !'
 
Salty said:
One of the more disgusting laws on the books and another reason to never live in New York. Better frisk everyone before you let them in your car. Of course you’d probably be guilty of assault doing that. There’s no winning with laws like that.
Click to expand...
Stevea621j said:
Thanks for the information. I guess its not surprising for New York, but I guess I naively thought most places at least maintained the façade of a presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...
I pulled it up quickly as an example. I doubt it's the only one and I haven't looked to see how it's been interpreted by the courts. For example, I would expect at least some states, if it has one, treating it as a burden of going forward. Alibis are like that. The defendant has the burden of producing some contrary evidence and, once they do, the burden shifts back to the state to prove the alibi is false beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I pulled it up quickly as an example. I doubt it's the only one and I haven't looked to see how it's been interpreted by the courts. For example, I would expect at least some states, if it has one, treating it as a burden of going forward. Alibis are like that. The defendant has the burden of producing some contrary evidence and, once they do, the burden shifts back to the state to prove the alibi is false beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
It’s still a bit of proving a negative to prove you didn’t know something.
 
While the state might make that presumption in bringing charges, it doesn’t mean that a juror will presume guilt. And I wouldn’t.
 
Salty said:
It’s still a bit of proving a negative to prove you didn’t know something.
Click to expand...
That's why the burden shifts in those situations. If that's how it works in the OP's state, an example sequence would be, OP's buddy testifies it was buddy's and OP didn't know. That raises the issue. Now the state has to convince the jury the OP did know and it was his.

That's explanation, not agreement it doesn't still suck. It does (there is a huge difference between understanding and approval).
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's why the burden shifts in those situations. If that's how it works in the OP's state, an example sequence would be, OP's buddy testifies it was buddy's and OP didn't know. That raises the issue. Now the state has to convince the jury the OP did know and it was his.

That's explanation, not agreement it doesn't still suck. It does (there is a huge difference between understanding and approval).
Click to expand...
I understand as well, but I doubt it's often the actual dealer is going to fall on his sword. Which leaves you with proving the negative.
 
It absolutely is. Some people believed that justice was less important than getting rid of the drugs. To me, that's nuts.
Half Fast said:
While the state might make that presumption in bringing charges, it doesn’t mean that a juror will presume guilt. And I wouldn’t.
Click to expand...

Nor would I, but I understand my rights as a juror. Most people don't. There are a lot of people who believe instructions given to them by authority figures are fact.

Assumed possession laws should be declared unconstitutional, but they haven't been.
 
Salty said:
I understand as well, but I doubt it's often the actual dealer is going to fall on his sword. Which leaves you with proving the negative.
Click to expand...
How true. We often think in terms of the little guys confessing and making deals to testify upstream, but years ago I was involved in an upside down federal drug conspiracy trial involving about a dozen defendants. Every one of the defendants on trial was a bit player. All the main players made sweet deals which allowed their families to keep much of their money and property.

(BTW, best side story in the case was the DEA agent who got caught transporting drugs while the trial was taking place. Nah. No corruption there at all!)
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Yes there are states in which there is a presumption of possession biased on presence in a vehicle. New York is one of them:
The presence of a controlled substance in an automobile, other than a public omnibus, is presumptive evidence of knowing possession thereof by each and every person in the automobile at the time such controlled substance was found; except that such presumption does not apply (a) to a duly licensed operator of an automobile who is at the time operating it for hire in the lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, or (b) to any person in the automobile if one of them, having obtained the controlled substance and not being under duress, is authorized to possess it and such controlled substance is in the same container as when he received possession thereof, or (c) when the controlled substance is concealed upon the person of one of the occupants.​
Click to expand...
The obvious answer is to ride a bus when you’re carrying cocaine. Or be on the Uber clock whenever transporting someone who’s carrying it.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top