Possession charges with intent

G

Golfmaster

Guest
I was pulled over on 10/23 due to my taillight being out. I was giving my cousin and his girlfriend a ride home. When the police pulled us over, they asked if they could search the car and I agreeded. They ended up finding enough cocaine under my seat to charge me with intent to distribute. I do not do drugs- my cousin put the drugs under my seat when we were pulled over. He even admitted they were his but because I was driving, I was arrested and charged. I make my first court appearance Friday. I’ve hired a lawyer as this is a serious charge in Texas. I need to figure out what to do with the FAA. Should I report right away what occurred and agree to a drug test? I’m a current charter pilot which means losing my medical I will become unemployed.

Please save the “you should know what your cousin had”. I did not know he was carrying over 100 grams of cocaine. These things I do not ask when people get into my car. Obviously lesson learned.
 
If I got arrested with 100 grams of cocaine in my car, the FAA would be the least of my concerns. I would not contact the FAA. If you want to do a drug test, do a hair follicle test. It will provide a 90 day look back.
 
Golfmaster said:
Please save the “you should know what your cousin had”. I did not know he was carrying over 100 grams of cocaine. These things I do not ask when people get into my car. Obviously lesson learned.
Click to expand...

Can't change what happened but if you were charged with intent to distribute I think it's gonna be a long row to hoe, as they say.

One of the best pieces of advice I've ever learned is the phrase, "I don't consent to searches." I was taught by a DPE to never allow my aircraft to be searched. I asked why as I never have anything to hide. He told me sometimes they find what they were looking for and sometimes they find what they weren't looking for.

I'm guessing that there was a reason the officer wanted to search your car ...
 
Daleandee said:
Can't change what happened but if you were charged with intent to distribute I think it's gonna be a long row to hoe, as they say.

One of the best pieces of advice I've ever learned is the phrase, "I don't consent to searches." I was taught by a DPE to never allow my aircraft to be searched. I asked why as I never have anything to hide. He told me sometimes they find what they were looking for and sometimes they find what they weren't looking for.

I'm guessing that there was a reason the officer wanted to search your car ...
Click to expand...
As I recall from my past, If you’re under 40 or 50 and/or look poor, they ALWAYS want to search your car. And I agree that consenting to a search is never a good idea, for a wide variety of reasons.
 
DaleB said:
As I recall from my past, If you’re under 40 or 50 and/or look poor, they ALWAYS want to search your car. And I agree that consenting to a search is never a good idea, for a wide variety of reasons.
Click to expand...
And while you can't physically stop them from searching, giving consent make it difficult (impossible?) for your lawyer to get it thrown out as an illegal search.
 
Palmpilot said:
And while you can't physically stop them from searching, giving consent make it difficult (impossible?) for your lawyer to get it thrown out as an illegal search.
Click to expand...

Supposedly a search requires a warrant and that requires probable cause. But in the world we live in now just "looking like the guy we're looking for" could get you detained and your vehicle searched. None of this helps the OP as he consented to the search. I agree with the good doctor above ... the FAA ain't the first in the line of people that are gonna make his life miserable.

I hate it for him. If he's as pure as the driven snow, his cousin admits to possession, and takes the fall completely, I'm not certain that would help much. Just had a far distant former (since the divorce) family member go through something similar to this and it ended up with some jail time and time in rehab. BTW ... they also said it wasn't their stuff ... o_O
 
Daleandee said:
Supposedly a search requires a warrant and that requires probable cause. But in the world we live in now just "looking like the guy we're looking for" could get you detained and your vehicle searched. None of this helps the OP as he consented to the search. I agree with the good doctor above ... the FAA ain't the first in the line of people that are gonna make his life miserable.

I hate it for him. If he's as pure as the driven snow, his cousin admits to possession, and takes the fall completely, I'm not certain that would help much. Just had a far distant former (since the divorce) family member go through something similar to this and it ended up with some jail time and time in rehab. BTW ... they also said it wasn't their stuff ... o_O
Click to expand...

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."​
 
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...

That’s not what the forth 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.”

The government gave themselves that “wiggle room”
 
I’d look for a way for the cousin to own up, especially if it was put there without your knowledge. A little late now, buts it’s just better to not associate with those type of people. They can drag you down, totally untrustworthy, most don’t care if they tarnish your life, rife with excuses.

Ask your attorney about a course of action. This assumes you’re an innocent bystander with the incident. I’d hit it hard early, plea down to light out.
 
BladeSlap said:
That’s not what the forth 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.”

The government gave themselves that “wiggle room”
Click to expand...
No, the courts interpreted the 4th Amendment and determined what is unreasonable.
 
Consult a good lawyer familiar with FAA stuff. Charles Barnett, FL. Joe Lorusso, CO. Anthony Isom, FL. There are others.

