Drug Crimes, Substance Abuse first time in trouble

E

elml

New Member
Jurisdiction
Indiana
im a 36 year old female who has never been in any trouble at all until recently. I was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped. we were held on the side of the road for over an hour to wait for k9 on the grounds of probable cause. the officer wouldn't tell us what the probable cause was because he didn't want to "further the mindset of a criminal" by telling what he looks for. this is my pca. after reading it,I feel like its absolutely insane. is it common to use something like a turn signal for probable cause? my court appointed lawyer won't reply to any calls or emails since my initial meeting with him 2 months ago. he got upset at the fact that I said I had every intention on fighting. he said that if my case were in a different county,it would be thrown out,but not in the podunk town that it was in. he t20201026_025800.jpg 20201026_025611.jpg old me I may want to look around for another lawyer but also gave me "a word of advice" and told me not to make the stupid mistake of getting an attorney from outside that county.
 
There are there things the cop needed here. First, the cop needed to have reasonable suspicion that some violation of the law has occurred or is about to occur to stop the car and detain you to investigate. Second, in order to conduct a search of you or the car the cop needs either a search warrant from a judge or there needs to be circumstances in which a warrant is not required. Third, in order to arrest you for a crime the cop needs to have probable cause to believe you committed a crime.

So here the cop needed to have some reason, e.g. a traffic violation, to pull the car over. Once the car is pulled over, the officer may conduct an investigation of the traffic offense, check the driver's license, registration, and insurance, and while doing that look for any signs of other criminal activity. But unless the cop determines that there is reasonable suspicion that some other criminal activity has occurred the cop cannot extend the stop beyond the time needed to deal with the traffic offense — either write the ticket or just let the driver go. So to extend the stop to call the dogs to sniff for drugs, the cop needed reasonable suspicion that illegal drug activity may be present. And that's what all the stuff in that report is going to, a lot of factors that taken together the cop asserts suggests that the car occupants may have had drugs in the car or were involved in drug activity. Whether that is something that would hold up with the judge hearing your case is something I cannot answer — you need to ask a lawyer who is familiar with the local courts to give you an idea of how that would likely play out. Your public defender likely knows pretty well how that's likely to turn out, but you certainly can ask for another opinion from a local criminal defense attorney, though you may have to pay for the lawyer's time to give you that opinion.
 
adjusterjack said:
Can somebody explain "felony flasher (when car is pulled over turn signal remains on)"?
Click to expand...
I would like to know as well since that was the 1st listed reason for probable cause. because when you look at the dmv handbook,it instructs you to turn on signal,pull over. it never says that you should turn the signal off.
 
also want to add in that the list for reasonable suspicion is bullshit. like saying I took my phone out of the car because I knew I would be arrested. in reality it was only because I was recording the stop. in the recording,every time I asked the officer a question,his reply was "huh"? which is odd since he listed that as a reason. or listing luggage and a backpack as separate reasons when thete was only a backpack.tons more.
 
The probable cause for the stop was items 13, 14, and 15, all of which constituted erratic driving.

After the stop, the remaining observations might be probable cause for a search that turned up the contraband. Or, might not be enough to satisfy a judge.
 
elml said:
dealing in Marijuana
possession of Marijuana
possession of paraphernalia
Click to expand...

Where was the marijuana and paraphernalia found? In the car? On your person? In a bag/purse? Somewhere else?

By the way, since you weren't the driver, you likely have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop.
 
zddoodah said:
Where was the marijuana and paraphernalia found? In the car? On your person? In a bag/purse? Somewhere else?

