Possession charges with intent

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.
 
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...
Proof is not required for an arrest, only probable cause.
 
Lot of shade you put on cops who apparently can only obtain a high school level of intelligence and can fill out paperwork well enough without drooling too much to make it to court.

But I do agree - it is the DA’s job to prove he was aware of - was indeed in possession of the drugs he was transporting. Couldn’t they at least dust for finger prints on the bag?
 
Last edited:
Some states may have laws that the driver is assumed to be in possession. I don't know that that's true anywhere with drugs, but it absolutely used to be true in NY state with respect to at least one firearm law. That sounds unconstitutional to me, but someone would have to challenge it.

There's more than one reason that we have more people in prison than any other industrial nation, and they aren't good reasons.
 
Stevea621j said:
often times by an officer with a high school education and little real knowledge of the law outside of practical matters of probable cause
Click to expand...
I'm hardly a naive newbie but I guess I have a little more respect for these LEOs than you. They don't need much more knowledge of the law. They are police doing an enforcement job, not lawyers analyzing the Monday after the arrest,p.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm hardly a naive newbie but I guess I have a little more respect for these LEOs than you. They don't need much more knowledge of the law. They are police doing an enforcement job, not lawyers analyzing the Monday after the arrest,p.
Click to expand...

Except when LEOs unilaterally charge people without actual knowledge of the law, it has drastic consequences.
 
Daleandee said:
Police investigate and arrest they don't charge ...
Click to expand...

But arrests are still reportable to the FAA. Sometimes police are too “arrest happy” imo. For example, does public intoxication really require someone to get hauled to jail for the night? Or underage drinking while on spring break?
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
But arrests are still reportable to the FAA. Sometimes police are too “arrest happy” imo. For example, does public intoxication really require someone to get hauled to jail for the night? Or underage drinking while on spring break?
Click to expand...
Is public intoxication or underage drinking required of the people who choose to engage in those activities?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Is public intoxication or underage drinking required of the people who choose to engage in those activities?
Click to expand...

No but some leniency for a college kid in Panama City does go a long way. No one is perfect. I’m sure you’ve broken a few laws?
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
But arrests are still reportable to the FAA. Sometimes police are too “arrest happy” imo. For example, does public intoxication really require someone to get hauled to jail for the night? Or underage drinking while on spring break?
Click to expand...

Saying that the police are "too arrest happy" can be denied or justified depending on your definition of "arrest happy" and your level of tolerance for foolish behavior (and your definition of that).

Point is that police investigate & arrest on the evidence they find. Is it OK to be drunk in public? Is it OK for minors to drink? There are laws against those things for a reason and I suspect most reasonable people do have a problem with folks being drunk in public and letting children that are underage have access to alcohol and that's why there have been laws against such behavior for a long time.

But the point I was after is that the police don't name the charges that will be brought against a person. As for the OP, it was his car that the drugs were found in. Did his cousin set him up? Maybe, but the arresting officer has no way to know that. All they know is what was found and what was said. He reports that. If the OP is innocent perhaps he can prove that, and if so, I hope he does.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
No but some leniency for a college kid in Panama City does go a long way. No one is perfect.
Click to expand...
How do you decide when to give leniency and when not to? I’d say an underage college kid drinking in Panama City during spring break is not just imperfect, he’s a ****ing idiot for doing it where and when the police are watching for it.

And considering how many underage college kids drinking in Panama City on spring break probably DON’T get caught, he’s more than likely doing it in a place and/or manner that draws attention to the fact that he’s intentionally breaking the law.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
No but some leniency for a college kid in Panama City does go a long way. No one is perfect. I’m sure you’ve broken a few laws?
Click to expand...

I see the point you are after and sometimes the police do give people a break. But suggesting that they should allow minors to consume alcohol is setting a dangerous precedent as the officer would be derelict in his duty and putting themselves in the place of a judge. That's not their job.
 
Daleandee said:
I see the point you are after and sometimes the police do give people a break. But suggesting that they should allow minors to consume alcohol is setting a dangerous precedent as the officer would be derelict in his duty and putting themselves in the place of a judge. That's not their job.
Click to expand...