Also consider a good HIMS AME (these lawyers should be able to help there).

You’re tackling an administrative procedure. Have a professional parse those requirements carefully to help you make good decisions.

This may fall under the enforcement arm off the FAA more so than medical, but it clearly has potential for both. I know NOTHING about the enforcement arm... except that pilots who pop positive on a dot random (again, even false positives) actually get their certificates pulled and have to re-earn them. Looks pretty awful.
 
Never consent to searches. I don't do drugs nor have ever (to my knowledge) carried such, but it's still a solid no. I was out on the motorcycle travelling on a back road in a back woods county in another state. County deputy pulled me over, my brake light was supposedly out. I demonstrate the light and he says well, it wasn't working a few minutes ago. Yeah, right. He asks me where I'm going, what I'm doing, why I'm from out of state in his county, etc., then asks to search the bike. I say no. He asks again more forcefully, again I say no. He says he can get a warrant, I say I'm on vacation and have all day, do what you gotta do. He kicked a few rocks at his feet and told me to get out of his county.

Never consent.
 
1) The best criminal lawyer you can afford.
2) Experienced FAA attorney.
3) Experienced FAA doc if you plead down or are convicted.
 
I know someone who beat the "intent to distribute" by saying that he simply smoked a lot of dope. I don't know if that will work with harder drugs; 100 grams of cocaine is about 1K "doses".
I'm just shocked you didn't know your cousin better.
 
Your family really, really sucks. Never consent to anything, never ever talk to the cops. Boy do you need a good lawyer. Aviation is the least of your worries, you won't have any money left to fly after this. Man does your family suck hard.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I know someone who beat the "intent to distribute" by saying that he simply smoked a lot of dope. I don't know if that will work with harder drugs; 100 grams of cocaine is about 1K "doses".
I'm just shocked you didn't know your cousin better.
Click to expand...
The only jury trial I was actually seated on was a case where two guys were busted on the I95 corridor with what I think was about 100 small vials of crack, plus weed and accessories. We convicted on possession, but the defense managed to convince us that these guys smoked a lot of crack and that wasn't an unreasonable amount for them to consume in a short period. So they beat the 'intent to distribute' charge.
 
BladeSlap said:
That’s not what the forth 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.”

The government gave themselves that “wiggle room”
Click to expand...
Read carefully. The problem is that it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and specifies the conditions for issuing a warrant, but it doesn't explicitly say that warrants are required in order for a search or seizure to be considered reasonable.

One could argue that it's implied, but implications leave wiggle room.
 
Bill said:
Never consent to searches. I don't do drugs nor have ever (to my knowledge) carried such, but it's still a solid no. I was out on the motorcycle travelling on a back road in a back woods county in another state. County deputy pulled me over, my brake light was supposedly out. I demonstrate the light and he says well, it wasn't working a few minutes ago. Yeah, right. He asks me where I'm going, what I'm doing, why I'm from out of state in his county, etc., then asks to search the bike. I say no. He asks again more forcefully, again I say no. He says he can get a warrant, I say I'm on vacation and have all day, do what you gotta do. He kicked a few rocks at his feet and told me to get out of his county.

Never consent.
Click to expand...

Similar story here, as a passenger with a good friend driving who was also in recovery. We got pulled over leaving a midnight meeting in a diverse part of town. My friend used to roll his own cigarettes which meant rolling papers and a rolling "machine" in his car, visible in the backseat, but he also had a pouch of tobacco. Officer wanted to search his car. "Nope." Officer asked very nicely. "Nope." Officer said he'd get a K-9 unit. "Okay." Officer said it might be a few hours and we'd have to wait. "Okay. Neither of us has anywhere else to go tonight or tomorrow morning. We can hang out on the curb." Officer said the dog's gonna hit as soon as he gets here and scratch the hell out of the car. "No he won't, unless you plant something in there. We're both clean and have been for years. We just came from a midnight meeting."

We spent two hours hanging out in the BP gas station parking lot, two officers now, pushing my friend to search the vehicle, being detained for a few hours. K-9 unit arrives, no hits. Officer says we were lucky. "No we weren't, you were just wrong."

Off we drive at 3am on a Saturday morning.
 
First thing the defense lawyer is going to say: "Why did you agree to a search?"
 
allPrimes said:
Similar story here, as a passenger with a good friend driving who was also in recovery. We got pulled over leaving a midnight meeting in a diverse part of town. My friend used to roll his own cigarettes which meant rolling papers and a rolling "machine" in his car, visible in the backseat, but he also had a pouch of tobacco. Officer wanted to search his car. "Nope." Officer asked very nicely. "Nope." Officer said he'd get a K-9 unit. "Okay." Officer said it might be a few hours and we'd have to wait. "Okay. Neither of us has anywhere else to go tonight or tomorrow morning. We can hang out on the curb." Officer said the dog's gonna hit as soon as he gets here and scratch the hell out of the car. "No he won't, unless you plant something in there. We're both clean and have been for years. We just came from a midnight meeting."

