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

[NeoNon]

I truly am sorry to hear that. I see the devastation it causes every day...And it is a very bad decision by every criteria imaginable - one that will likely cost you your life one day....

- Carl

It's obvious, CArl, you subscribe to our national drug policy:

Taking crystal meth will ruin your life. So, to prevent you from taking crystal meth and ruining your life, if we catch you taking crystal meth, we're going to lock you in a cage and ruin your life.​

 

[CdwJava]

It's obvious, CArl, you subscribe to our national drug policy:

Taking crystal meth will ruin your life. So, to prevent you from taking crystal meth and ruining your life, if we catch you taking crystal meth, we're going to lock you in a cage and ruin your life.​

And where is that written as part of our "national drug policy"?

As for locking people in a cage for methamphetamine use, clearly you haven't seen the national trend towards treatment as opposed to incarceration at the state level.

All of which is beside the point. If you wish to argue that drugs should be legalized, you are free to subscribe to a site that adheres to that same poisoned line of thinking. This site, however, is for issues of law as it stands, not how you would like to see it. Your questions have been answered.

Good luck.

- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

If you wish to argue that drugs should be legalized, you are free to subscribe to a site that adheres to that same poisoned line of thinking. This site, however, is for issues of law as it stands, not how you would like to see it. Your questions have been answered.

Good luck.

- Carl

Actually, Carl, my questions have not been answered. I wondered in my original post whether knowledge of the fact that I would appeal a conviction could harm my case, whether the prosecutor could use that against me. And I asked you specifically in post #16 a question. Neither was answered.

Moreover, it was you and GH who first brought up the argument in this thread of whether drugs should be legal. So don't tell me "to subscribe to a site that adheres to that same poisoned line of thinking". Just answer my legal questions, if you can.

 

[CdwJava]

Actually, Carl, my questions have not been answered. I wondered in my original post whether knowledge of the fact that I would appeal a conviction could harm my case, whether the prosecutor could use that against me. And I asked you specifically in post #16 a question. Neither was answered.

Here is the original question:

"Would a prosecutor be able to use that against me, or would it be prejudicial in any way?"

The answer is: Yes. The prosecutor COULD use that against you. And, yes, it would be prejudicial.

And in post 16 you asked for an example of a situation in which a citation might not be a good idea for procedural or legal reasons. There are two reasons: One, the law does not require you be charged with every possible offense nor even the offense that gave rise to the reasonable suspicion for the stop. It will have to be articulated in court, but you do not have to be charged with it.

The procedural issue can result from when the matters are filed improperly. Take this real life example - a suspect is stopped for DUI and is cited for reckless driving in addition to being booked for the DUI. Well, he pleads guilty to the reckless driving and then goes to court arguing double jeopardy since the same fact set is present for the DUI and he has already been sentenced for that. And he won.

Now, while a citation for some improper driving then being caught with dope is not the same as the situation mentioned above, it does open up an unnecessary avenue for complications. What if, for some reason, the officer fails to appear for the traffic citation and then it gets dismissed? The prosecutor now has to deal with that issue when it comes to your drug trial. So, rather than deal with two separate matters, they will just deal with the stop as it concerns reasonable suspicion for the stop when and if it comes up at your trial.

There is no legal reason for them to cite you for the lesser offense, and it WILL have to be evaluated by a court if you plan to contest the reason for the stop. So it really does not matter at all that you were not cited as the officer will still have to articulate his reasoning before the court.

Moreover, it was you and GH who first brought up the argument in this thread of whether drugs should be legal.

Done so in reference to your "article" where YOU brought up the issue of drugs and likened it to some kind of civil rights issue.

So don't tell me "to subscribe to a site that adheres to that same poisoned line of thinking". Just answer my legal questions, if you can.

They have been answered. And the other advice is free as well.

Now, go and hire that attorney, and stay off the roads when you're doping up - if you want to kill yourself, stay inside to use that crap.

And if you think that METH is some benign and harmless drug, you, sir, are delusional.

And, of course, you and whatever publication produced your article with it's accusations would be subject to a pretty good claim for libel by the officer involved. Maybe YOU would be willing to spend thousands to defend yourself, but would the publication? If they are truly reputable and a major publication as you suggest, they would have grave concerns with the article as written. But, as previously mentioned, this article of yours covers no new ground and says nothing unique aside from trying to make a case for the use of drugs.

- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

Here is the original question:

"Would a prosecutor be able to use that against me, or would it be prejudicial in any way?"

The answer is: Yes. The prosecutor COULD use that against you. And, yes, it would be prejudicial.

- Carl

How? How would my statement that, if I lose, I plan to appeal, help the prosecution? How would a prosecutor be able to use that to my disadvantage? Would he be able to use it to show me in a negative light to the jury? Is there some principle of law that he could invoke?

 

[CdwJava]

How? How would my statement that, if I lose, I plan to appeal, help the prosecution? How would a prosecutor be able to use that to my disadvantage? Would he be able to use it to show me in a negative light to the jury? Is there some principle of law that he could invoke?

Oh, I don't know ... maybe proof of knowledge and possession of a controlled substance?

One example:

"I felt nauseous with worry. I'd left the driver's door open and on the front passenger seat, in my open laptop case were a used glass pipe and about a quarter ounce of crystal methamphetamine in an unsealed open plastic bag."

And, how could you argue THAT away to a jury with a straight face? Especially since your attorney would almost certainly NOT put you on the stand.

- Carl

 

[raskalnikov]

I think the fact NeoNon considers what he's writing for to be a "Major Magazine" is a sign the Meth is doing its damage. . .

NeoNon, what should be the penalty for selling meth to someone below the age of 18?

 

[CdwJava]

I'm curious what "major magazine" would consider printing such a thing? I'm more inclined to think it's a blog other than the one where it IS published, or some other internet publication. I can't imagine even High Times would waste time with this. Especially since a major magazine has assets that can be attached for a successful libel suit.

With some editing, NeoNon's accusations can be phrased in a less accusatory and libelous nature and it might be passable ... but, again, why would anyone publish it?

- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

There are two reasons: One, the law does not require you be charged with every possible offense nor even the offense that gave rise to the reasonable suspicion for the stop. It will have to be articulated in court, but you do not have to be charged with it.

- Carl

It seems to me, then, if what you are saying is true, motorists basically have no Fourth Amendment protections at all against random stops.

 

[CdwJava]

Sure they do. In both instances, the officer has to articulate to the court his or her reasonable suspicion for the stop and the probable cause for an arrest. The only difference is that one will have a penalty attached, the other will not.

It is very common not to include lesser offenses.

- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

Sure they do. In both instances, the officer has to articulate to the court his or her reasonable suspicion for the stop and the probable cause for an arrest.

- Carl

By your way of thinking, a state trooper could stop cars at random all day long, or all the cars driven by young people, or all the cars driven by poor people, or all the cars with out-of-state tags, or all the cars with, say, California tags, or all the cars driven by people he just plain doesn't like the looks of, and he wouldn't be doing anything out of line if, at some later date, he simply "articulated to the court his or her reasonable suspicion for the stop". (In my case, the reason for the stop [it didn't have anything to do with "reasonable suspicion"] articulated to me at the time of the stop was that I "sort of drove right over a line back there.")

He could ask each of the motorists he stopped for permission to search their cars. If they refused, he could call in a dog whose handler would have it "alert" on the car. Every motorist he stopped would have his car searched, and if anything were found in the car on which to hang an arrest, the motorist would be off to jail.

You don't see anything wrong with that scenario? Perhaps you believe the Fourth Amendment was a mistake and should just be dispensed with.

 

[NeoNon]

It is very common not to include lesser offenses.

- Carl

In any case, my original statement was that the traffic violation the officer alleges was imaginary. I included the lack of a citation as only one component of a totality that will, I think, persuade any but the haters of drug users that the officer was probably stopping me because he wanted to search my car--not because I'd committed any traffic offense.

 

[CdwJava]

By your way of thinking, a state trooper could stop cars at random all day long, or all the cars driven by young people, or all the cars driven by poor people, or all the cars with out-of-state tags, or all the cars with, say, California tags, or all the cars driven by people he just plain doesn't like the looks of, and he wouldn't be doing anything out of line if, at some later date, he simply "articulated to the court his or her reasonable suspicion for the stop". (In my case, the reason for the stop [it didn't have anything to do with "reasonable suspicion"] articulated to me at the time of the stop was that I "sort of drove right over a line back there.")

He could ask each of the motorists he stopped for permission to search their cars. If they refused, he could call in a dog whose handler would have it "alert" on the car. Every motorist he stopped would have his car searched, and if anything were found in the car on which to hang an arrest, the motorist would be off to jail.