By the way, since you weren't the driver, you likely have no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop.
Click to expand...
it was found in the trunk of the car. the driver told the officer I had no idea it was even in the trunk but it didn't matter. I've kind of got my hopes hinged on the motion to suppress on the grounds that the amount of time we were detained was well over an houreven though the citation was given to the driver within the 1st 10 min. however the officer says jn the recording I took that he us withholding giving the citation until he decides that we had done nothing wrong. There are also at least 2 things in the officers statement that are blatant lies and my recording proves that. as far as not being able to challenge the stop since I was a passenger, wouldn't that also mean that I couldn't be charged since I was the passenger?
 
elml said:
it was found in the trunk of the car. the driver told the officer I had no idea it was even in the trunk but it didn't matter. I've kind of got my hopes hinged on the motion to suppress on the grounds that the amount of time we were detained was well over an houreven though the citation was given to the driver within the 1st 10 min. however the officer says jn the recording I took that he us withholding giving the citation until he decides that we had done nothing wrong. There are also at least 2 things in the officers statement that are blatant lies and my recording proves that. as far as not being able to challenge the stop since I was a passenger, wouldn't that also mean that I couldn't be charged since I was the passenger?
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't mean that. Do you have an attorney? If so, does that attorney know you are posting about your criminal case on the internet?
 
elml said:
as far as not being able to challenge the stop since I was a passenger, wouldn't that also mean that I couldn't be charged since I was the passenger?
Click to expand...

No. Imagine if you murdered someone and hid the body or the murder weapon in your friend's garage. The police then conduct a search of his garage without probable cause. He would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search, but you wouldn't. Why? Because it's his garage and not yours. But that wouldn't prevent you from being charged with the murder. Same thing here.

You need an attorney.
 
elml said:
...every time I asked the officer a question,his reply was "huh"? which is odd since he listed that as a reason.
Click to expand...
The officer's job is not to answer any question that enters your head on the side of the road. Not only is he not there to argue with you, he's going to go out of his way to not argue with you.
 
Please keep in mind that any one of those things alone probably wouldn't rise to the level required (probable cause), but taken in their totality, they do.
 
elml said:
as far as not being able to challenge the stop since I was a passenger, wouldn't that also mean that I couldn't be charged since I was the passenger?
Click to expand...


The TWO best things you can do TODAY to ASSIST in your defense is STOP DISCUSSING ANY ASPECT OF THE CASE with anyone.

Once you have RETAINED or RECEIVED COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL, that is the only person with whom you discuss this incident.

There are a dozen ways a GOOD criminal defense attorney can mount a strong defense for you.

There are DOZENS of ways YOU can THWART your attorney and aid the prosecutor.
One of those ways is yapping about the "incident" all over the internet and all over your county.

The police maintain a vast network of "snitches", and there are many people who'd "eat cheese on YOU", to save their "bacon".
 
In 2015 the Supreme Court decided Rodriguez v United States. The details of that were briefly outlined above.
In your case the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle. During that stop the officer developed a suspicion that some other crime may be taking place. Whether that suspicion is reasonable or not is ultimately for a court to decide.
The officer detailed that suspicion in the report, and I suspect all those circumstances as a whole will support the delay for the canine.
In your case the better defense may be that as the passenger you had no connection to the contraband found in the trunk, however there may have been other evidence or statements made that do connect you to it.
The reality here is that you encountered a police officer who was well trained, knew what to look for, and recognized common indicators when he saw them. His actions seem legitimate. The question here is whether they can make the charge stick to you or only the driver. The driver has little chance of beating this other than a plea to a lesser offense.
If you can afford private counsel you should obtain it.
 
Whatever was discovered in the truck and elsewhere within the vehicle might have fingerprints. Alas, fingerprints can very often be impossible to collect.

Better yet for someone, DNA (as in genetic material) could positively identify the person(s) who touched/possessed/came in contact with the item(s), assuming any genetic material was collected from the items in dispute.
 
justblue said:
No, it wouldn't mean that. Do you have an attorney? If so, does that attorney know you are posting about your criminal case on the internet?
Click to expand...
I have a court appointed attorney but he wouldn't know much of anything since he hasn't taken any of the calls or emails from me since he was appointed to me a month ago
 

Ask a Question

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top