We spent two hours hanging out in the BP gas station parking lot, two officers now, pushing my friend to search the vehicle, being detained for a few hours. K-9 unit arrives, no hits. Officer says we were lucky. "No we weren't, you were just wrong."

Off we drive at 3am on a Saturday morning.
Click to expand...
After holding you there for hours waiting for the dog you could have been in possession and it would have been thrown out most likely
 
Tarheelpilot said:
After holding you there for hours waiting for the dog you could have been in possession and it would have been thrown out most likely
Click to expand...
After denial for The search, you should’ve asked. am I being detained? Supreme Court has ruled that an officer lacking probable cause can only detain you for a reasonable time needed for the traffic stop. Four hours it’s not a reasonable time.

You Tube lawyers and camera phones are making things harder for the bad LEOs.
 
The immediate concern - if your license was suspended, even for just a few hours, you have to report that to the FAA under 61.15 - certified mail, return receipt if you have to. Otherwise, there's nothing to do with the FAA for now.

After that, fight the charge. Best of luck.
 
Golfmaster said:
I was pulled over on 10/23 due to my taillight being out. I was giving my cousin and his girlfriend a ride home. When the police pulled us over, they asked if they could search the car and I agreeded. They ended up finding enough cocaine under my seat to charge me with intent to distribute. I do not do drugs- my cousin put the drugs under my seat when we were pulled over. He even admitted they were his but because I was driving, I was arrested and charged. I make my first court appearance Friday. I’ve hired a lawyer as this is a serious charge in Texas. I need to figure out what to do with the FAA. Should I report right away what occurred and agree to a drug test? I’m a current charter pilot which means losing my medical I will become unemployed.

Please save the “you should know what your cousin had”. I did not know he was carrying over 100 grams of cocaine. These things I do not ask when people get into my car. Obviously lesson learned.
Click to expand...
“…. my cousin put the drugs under my seat when we were pulled over. He even admitted they were his but because I was driving….”
Is your cousin going to testify to what he did? Is his admission in the arrest report?
 
BladeSlap said:
You trust the government to limit its own powers?

How’s that working out.

I don’t think the founding fathers would agree
Click to expand...
The founding fathers set up our system of checks and balances that include an independent court system. It's not a perfect system, but where are you going to find anything better?
 
Palmpilot said:
The founding fathers set up our system of checks and balances that include an independent court system. It's not a perfect system, but where are you going to find anything better?
Click to expand...

We are the best by far, however I would say since the 90s we have had a major mission creep by big government and big corp, something the people ether need to get in check or accept everything slowly becoming a “privilege”
 
Morgan3820 said:
After denial for The search, you should’ve asked. am I being detained?
Click to expand...

Yep. Learn the phrases, "I do not consent to searches!" and "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" They must have probable cause to detain you. I will also add that maintaining a proper composure under pressure will help you a lot.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I know someone who beat the "intent to distribute" by saying that he simply smoked a lot of dope. I don't know if that will work with harder drugs; 100 grams of cocaine is about 1K "doses".
I'm just shocked you didn't know your cousin better.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that making such statements on public record would bode poorly for him in subsequent FAA medical investigations.

Don't know what state this is, but in many you'll not get anywhere arguing no "intent" on large quantities. The law legally permits that presumption, just like you are intoxicated at 0.08 even if there's no other evidence to support that.
 
BladeSlap said:
We are the best by far, however I would say since the 90s we have had a major mission creep by big government and big corp, something the people ether need to get in check or accept everything slowly becoming a “privilege”
Click to expand...
Yup. The line between Corp and Gov is getting very blurred
 
Morgan3820 said:
You Tube lawyers and camera phones are making things harder for the bad LEOs.
Click to expand...

Good.!!

I can't count the number of times I was returning from a race in the wee hours of the morning and been pulled over by some small time cop that just wanted to ''look'' at the race car, and of course, the pickup. I just wonder how a camera phone would have changed some of those guys attitude.
 
Daleandee said:
Supposedly a search requires a warrant and that requires probable cause.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, automobile searches require probable cause but not warrants. That goes back to a prohibition era SCOTUS case in 1925.

"if the search and seizure without a warrant are made upon probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, the search and seizure are valid." Carroll vs US​

The so-called "motor vehicle exception" to the warrant requirement is based on mobility. The concern was that the car, and the contraband, would be gone before the warrant could be obtained.
 
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