Drug Crimes, Substance Abuse If a major magazine prints my story before trial, will it harm my case?

[NeoNon]

My jurisdiction is: DC, US

I submitted an article to a well-regarded national magazine describing my arrest in Arkansas on a charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and paraphenalia. Now I'm having second thoughts about whether to let them print it.

In the article, I describe my experience being arrested and held in jail, and I discuss the "war on drugs" in general. I end the article by expressing my determination, if found guilty, to appeal because "there ought to be a Roe v Wade for the drug laws". Would a prosecutor be able to use that against me, or would it be prejudicial in any way?

The article is at theheretic.us [forward slash] 60 [forward slash]

For link to article, see post #6 below.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, it can be used against you. And I could find no such site.

Besides, what national magazine would want to print the story of your arrest?


- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

The software won't allow url until I've posted

And I could find no such site.l

5 times (this is 3)

 

[NeoNon]

5 times (this is 4)

5 times (this is 3)

Post number 4

 

[NeoNon]

One more time

Post number 4

This is number 5

 

[NeoNon]

Here is the url

This is number 5

http://theheretic.us/60/

(Sorry about the multiple posts.)

 

[CdwJava]

The Admin (Lawprofessor) did that to prevent spambots from posting links here in a hit and run mode.

Yes, I finally found the link after I initially posted. And, while I don't find the article to have been badly written, I do no think it is compelling or that it covers new ground. Aside from attempting to argue for the legalization of drugs and alleging the officer made an unlawful stop, I do not see anything sufficiently compelling to attract a major publication. One concern I would have as publisher is that you effectively accuse the officer of committing a series of crimes by detaining you, and outright call him a liar. That, alone, could give him potential grounds for a libel suit against both you and the publisher of any such article.

When/if you go take this to trial you can attempt to suppress the evidence arguing insufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the detention. Chances are the officer will prevail if it comes down to your word against his in this regard. Then, you can argue an unlawful detention as you were held awaiting the dog. If the dog arrived on scene within a few minutes, federal law would indicate that this is not too lengthy a detention. You can also try to argue the accuracy of the dog ... but, it will be kind of argue that the dog is poorly trained because they DID find a good chunk of meth. in your car.

Arguing whether drugs should be legal or not is not an issue for the court and would not, of course, be permitted. It might feel cathartic to write about and it might help to try and cast the blame at society as a whole rather than back at yourself, but it does not change the likelihood of a conviction if you do not prevail on any of your potential motions to suppress.

Good luck. Oh, and seriously consider drug rehab and quitting that stuff altogether. Your continued use could end up in your death or worse - someone else's.

- Carl

 

[Green_Hornet]

Good dissecting Carl impressive. The article looses a lot of credibility here is one example:

Five hundred years from now people will look back at our time and our drug laws with the same contempt and horror with which we look back at the practice of burning witches and heretics at the stake.

The problem here is Drugs have been around a lot longer than heretics and witches, yet as society has progressed they saw the need to curb the use of drugs such methamphetamine due to their dangers and toxic properties. Witch burning stopped as society got smarter drug laws became more harsh. Now why do think that is?

 

[NeoNon]

My drug bust

Thanks for the response.

One concern I would have as publisher is that you effectively accuse the officer of committing a series of crimes by detaining you, and outright call him a liar. That, alone, could give him potential grounds for a libel suit against both you and the publisher of any such article.

I disagree. I simply stated that the traffic violation he alleges was imaginary. That's just the truth. Surely we are allowed to assert the truth in this country? If it were false, if there actually were a "traffic violation" as he stated in my bond hearing, and if he could prove it, and if he could show he'd suffered damages as a result of a malicious magazine article, then I MIGHT be liable for libel. But he could do none of the above.

When/if you go take this to trial you can attempt to suppress the evidence arguing insufficient reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the detention. Chances are the officer will prevail if it comes down to your word against his in this regard.