I think there’s a fine line for sure. For example, 19 year old drinking on the beach. Cop approaches, individual dumps out the drink(s) and everyone goes about their day. Is different then…

Cop approaches 19 year old who gives cop attitude, becomes aggressive etc.Then I would agree an arrest or ticket is warranted.

When I was in high school I was caught swimming in the public pool with a girl I had a thing with. Yes, we jumped the fence but didn’t cause any damage. Sure, we could’ve been arrested for trespassing but the police let us go with a warning. Stupid 16 year old mistake.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
When I was in high school I was caught swimming in the public pool with a girl I had a thing with. Yes, we jumped the fence but didn’t cause any damage.
Click to expand...

I get the fact that sometimes the police show kindness (the officer knew why you were there with the girl). We're all humans and no one is perfect. Sometimes the police get it wrong but mostly I believe they get it right.

I have close friends that work (and used to work) in law enforcement. I'm on their side but when they are wrong I'm not gonna defend it. We had a case near where I live a number of years ago where a man died and IMHO the officer was wrong. A few stated reasons why they thought the officer should not have been charged much less convicted. But they were adult enough to understand why the officer was charged and found to be guilty. It's not a perfect world but if laws are not obeyed and enforced ... we become lawless.
 
Half Fast said:
Completely bass-ackward.

It’s up to the state to proved the OP is guilty. Innocence is presumed otherwise.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and innocence should be presumed ... but there is evidence to the contrary and it's on him to show that the evidence is not proving what it appears to prove i.e. that the drugs under his seat were not his or that he had an intent to distribute.
 
Daleandee said:
I get the fact that sometimes the police show kindness (the officer knew why you were there with the girl). We're all humans and no one is perfect. Sometimes the police get it wrong but mostly I believe they get it right.

I have close friends that work (and used to work) in law enforcement. I'm on their side but when they are wrong I'm not gonna defend it. We had a case near where I live a number of years ago where a man died and IMHO the officer was wrong. A few stated reasons why they thought the officer should not have been charged much less convicted. But they were adult enough to understand why the officer was charged and found to be guilty. It's not a perfect world but if laws are not obeyed and enforced ... we become lawless.
Click to expand...

I support LEOs too. And I agree, most do get it right and I wouldn’t want their job. I get that most get burned out, dealing with the same bs each day. But In certain situations, I’d say yeah I would’ve done that too when I was younger.

Trespassing into a public pool is different then getting caught with 100G of cocaine, I agree with that.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
Trespassing into a public pool is different then getting caught with 100G of cocaine, I agree with that.
Click to expand...

He may have a good case as Half Fast pointed out, they have the burden of proof in showing that he knew it was there and had an intent to distribute it. It appears to be one person's words against the others.

But the fact that it was there, in his car, under his seat is pretty solid evidence against him. I also believe there was a reason, beyond a tail light being out, that the car was stopped. But that's just a guess.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
Except when LEOs unilaterally charge people without actual knowledge of the law, it has drastic consequences.
Click to expand...
Oh I have no doubt they do much worse than that. Outright lie to get a conviction. Kill people without cause. I spent the first 17 years of my legal life cross-examining cops. But those are the minority. And they don't need actual knowledge of the law as set out in statutes and thousands of pages of interpretive court decisions.

6 guys in a car. Big bag of contraband hidden somewhere? I expect them to arrest the lot and leave it to the prosecution to decide who to charge,
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
He may have a good case as Half Fast pointed out, they have the burden of proof in showing that he knew it was there and had an intent to distribute it. It appears to be one person's words against the others.

But the fact that it was there, in his car, under his seat is pretty solid evidence against him. I also believe there was a reason, beyond a tail light being out, that the car was stopped. But that's just a guess.
Click to expand...


I expect the cops will investigate the pilot, the company he flies for, the airplane, etc., etc. Likely the OP’s career will be wrecked and the FAA will ground him.

But at the end of the day, if I were on a jury and all they have is that they found a bag and the cousin claims ownership, I wouldn’t convict.