In theory, a rogue officer can lie and make up stuff all day long. Nothing magically makes it any more or less credible by issuing a citation. You are focused on the wrong thing if you think that a lack of a citation indicates anything relevant at all. In a situation such as the one you are in, a citation will probably not be issued in 90%+ of any and all such stops. I'd say it is darn close to 100%, but I'll give it a little leeway.

You don't see anything wrong with that scenario? Perhaps you believe the Fourth Amendment was a mistake and should just be dispensed with.

Wow! Where did you interpret THAT from anything I wrote? You're really reaching, friend.

I do not condone nor support any officer who lies or breaks the law. If you want completely objective proof of any and all offenses before a prosecution can take place, then you might as well close down the courts right now because it just is not going to happen. Most prosecutions rely upon the testimony of the involved parties as the sole source of evidence. Most crimes are NOT caught on tape, the same goes with traffic violations.

Your attorney will try to cast reasonable doubt upon the officer's observations concerning the violation justifying the stop, or even challenge the legality of the stop based upon the vehicle code of the state you were stopped in. If the officer's articulated observations are found by a court to be insufficient cause to make a stop, then any and all ensuing evidence can be suppressed as a result. If your attorney cannot cast reasonable doubt upon the stop, and a judge finds it sufficient, your attorney may try to challenge the length of the detention and the search by the dog, but those are usually long shots. In the end, you will likely be faced with a choice - go to a jury trial, or take a plea deal (which will probably involve drug treatment). But, maybe you'll get lucky.

Sadly, I doubt you will learn anything from this even if it does become a near miss.


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

In any case, my original statement was that the traffic violation the officer alleges was imaginary. I included the lack of a citation as only one component of a totality that will, I think, persuade any but the haters of drug users that the officer was probably stopping me because he wanted to search my car--not because I'd committed any traffic offense.

Legally, it's irrelevant as a citation is neither required nor common practice when the stop leads to a more serious offense. Had you been issued a citation it would have been well outside the norm of behavior.

The pro-drug crowd will side with you no matter what you argue, so you will only be preaching to the choir if that is your target audience (and it appears that it is).

- Carl

 

[raskalnikov]

I think the pro-drug crowd won't side with him, he's way too much on the fringe. Most "pro-drug crowd" people don't equate what they're going through with the Holocaust.

 

[CdwJava]

Good point.

- Carl

 

[NeoNon]

I think the pro-drug crowd won't side with him, he's way too much on the fringe. Most "pro-drug crowd" people don't equate what they're going through with the Holocaust.

Nor did I, rask. I wrote...oh, who cares.

Carl,

There are many people for whom meth is very destructive. There are also many people for whom it is not. In the same way, there are many people for whom alcohol is very destructive, and many people for whom it is not. I imagine there is a group of sex addicts out there on whom Viagara is wreaking havoc.

I knew someone who ruined his life working--chasing money--who spent his last feeble years in his big house with its grand view weeping with bitter regret over his wasted life and his children who hated him. He died without ever seeing them, and the only thing he wanted, at the end, was that.

There are many ways in which we can waste our lives, Carl--reading rask's posts, for example--but is it right we've declared war on those who may or may not be ruining their lives using drugs. Is it right that, by criminalizing it, we increase the likelihood that their drug use will devastate them?

If you've got a shred of humanity at all, the answer has to be no.

I am not here advocating crystal meth use. After many years of daily use, I understand the impact far better than most. I've seen friends flattened by it, which is why I've started an organization to help people flattened by drugs, or flattened by life, get a new start.

What I am advocating is an end to the war on drug users.

 

[raskalnikov]

Boring.

I'm out of this thread.

NeoNon, you're delusional. Your original question about being in a major "publication" doesn't really matter because you're not going to be in a major publication. Pretty much go ahead, nobody is going to read it. So the court won't know.

 

[vfielder]

Thanks for the response.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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.



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.

This sounds like the rambling of a guilty, narcissistic personality looking for
sympathy after being busted. You are not a victim like the Jews in Nazi Germany and living in the 15th century. This is a lost case Meth head.
Common sense will not apply to this person, they can't comprehend why they should held responsible for there actions and it has to be somebodies else's fault.

 

[NeoNon]

Wow, this board really brings some of the finest legal minds to bear, I see. I regret posting here.