Actually, I have more than my word. If I'd committed a traffic violation, where's the ticket? I didn't receive one. Furthermore, he'd already run my plates a mile before he put on his flashers, then tailgated me until I turned on my signal to enter the rest area. It's hardly likely that he was paying that much attention to me all that way, then suddenly happened to notice me committing a traffic violation for which he felt it his duty to stop me. And the infraction he accused me of when he first approached the car "You sort of just drove over the line back there" would be thrown out of any normal traffic court for its vagueness and unreasonableness, especially since there were orange traffic cones set up all over the place forcing traffic a certain direction, which I complied with.

In short, there was no traffic violation, and what we have here, I believe, is just an updated, nastier, and more profitable versioon of the old speed trap.

Then, you can argue an unlawful detention as you were held awaiting the dog. If the dog arrived on scene within a few minutes, federal law would indicate that this is not too lengthy a detention.

Actually, the cruiser with the dog pulled up while my arresting officer was still determining whether I would consent to a search of my rental car--another thing that argues for the speed trap theory.

You can also try to argue the accuracy of the dog ... but, it will be kind of argue that the dog is poorly trained because they DID find a good chunk of meth. in your car.

Except that, if you read my article, the K-9 officer was clearly steering the dog toward the back of the car where they suspected drugs were stashed, but the dog kept running this way and that sniffing everything, as dogs do; it even ran up on the grass in front of my car. In the course of its sniffing around, it sniffed past the open driver's door at least once. Even though on the front passenger seat was my open laptop case, an open plastic bag with a little more than 1/4 oz of crystal meth in it, and, beside the bag, a used glass pipe--the paraphenalia I was later charged with having--the dog didn't alert on it.

Eventually, the K-9 officer succeeded in getting the dog to jump up on the left rear corner of the car, which is where the boxes they wanted to search were sitting. This was counted as an "alert."

We're supposed to believe that this drug-sniffing dog failed to alert on an open bag of meth sitting on the front seat of a car with its front door open, but did alert on crystal meth in sealed plastic bag embedded in wax candles poured inside vases and packed in boxes stacked in the back of the car with the back door closed?

Arguing whether drugs should be legal or not is not an issue for the court and would not, of course, be permitted. It might feel cathartic to write about and it might help to try and cast the blame at society as a whole rather than back at yourself, but it does not change the likelihood of a conviction if you do not prevail on any of your potential motions to suppress.

My question to this board was whether the article could be prejudicial to my case, not whether it was a good legal argument for winning the case.

Good luck. Oh, and seriously consider drug rehab and quitting that stuff altogether. Your continued use could end up in your death or worse - someone else's.

- Carl

Is my life worth less, Carl, because I use drugs? Like other victims of demonization--the Jews in Nazi Germany, for example, or the witches and the heretics of the 15th century--is my death not such a bad thing? I prefer life with meth, Carl, even with all the crap its illegality forces me and 2.5 million other Americans to endure. I'm an adult, and that's my decision--not yours.

 

[NeoNon]

Progress?

Good dissecting Carl impressive. The article looses a lot of credibility here is one example:


The problem here is Drugs have been around a lot longer than heretics and witches, yet as society has progressed they saw the need to curb the use of drugs such methamphetamine due to their dangers and toxic properties. Witch burning stopped as society got smarter drug laws became more harsh. Now why do think that is?

I doubt we've moved past the era of human stupidity, GH. It frequently seems to me humans are stupider than ever. Of course, I live in Washington, DC.

In point of fact, the very first restrictions on drugs in this country came at the behest of American missionaries who had served or were serving in China. Methodists, I believe they were. True to their Puritanical heritage, the good ladies disapproved of the drug-taking the Chinese enjoyed: all that pleasure being taken right out in the open. Clearly a sin, if you're smart enough to know how everyone else should live.

The same people who gave us the Salem witch trials, in other words, gave us the war on drug users. The witches were hung, we're locked away in cages for years. Even decades, if you can believe it.

The week I was arrested in Arkansas, another man was sentenced to prison in Arkansas. He was a 53-year-old disabled Vietnam vet. He was caught with the equipment that can be used to make meth. He didn't have any actual meth, mind you, just the equipment. Maybe he was struggling with himself: he wants to get high, but should he take the risk? Maybe he had decided not make meth. Who knows? But here's what we the people did to him for being in possession of a Satanic Bible, er, equipment typical of meth labs. We sentenced him to 25 years in a cage, GH. Can you believe that? 25 years! For wanting to get high. For wanting to do what 114 million other Americans have also done at some point in their lives. For wanting to feel good, for crying out loud, we and our Puritan hatred of pleasure sentenced this 53-year-old disabled Vietnam vet to 25 years in a cage! And you defend this barbarism?