OTOH, I’ll bet the cops will find a lot more. If not, it won’t go to court.
 
From a medical standpoint could the FAA ground him if he wasn’t consuming the substance? I suppose this would be some type of certificate enforcement action ?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm hardly a naive newbie but I guess I have a little more respect for these LEOs than you. They don't need much more knowledge of the law. They are police doing an enforcement job, not lawyers analyzing the Monday after the arrest,p.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to be condescending, I was just stating the fact that most police officers have little training or knowledge of the law, yet in our criminal justice system, them making an arrest is a de facto conviction most of the time. It is not their fault, it is the justice system we have. Overall less than 5% of criminal cases ever go to trial, and when you talk about misdemeanor cases it is actually less than 1%. Prosecutors and courts concentrate resources to major crimes and violent crimes. The "investigation" in the OP's case likely consists of whatever information the LEO reported that night. Knowing that cases will never go to trial, the prosecutors essentially have no burden of proof and it is actually very rare for someone in the OP's position not to be charged based upon whatever the LEO reported. Once charged, almost all cases go to plea bargain and conviction of something. So our system in effect makes the LEO the judge and jury for most less serious crimes.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
But arrests are still reportable to the FAA. Sometimes police are too “arrest happy” imo. For example, does public intoxication really require someone to get hauled to jail for the night? Or underage drinking while on spring break?
Click to expand...

They do if they're incapable of taking care of themselves and might jeopardize their safety due to their intoxication. The alternative is releasing an impaired person back into public where they could hurt themselves, commit more criminal acts, or become a nuisance to the public in any number of ways.
 
In most cases I have seen, the driver is usually held responsible as the PIC of the vehicle. They are responsible for anyone and anything in it.
 
midwestpa24 said:
In most cases I have seen, the driver is usually held responsible as the PIC of the vehicle. They are responsible for anyone and anything in it.
Click to expand...


Were I on a jury I would not accept that argument. It might be a clever theory but it lacks practicality.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Oh I have no doubt they do much worse than that. Outright lie to get a conviction. Kill people without cause. I spent the first 17 years of my legal life cross-examining cops. But those are the minority. And they don't need actual knowledge of the law as set out in statutes and thousands of pages of interpretive court decisions.

6 guys in a car. Big bag of contraband hidden somewhere? I expect them to arrest the lot and leave it to the prosecution to decide who to charge,
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of a cop being charged with or convicted of perjury?
 
Jury nullification. If it goes to court and it’s truly a trial by a jury of his peers, then the other drug dealers, I mean upstanding citizen pilots, won’t convict him. There’s a whole lot to this story that we haven’t heard, though, so I’ll wait it out. ;)
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
Keithlewis1900 said:
What about Uber/Lyft drivers? Or taxi drivers?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its universal, but I had friends back in the school days who wound up in similar situations (not 100 grams of coke necessarily, but other contraband) that were held to the standard of you should always be aware who and what is in your vehicle, because you are now being held responsible for it. The OP situation seems a little more on the extreme side, that's a lot of a hard narcotic, I have to think there were obvious warning signs. But a friend with a few prescription pills in their pocket or a small baggie of weed I could see the driver not knowing.
 
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...
Really? I had to disclose any non-traffic arrests to legally qualify to practice my profession.
 
Salty said:
If you’re sitting behind the driver with a bag of cocaine and the car gets pulled over, of course you’re going to put it under the drivers seat. Nobody is dumb enough to keep it on them .
Click to expand...

Year's ago I was in an accident in Austin, and the guy at fault decided to run. Was with the father of my son's girlfriend, and prior everyone was joking we looked like Starsky and Hutch. Hit-n- run guy had paper plates and a better vehicle (mine was a rented Jetta) ... used to do some minor dirt track racing, which came in handy and I was on him like flies on something ... he tossed A LOT of drugs out the window during the chase. Austin PD doesn't respond to anything except homicides, so they were useless. Lost him after 25 minutes. After returning to the hotel. was able to fix the dent in rear quarter-panel popping out applying pressure inside and out (looked huge initially) popping it from trunk and using a suction device on 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