 

[CdwJava]

I disagree. I simply stated that the traffic violation he alleges was imaginary. That's just the truth.

That is your assertion, not an objective version of the truth. With the accusations you make in your "article" you would leave the publisher - and yourself - open to a potential libel suit. if you want to express an opinion, you had best re-phrase some of your accusations that you present as unvarnished truth.

Regardless of whether you believe them to be true or not, you are not generally free to publish anything you want when you purport it to be truth. Now, if you get a court ruling to support your allegation, that is another story.

Actually, I have more than my word. If I'd committed a traffic violation, where's the ticket? I didn't receive one.

He did not have to give you one - you were arrested for the possession of dope. The police do not have to cite for lesser offenses involved in such matters. In fact, there are good legal and procedural reasons why it is not always a good idea to issue such a citation.

Furthermore, he'd already run my plates a mile before he put on his flashers, then tailgated me until I turned on my signal to enter the rest area.

How do you know he ran your plates? Is that in the report?

Even so, it is really of no consequence.

And the infraction he accused me of when he first approached the car "You sort of just drove over the line back there" would be thrown out of any normal traffic court for its vagueness and unreasonableness,

Then I expect you will be able to come back here in a few weeks and advise us that the judge threw the case out for just that reason, right?

Actually, the cruiser with the dog pulled up while my arresting officer was still determining whether I would consent to a search of my rental car--another thing that argues for the speed trap theory.

I don't know the definition of a "speed trap" in that state, but since you were not stopped for "speed" ...

And if the dog arrived while you were still detained and had been for a reasonable time, then that part is good. However, this seems to be the only good angle I can see for a potential dismissal for an unlawful detention. In theory, if he was done doing what he was going to do (in this case, it could be argued he was giving you a warning, and was seeking a consent search at the conclusion of his business) then you should have been free to go. However, the prosecution might ask if he told you that you had to stay or if you asked if you were free to leave or not. It's a toss up, but I have seen transportation cases fall flat based upon these kinds of detentions.

Even though on the front passenger seat was my open laptop case, an open plastic bag with a little more than 1/4 oz of crystal meth in it, and, beside the bag, a used glass pipe--the paraphenalia I was later charged with having--the dog didn't alert on it.

Yes, I read that. But, like I mentioned, it is going to be hard to argue that the dog alerted to the wrong place when they DID find dope in the car. Kinda takes the air out of that sail.

My question to this board was whether the article could be prejudicial to my case, not whether it was a good legal argument for winning the case.

Yes, it could be prejudicial case, and it can also open you and any publisher up to some substantial civil liability should the officer consider it.

Is my life worth less, Carl, because I use drugs?

Where did I EVER make THAT inference??

Like other victims of demonization--the Jews in Nazi Germany, for example, or the witches and the heretics of the 15th century--is my death not such a bad thing?

Do not even begin to equate yourselves with such categories of people. You are not being persecuted for your religious thought, you are being prosecuted for a violation of statutory law based upon your actions, not for a thought crime.

I prefer life with meth, Carl,

I truly am sorry to hear that. I see the devastation it causes every day. In fact, I teach a class on this very subject at our social services agency every month for people receiving financial aid for families ... too bad you weren't here, I'd invite you to sit in. I have had many recovering addicts that come in to tell their stories as well. Sadly, I have no shortage of fodder for that task.

even with all the crap its illegality forces me and 2.5 million other Americans to endure. I'm an adult, and that's my decision--not yours.

And it is a very bad decision by every criteria imaginable - one that will likely cost you your life one day. The loss of your life would be sad, but should you take someone else with you, that's a tragedy.

- Carl

 

[raskalnikov]

So, this article is pro crystal meth? People really want to have teeth like the British that badly? Plus, meth labs constantly blow up. Many areas its run by violent gangs. People on it become, well, crazy.

From what I've read, I don't feel the urge to help "NeoNon." People with persecution complexes over clear cut moral wrongs have no basis to stay in my empathy room.

Hope ya get locked up for a long, long time, pal.

 

[CdwJava]

NeoNon, note raskalnikov's reply - and this from a generally pro-defense kinda guy!

- Carl

 

[Green_Hornet]

I doubt we've moved past the era of human stupidity, GH. It frequently seems to me humans are stupider than ever. Of course, I live in Washington, DC.

I don't think we have become dumber in fact D.C is slow to act on the meth threat; now we have been kind enough to read your article I think it is only fair that you watch the front line expose from PBS, and click all their articles. PBS is far from a bastion of right wing fundamentalist puritans http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/view/

There is now way anyone that bones up on the issue can not see there are serious societal problems here.

We sentenced him to 25 years in a cage, GH. Can you believe that? 25 years! For wanting to get high. For wanting to do what 114 million other Americans have also done at some point in their lives. For wanting to feel good, for crying out loud, we and our Puritan hatred of pleasure sentenced this 53-year-old disabled Vietnam vet to 25 years in a cage! And you defend this barbarism?

He did not want to get high he wanted to distribute meth for profit. The chemicals involved in such an undertaking are extremely dangerous some can not be purchased on the open market. One of the chemicals Anhydrous Ammonia when shipped by special rail cars is safe to move,however meth makers have recently put the public at risk by tapping in to these cars at freight yards. This is a copy of the warning letter sent out to all class one railroads and the threat is real:
http://lists.railfan.net/erielack-digest/200105/msg00357.html

 

[NeoNon]

You are out in left field on this libel thing

Regardless of whether you believe them to be true or not, you are not generally free to publish anything you want when you purport it to be truth. Now, if you get a court ruling to support your allegation, that is another story.

Actually, more like the opposite is the case. In order to be defaming someone, you have to know that what you are asserting about them is false. To bring a successful libel suit against you, a plaintiff has to show that you knew or should have known the assertion to be false, and that when you made the assertion to others, it hurt his reputation In other words, he has to show that the assertion is false (otherwise he would have the right to protect legally a false reputation).

As for opinion, it is protected by the First Amendment.

So, when I say Arkansas State Trooper Craig Olen alleges an imaginary traffic violation, to the extent the statement may be opinion, it is protected. To the extent it is true to the best of my knowledge, it is unactionable.

On top of that, since we have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, criticism of the government's agents is even more protected.

Anyway, this whole discussion about lliability for libel is way off the subject and isn't helpful. There isn't a libelous word in the entire piece.

 

[NeoNon]

In fact, there are good legal and procedural reasons why it is not always a good idea to issue such a citation.

For example...?

 

[NeoNon]

He did not have to give you one - you were arrested for the possession of dope... don't know the definition of a "speed trap" in that state, but since you were not stopped for "speed" ...

As you asserted at the outset, whether I actually committed the traffic violation Trooper Olen alleges is his word against mine. But all things considered, I think most people will recognize the truth is on my side. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[NeoNon]

Hope ya get locked up for a long, long time, pal.

I'll bet in a former life, rask, you were first in line at every auto-da-fe.

 

[NeoNon]

So, this article is pro crystal meth? People really want to have teeth like the British that badly? Plus, meth labs constantly blow up. Many areas its run by violent gangs. People on it become, well, crazy

Ever notice that when the people who support the war on drug users try to justify their position, they always resort to reciting a list of all the evils associated with drugs--oblivious to the fact that most the ills associated with drugs are caused either entirely, or almost entirely, by the anti-drug laws themselves. Most of the phenomena guys like rask cite to justify their support for the war on drug users are caused by the very war on drug users that they support.

 

[NeoNon]

From what I've read, I don't feel the urge to help "NeoNon." People with persecution complexes over clear cut moral wrongs have no basis to stay in my empathy room. Hope ya get locked up for a long, long time, pal.

This ought to be interesting. Please explain to me, rask, what the "clear cut moral wrong" is to which you refer.